Well. for the Democrats it's between H. Clinton and Obama. Personally I think Obama is best suited for the job. I don't like Hilary's demeanor, she strikes more as a politician than a leader. Which is what our current president is (Actually he's just a stooge). Obama seems like a person who you can trust to have the people's best interest in mind and tell the entrenched politician's that look after themselves and lobbyists to go, for the lack of a better term, fuck themselves. I am hoping with every piece of me that Obama wins the Democratic nomination, goes on to be our next president and puts our country back on track.
Presidential Bids
- Thread starter TomBeraha
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not quite sure I understand the benefit to this. Would you mind expanding on your thoughts? I've actually never heard of this.TomBeraha said:
@dv8withn8: I think to believe that GWB is a "stooge" is to severely underestimate the man. You may completely disagree with what he does (which I do, on most counts), but I believe that he has done exactly as he has pleased, his entire presidency. He gets what he wants, even if its not what you want. In some cases, he acts the fool because it suits his purposes, and in others, he probably lacks tact, or as is theorized, has a mild form of dyslexia. He's no fool. The man is a politician through and through, and I simply have trouble believing he's anyone's puppet.
Let's go through a quick rundown:
Ron Paul: Racist who believes in "New World Order" theories. At lats gets Iraq right. Pass.
John McCain: Man who claims to not like torture, then caves in on allowing torture. Talks a better game than most of the other Republicans on Iraq. Still has no actual plan for either any definition of "victory" but also lacks the moral courage to call for withdrawal. Pass.
Rudy Guiliani: Man who gained the Mayorhood of NYC based on barely coded racist appeals, took credit for a drop in crime that didn't start on his watch. Routinely lies about his record, and tried to expand the power of the Mayor of New York city in illegal and very broad ways. After our recent experiences with a unilateral executive, this should be considered a bad thing. Has a number of advisers whose basic premise is that Bush didn't invade enough countries, start enough wars, or make the rest of the world hate us enough. No, really. Pass.
Mitt Romney: Switches what he claims his positions are faster than I can count. Record in Massachusetts was pretty good (I live there), but most of his campaign seems engineered on the premise that his record in Massachussets is something he's ashamed of. Of all the Republicans, probably the least bad choice. Pass.
Fred Thompson: This man is veyr hard to take seriously, seems to know nothing about anything, and his main qualfication seems to be that he played a character actor on Law & Order very well. Pass.
Mike Huckabee: I think that the record of the last 7 or so years demonstrates that giving the social conservatives that mainly support him *more* power is a bad idea. Pass.
Mr. Illegal Immigrants are coming to kill you whose name I forget. Yeah, the Chinese Exclusion act was such a high point of American History I want to repeat it, but this time with mexicans! Has no other ideas about anything. Pass.
--
Hillary Clinton: Waffles a bit on what the wants to do about the Iraq war, torture, etc. Eh. I'd vote for ehre before any of the above.
Obama: Inspiring guy, but a bit shadowy on the actual ideas department. Still better than Clinton.
Edwards: Current way I'm leaning. Has actual plans. Took leadership in the healthcare debate. Seems to really recognize that Iraq is not really going well right now, and has an actual idea (getting out). Currently my favorite.
Ron Paul: Racist who believes in "New World Order" theories. At lats gets Iraq right. Pass.
John McCain: Man who claims to not like torture, then caves in on allowing torture. Talks a better game than most of the other Republicans on Iraq. Still has no actual plan for either any definition of "victory" but also lacks the moral courage to call for withdrawal. Pass.
Rudy Guiliani: Man who gained the Mayorhood of NYC based on barely coded racist appeals, took credit for a drop in crime that didn't start on his watch. Routinely lies about his record, and tried to expand the power of the Mayor of New York city in illegal and very broad ways. After our recent experiences with a unilateral executive, this should be considered a bad thing. Has a number of advisers whose basic premise is that Bush didn't invade enough countries, start enough wars, or make the rest of the world hate us enough. No, really. Pass.
Mitt Romney: Switches what he claims his positions are faster than I can count. Record in Massachusetts was pretty good (I live there), but most of his campaign seems engineered on the premise that his record in Massachussets is something he's ashamed of. Of all the Republicans, probably the least bad choice. Pass.
Fred Thompson: This man is veyr hard to take seriously, seems to know nothing about anything, and his main qualfication seems to be that he played a character actor on Law & Order very well. Pass.
Mike Huckabee: I think that the record of the last 7 or so years demonstrates that giving the social conservatives that mainly support him *more* power is a bad idea. Pass.
Mr. Illegal Immigrants are coming to kill you whose name I forget. Yeah, the Chinese Exclusion act was such a high point of American History I want to repeat it, but this time with mexicans! Has no other ideas about anything. Pass.
--
Hillary Clinton: Waffles a bit on what the wants to do about the Iraq war, torture, etc. Eh. I'd vote for ehre before any of the above.
Obama: Inspiring guy, but a bit shadowy on the actual ideas department. Still better than Clinton.
Edwards: Current way I'm leaning. Has actual plans. Took leadership in the healthcare debate. Seems to really recognize that Iraq is not really going well right now, and has an actual idea (getting out). Currently my favorite.
I'll probably be voting Ron Paul.
I don't agree with him on a lot of things and I'm not sure I even really LIKE him, but by the same token he's also the person I disagree with and dislike the LEAST.
Of note to me, and at the risk of sounding like a stereotyped nut bag, he's also damn near the ONLY candidate who actually seems to support gun rights at all.
That's my number one or number two point of interest in politics right now, I'm sure people are going to take issue with that and either say unfriendly things about me or tell me that there are more important things. That's their prerogative, but at the same time that's still where I stand and being that this is the internet I don't exactly feel the need go out of my way to prove myself to anyone either.
I don't agree with him on a lot of things and I'm not sure I even really LIKE him, but by the same token he's also the person I disagree with and dislike the LEAST.
Of note to me, and at the risk of sounding like a stereotyped nut bag, he's also damn near the ONLY candidate who actually seems to support gun rights at all.
That's my number one or number two point of interest in politics right now, I'm sure people are going to take issue with that and either say unfriendly things about me or tell me that there are more important things. That's their prerogative, but at the same time that's still where I stand and being that this is the internet I don't exactly feel the need go out of my way to prove myself to anyone either.
In my opinion they all make me sick to my stomach. Unfortunately, I think I'll be voting for the lesser evil after the debates. I can tell you now that Mrs. Clinton will not even be part of who I am voting for (not enough room on this page to go over why she's not qualified).
I'm also looking towards Ron Paul as my major support, with McCain and Obama as a second. I need to check up more on Edwards.
I don't think having a black man or a woman in office is a problem. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if nearly all the black people and a lot of ignorant College students that think they're being progressive vote Obama for no better reason than his skin color, just as plenty of WASPs would vote against him simply because he is black (though admittedly, he doesn't act the stereotypical black man, which is the kind of black man WASPs end up loving). I also think he'd make a good First Black President.
Hillary, on the other hand, is a career politician. Ever note how, when she goes back to the south, her southern drawl makes a sudden return? And how her viewpoints flip flop based on who she talks to? Yeah, she's the misogynist's prime example of a woman politician. The only reason to make her President is to say "Hey, we have our first female President, regardless of the fact that she SUCKS!". Yeah, if she's the President from 2008-2012, I'm moving out of this damn country.
For me, Ron Paul is a good choice because, looking at his background, he's a really good guy. I honestly don't agree in a "non-interfering" foreign policy, partly because the smallest ripples can effect the entire world (anyone that can crack open a history book should know this). However, it also makes sense with his other ideas I agree with, such as pulling out of NATO and the U.N. I hope that includes tearing the damn building off of our soil. The U.N. is absolutely worthless, and I can't think of a single positive and productive thing it's resulted in lately. He wants America to be more independent than it is, which I fully agree with.
He also believes that things like Stem Cell Research are no concern of the government, as they are a business matter. Same goes for the marijuana issue, which if you look back was made illegal primarily by efforts of the cotton, wool and hemp industry (look into it; marijuana can be used for cheaper yet equally efficient clothing, not just getting high...not to mention that, even if the drug were legal, at least it would be safer; just put restrictions on it like you do alcohol and cigarettes, two legal solutions more dangerous than marijuana, and you get the same people using the substance but much more safely and for cheaper). He also considers the matter of abortion a state matter, which reminds me of early U.S. policies when more things were left up to the state, rather than the whole country.
There's more to go into, but in the end, I feel that a lot of Ron Paul's ideas are fitting for a much larger range of people, and have a lot of logical backing to them rather than emotional. Remember logic? When people thought about the pros and cons logically instead of appealing to their inner hippie or religious fanaticisms? I mean, I don't agree with all of his views, but that's just part of being human. There's no perfect political candidate: I just think Ron Paul is the one this country needs.
I don't think having a black man or a woman in office is a problem. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if nearly all the black people and a lot of ignorant College students that think they're being progressive vote Obama for no better reason than his skin color, just as plenty of WASPs would vote against him simply because he is black (though admittedly, he doesn't act the stereotypical black man, which is the kind of black man WASPs end up loving). I also think he'd make a good First Black President.
Hillary, on the other hand, is a career politician. Ever note how, when she goes back to the south, her southern drawl makes a sudden return? And how her viewpoints flip flop based on who she talks to? Yeah, she's the misogynist's prime example of a woman politician. The only reason to make her President is to say "Hey, we have our first female President, regardless of the fact that she SUCKS!". Yeah, if she's the President from 2008-2012, I'm moving out of this damn country.
For me, Ron Paul is a good choice because, looking at his background, he's a really good guy. I honestly don't agree in a "non-interfering" foreign policy, partly because the smallest ripples can effect the entire world (anyone that can crack open a history book should know this). However, it also makes sense with his other ideas I agree with, such as pulling out of NATO and the U.N. I hope that includes tearing the damn building off of our soil. The U.N. is absolutely worthless, and I can't think of a single positive and productive thing it's resulted in lately. He wants America to be more independent than it is, which I fully agree with.
He also believes that things like Stem Cell Research are no concern of the government, as they are a business matter. Same goes for the marijuana issue, which if you look back was made illegal primarily by efforts of the cotton, wool and hemp industry (look into it; marijuana can be used for cheaper yet equally efficient clothing, not just getting high...not to mention that, even if the drug were legal, at least it would be safer; just put restrictions on it like you do alcohol and cigarettes, two legal solutions more dangerous than marijuana, and you get the same people using the substance but much more safely and for cheaper). He also considers the matter of abortion a state matter, which reminds me of early U.S. policies when more things were left up to the state, rather than the whole country.
There's more to go into, but in the end, I feel that a lot of Ron Paul's ideas are fitting for a much larger range of people, and have a lot of logical backing to them rather than emotional. Remember logic? When people thought about the pros and cons logically instead of appealing to their inner hippie or religious fanaticisms? I mean, I don't agree with all of his views, but that's just part of being human. There's no perfect political candidate: I just think Ron Paul is the one this country needs.
My pick is still Richardson, for the simple reason that he's a diplomat with a significant amount of foreign policy experience that is directly relevant to America's present diplomatic needs. From from my outsider's persepctive diplomacy is something America desperately needs in its leadership right now -- and something it has lacked, sorely, since the departure of Colin Powell. If one of the other Democrats wins, I hope he or she makes even more use of Richardson than Bill Clinton did.
Who I agree with on the issues isn't particularly relevant since I'm not American, but "issue" quizzes such as this one [http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460] peg Kucinich as my closest match. On that quiz, I had Kucinich at 45, then Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson.
Who I agree with on the issues isn't particularly relevant since I'm not American, but "issue" quizzes such as this one [http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460] peg Kucinich as my closest match. On that quiz, I had Kucinich at 45, then Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson.
I ran through this quiz, and mostly, I just disliked the questions. Multiple times I found myself thinking "I'm not for OR against what they're saying here, my opinion on this topic is completely different!" I don't give a rat's ass about whether the Federal Government spends money on Stem Cell research, but that doesn't mean I don't think Stem Cell research is important, or that current restrictions on it shouldn't be lessened. And yeah, I ended up with Kucinich, with a whopping score of 33 or so. Looks like I'm hosed this election cycle.Ajar said:
I've never really found a quiz like that where I did like the questions. For that matter, even in my own beloved country I'm not satisfied with the platfroms of any of my four party options. I generally vote for my preference -- the party whose platform comes closest to aligning with my desires -- with some consideration given to strategic voting (voting for Party 3 so Party 2 doesn't win, even if my actual preference is for Party 1). And I vote to change the system when the opportunity is presented.Geoffrey42 said:
I guess the point I'm making is that the only options available on that screen were ones that at least one candidate agreed with. I would've preferred a Neither option, or an Other, so that I could honestly answer the question, and then it would just show me that all candidates disagreed with me (on that particular issue). Instead, I was forced to answer in a way I didn't really think, and that caused incorrect correlation with candidates.
I'm not saying I didn't like the issues they presented, just that they phrased the questions in such a way as to make it impossible for me to answer honestly, which skewed the results unnecessarily.
I'm not saying I didn't like the issues they presented, just that they phrased the questions in such a way as to make it impossible for me to answer honestly, which skewed the results unnecessarily.
It put me in line with Kucinich, which is where I line up. But he's never getting the nomination, so I'm pulling for Obama but voting blue no matter who gets the nomination. The only one on the left I don't like, though, is Hillary, because she's not really a liberal. That Clintonian meet me in the center stuff drives me nuts, because the center's been shifting right for a while now.
I'm interested into Gravel's and Paul's stuff, but I can see how they could be called masochistics fellas who can't help but say how America sucks.TomBeraha said:
If I were in the States, I'd vote for any President that would remove most of direct theological references to God in schools and on the dollar you use every day.
I don't remember God having any place in the Constitution, right? Religion is said to be tolerated. Any religion. Not forced.
EDIT: funny quizz that is. Here are the results I got:
Chris Dodd
Score: 48
Dennis Kucinich
Score: 43
Barack Obama
Score: 41
Hillary Clinton
Score: 41
Mike Gravel
Score: 41
Joe Biden
Score: 39
Etc.
Not exactly knowing what these people think/do in details, or even superficially for some of them, I don't know what I'm supposed to understand about this.
Sounds like astrology and horoscopes to me.
I agree. It's much sexier to plug domestic issues like healthcare and education, but I think voters could be made to see that the biggest problem America faces is its image on a world stage. The next president has to sit down at a table with Vlad, Gordon, Merkel, and come away with what he or she wants. Richardson knows how to do that. If you think that foreign policy skills are the biggest concern for the next president, then Richardson is your man.Ajar said:
Unfortunately, he's on the beat with his Iraq policy because the credential plug wore a little old. It's clearly more complicated than that, but when he sells the message that doesn't come through. So perhaps my 20$ was wasted...
Speaking of, for us citizens, have you put your money where your mouth is? Will you?
I've never quite liked the method of elections, or how they're done here. People are essentially just trying to say whatever will get them in office, then can go back on so many promises...
I'm not voting, because I know that all we're seeing is the face. We're not seeing their mind...and once the results are tallied up, it becomes too late to change anything.
I'm not voting, because I know that all we're seeing is the face. We're not seeing their mind...and once the results are tallied up, it becomes too late to change anything.
Essentially, if you're just looking at candidates at election time, then you're going about the process completely wrong. The proper method is to research someone if you don't know about them, find out what they did before and see how they might have or have not changed.Katana314 said:
I agree with Joe, only that your outlook is part of the problem. It's the problem a lot of people have. People look at what's presented without doing research. This problem exists well outside of just politics, though...
One of the reasons I'm wary of voting for Hillary is exactly that: I have to ask myself if I really want to contribute to the construction of a two-family dynasty. On the other hand, I've yet to do as much research as I should on the candidates, so I tend to take my own opinion with a grain of salt. Voting for another conservative inspired by the Project for a New American Century is out of the question, though. It's fine to have an aggressive foreign policy, but let's not prove to the world that we're a gang of stinking imperialists.Ajar said:
My biggest problem with the Clintons is when I look at them, I don't know what they believe. Mr. Clinton was infamous for his extensive polling of issues and to see how they would play out, and Mrs. Clinton seems no different with the same political machine behind her.
The difference is that Mr. Clinton oozed personality. He wasn't all that great a leader, and didn't have monumental policies, but his personality and persona carried him. If you ask people what presidents they would feel comfortable just sitting back and being with, Clinton is one of those presidents that people just like.
Mrs. Clinton doesn't seem to have that. She seems to be much like her husband with decision making, but just doesn't have his magnetic personality. She seems just like the average politician but she has the Clinton name and political machine behind her, so nothing about her has me all that interested. There are more committed people with stronger views and more interesting personalities to me.
I'm still just listening in to the debate. I don't live in an important primary state, and even if I were it wouldn't matter in most of them, since I'm an Independent, so I have plenty of time to see where things stand come next year and who is running on each ticket...
The difference is that Mr. Clinton oozed personality. He wasn't all that great a leader, and didn't have monumental policies, but his personality and persona carried him. If you ask people what presidents they would feel comfortable just sitting back and being with, Clinton is one of those presidents that people just like.
Mrs. Clinton doesn't seem to have that. She seems to be much like her husband with decision making, but just doesn't have his magnetic personality. She seems just like the average politician but she has the Clinton name and political machine behind her, so nothing about her has me all that interested. There are more committed people with stronger views and more interesting personalities to me.
I'm still just listening in to the debate. I don't live in an important primary state, and even if I were it wouldn't matter in most of them, since I'm an Independent, so I have plenty of time to see where things stand come next year and who is running on each ticket...
well, as a good old british chap, i resent my own government entirely, and favour one of australia and/or new zealand, anyway, america, hmm, dont know any of the candidates, dont know any of the ideas, dont know any of the favourable options, but i do know this, change is good.
change will be forever good, because any change makes things different, any change is better than no change, so... go the new guys!
Yes, i am indeed, a simpleton.
change will be forever good, because any change makes things different, any change is better than no change, so... go the new guys!
Yes, i am indeed, a simpleton.
I see merit to a lot of what Clinton has to say, but it's a fact we're going to be dealing with a few dozen flavors of religion with strong views on women from a few different countries probably for the next fifty years or so, much less the next four. Electing a female president over other qualified candidates seems silly to me.