NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm also curious which party you identify most closely with now.

Jesse Ventura... from erm I don't know what party

Well, I voted Democrat, but shouldn't have.

It all depends. If the Republicans continue to control Legislature, then I definitely want to see a Democrat in the White House, especially knowing the Supreme Court will shortly be Republican.

However, if Congress balances out, I'd like to see a moderate.

And if Congress swings back to the Democrats, I'd like to see another Republican.


Regardless, no matter who is in, I don't want to see ANY extremism. John McCain would make a good president.

I didn't vote for any of them. I dont vote based on party line.

I voted Democrat, and I identify myself as a Democrat.

If we continue to have a (Conservative) Republican-controlled Congress, I'd like the President to be particularly liberal. Possibly the compromise will be a good balance between civil rights, social justice, social services, business rights, and tax code.

If the balance of Congress tips to be more evenly divided or even Democratically controlled, I'd like to see a moderate Dem as our President.

We're seeing now the danger of an extremist President with sympathetic Congress. I don't want to see this repeated, even if the repeat leans "my way".

if we demolished that presidential palace, we could make a rather nice looking garden on it. its a win for everybody.

if we demolished that presidential palace, we could make a rather nice looking garden on it. its a win for everybody.
Compared to 10 Downing Street, it's a Czar's palace.

I want a sensible fucking person in the Whitehouse.

In your poll, I voted "Democrat," just because that's who I'm likely to vote for.

Honestly, I would LIKE to see a member of the Reform Party or Green Party in office, because how their #1 issue is government corruption. Obviously, that isn't on the agendas of Democrats and Republicans, because they're both fucking corrupt and use their power to their advantage. So, even though the Reform Party is Conservative and the Green Party is radically Liberal, I'd support either of 'em.

But realistically, the Reform Party and Green Party are never gonna fuckin' win, so fuck it. Just vote Democrat. I disagree with gun control, but at least they're not religionazis.

I would like to see a republican in the White House. Bush isn't an extremist. :rolleyes: A green in office? Not in a million years. I'm hoping that another strong willed republican gets into office, over a weak willed democrat.

A centrist Democrat president (not Hillary. She'd be terrible.) with a Republican Congress. It worked during the 90's quite well.

Bush isn't an extremist. :rolleyes:

If you say so.

Lettuce is a moron and gives people cancer and helped Hitler get into power, it also rolls downhill too easy and shirked its duties in the national guard to go hang out with some rabbits.

A centrist Democrat president [...] with a Republican Congress. It worked during the 90's quite well.

i guess. if by 'worked' you mean continued along the neoliberal path of insanity, at least.

I would like to see an independent candidate who could make decisions of his own without having to conform to the ideologies of one of the parties. Of course, this will never happen because the independent candidate would not be able to get enough money to run the requisite negative ad campaign.

A Republican. Hopefully a somewhat more moderate one.

Im gonna have to go with Republican this time around. Hillary would screw everyone....not in that sense...

Regardless, no matter who is in, I don't want to see ANY extremism. John McCain would make a good president.

WOO!! McCain 2008!! Centrism!!

Honestly, I have to agree. We need a moderate, and McCain is a pretty good choice.

Ideally? Jon Stewart. He doesn't have any poltical expericene? So what? He's just far more rational and funny than anyone either party could put up. You could sell the State of the Union speech on Pay Per View and DVD!

But in the poll I put Green Party, because I really dislike the big 2. They pretend to be different, but they are just like 2 points off of each other in the Political Compass. Please. It's like trying to pick between Coke and Pepsi, when I'd really rather have a seven up or a bottled water or something.

i guess. if by 'worked' you mean continued along the neoliberal path of insanity, at least.

I liked it, but that's just me. ;)

However, if Congress balances out, I'd like to see a moderate.

And if Congress swings back to the Democrats, I'd like to see another Republican.
What is this "moderate" party? I thought the only two parties with a chance were the Democrats and Republicans.

We're seeing now the danger of an extremist President with sympathetic Congress. I don't want to see this repeated, even if the repeat leans "my way".
Why wouldn't you like to see it leaning our way?

i guess. if by 'worked' you mean continued along the neoliberal path of insanity, at least.

No, it worked because it forced the two parties to work together instead of bitching at each other, like they do now. The dems scream and throw shit at the republicans because they have no power whatsoever. If they had a majority in congress, the republicans would compromise to the best of their ability. But now, since they have majority, they try to do whatever they please, which pisses off the dems. So I believe a republicans president with a democratic congress would work quite nicely.

Other-- It's no secret... I'd like to see a Libertarian Party candidate.
Every other party pretends to disfavor government corruption, but only the LP has a way to directly solve the problem.
The only way to avoid government corruption altogether is to get rid of as much government as possible.

No matter what the party, giving power and money to government period is still like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

What is this "moderate" party? I thought the only two parties with a chance were the Democrats and Republicans.
There are moderate democrats and moderate republicans...

I'm also curious which party you identify most closely with now.

I said I'd prefer to see other, i.e. someone willing to stand on personal principle no matter the political cost. Someone unwilling to pander. Someone with the courage of their convictions. Don't think that is likely to happen in U.S. politics in the next 1000 years, so I'll probably end up voting for the person I consider the lesser of 2 evils which is usually a Republican.

No, it worked because it forced the two parties to work together instead of bitching at each other, like they do now.

are we talking about the same decade?

Why wouldn't you like to see it leaning our way?

Because if it leans "our way", liberal policies will be enacted. While I personally would love those policies, I realize that unless the elections were all won by 90/10 majorities, large segments of our populations are sitting by watching their governments do things that are to them appalling.

While I, personally, would love to live in a "Scandinavian Liberal Paradise", as long as there are Conservatives in the US, they have the right to at least have their voices heard. If our government goes too liberal, then the (49%) minority would be voiceless, much like the (49%) minority is today.

That's not how I envision America. I think our government works best when one the President and Legislature have different philosophies. I feel like more voices are heard; obviously not every citizen will agree with every governmental action but I believe people feel more represented when there is some philosophical conflict in the government.

~~~~~~~~~~`
(Did any of that make sense, or did it sound like drivel?)

This poll is smart by the way, the two options at the bottom are to weed out the silly people that would of probably screwed up the results of the more rational responces :) Thats why all polls should have a stupid option that way the silly people that dont really care can choose that one thus saving the polls integrity...

now that i let the cat out of the bag..haha

Definitely a Democrat, no way with another Republican. I strongly support the Democratic Party, why not Hillary Clinton or another good fellow like Howard Dean (wahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!).
Republicans suck, they are screwing the world and the U.S. image in the world, and I don't believe that they can protect the United States and its allies appropriately: I am pretty sure that a Democrat would do the job better and I would also say that he would be much more tolerant and more open on domestic issues (abortion, death penalty, gay rights, freedom of speech, etc.).
I do also hope that the next president would take measures to defend and protect our environment and I hope that he will make sure that the U.S. joins with the world and signs the Kyoto Protocol.
I also think that we need another strategy in winning the war against terrorism: not just targeting insurgents in Iraq but in other places, and with full cooperation with those countries concerned. Any country that does not accept shall be deemed uncooperative and siding with the terrorists.
However, fighting the war on terror also means to protect our rights and freedoms, not to curve them, and in correlation to provide adequate security for people.
I sincerely also hope that the next president will be one that will support abortion, that will be against capital punishment, and one that will strongly support gay rights: I think the U.S. needs to take an example on Canada's liberal and progressive views, it has indeed legalised same-sex marriages. I think that the U.S. could perfectly follow suit if people became more tolerant and more open. I also think that the religion thing should not be linked to it: this has nothing to do with it, those guys just wanna marry, that's their fundamental human right.
I therefore give my full support to the Democratic Party and hope that they will intensify their opposition to the Bush administration's policies (those that have the most polarised the country).

To say that "Democrats are extremists," is to say that the American government has been extremist since the Great Depression. Yes, all the way from the Great Depression until 1995, most of the time the Democrats controlled the entire government. But the balance switched in the mid-90's, and currently, the Republicans control every facet of the government other than the Supreme Court.

The Republicans hold a majority in both the House and the Senate, the heads of the CIA and the FBI are both ex-Republican. I'm actually somewhat pleased with Bush's Supreme Court nominee, however, because although the guy is conservative, we shouldn't expect Bush to nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court. His nominee has also never been involved in politics, and he graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard, making him an extremely well-versed and competent lawyer. So, the fact is... Bush could've done a lot worse. And we should judge nominees based on their competence, not their political policies.

But I agree that Bush is an extremist. His Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Wolfwitz, at one point claimed Hussein was responsible for 9\11. And the current administration is not Conservative, but Evangelical and Neoconservative. Religious extremism is a turn-off for many Conservatives, including Libertarians. The PNAC's plan for world-domination is also rather startling as well.

Also, their interpretations of the Constitution is hypocritical and is not truly Conservative, because they don't even fully adhere to non-constructionist views. Attorney General Ashcroft used a 1947 Supreme Court case about Nazi-saboteurs to create detainment camps and the PATRIOT Act outright violates the Constitution, as even the majority of Republicans had previously agreed until we've come closer to its renewal, and they've been encouraged to change their tune. They also held a constructionist view of the Constitution, when Congress created a resolution for Bush to have the power to go to war with Iraq, rather than requiring Congress to write a declaration of war, as written in the Constitution.

One Republican, a true Conservative, made this point: That the Constitution says only Congress can declare war, and that giving the power to the President over war would be the same as Congress giving him the power to make laws. Essentially, when it's come to terrorism and war, the Republicans have been "building on," past laws and cases, which is the constructionist view of the Constitution that Conservatives denounce Democrats for, when it comes to social welfare. The Constitution also states that the President may not make laws, and in our early history, Presidents never made "executive orders." But now, every President, whether Democrat or Republican, passes 30 to 50 of them without Congressional approval, essentially giving the President the power to create his own laws (though Congress is still required to fund his programs). President Bush has also set political precedents in how he's used Executive Orders. So, they don't even truly follow the fundamentalist adherence to the Constitution that they advertise.

Furthermore, paying down the debt used to be a key aspect of Conservativism. Yes, many years ago, Conservatives ranted about the national debt just as much as they currently rant about taxes being too high (the term, "Conservativism," partially comes from the fact that they sought to conserve not just our culture, but our wealth, through isolationism and having little or no foreign debt).

But that's not the case anymore, as the Republicans are rather liberal, when it comes to economic policy. They want zero restrictions, which appeals to a lot of Conservatives who support big-business. But their actions with ignoring the national debt has not been so appealing. It's interesting to note that throughout every Republican presidency within the last century, particularly the Bush family presidencies, the national debt sharply increased far more than it did comparatively with Democratic presidencies.

While cutting taxes may not be a bad idea, Republicans need the tax reform to back it up and to cut spending as much as they cut taxes if they expect to gain support on their economic policy. Bush's top two White House economic advisors (who were Republicans), resigned soon after he was elected, because he showed them his budget and they, as educated economists, openly stated--This man is nuts. He's cutting taxes, but not cutting spending. We're in for massive foreign debt. And so we have been.

Bush's friendliness with Communist China and the radical Muslims of the Saudi Royal Family (as well as the Taliban, before 9\11) has also hurt his support as well. They also lose the backwater, white supremacist vote that Republicans have typically gotten because of their immigration policies, by vehemently supporting Israel and setting historical precedents by employing so many minorities in high-ranking positions, particularly Zionist Jews.

The Republican party's credibility was significantly hurt by the Terri Schiavo scandal, where it turned out she wasn't anywhere near being conscious, but Republican Senator Bill Frist stated that in his opinion "as a doctor," she was, and both Congress and Governor Jeb Bush set precedents by launching social policy legislation involving a specific person. The conservative religious base didn't like how Schiavo's life was being used for politics.

Furthermore, I'd say the Republicans are going to have to work on recieving ANY of the black vote, because the majority of blacks were angry over votergate as well as the President refusing to even meet with the NAACP, and then later having the I.R.S. go after them. The array of major scandals during the last several years have also primarily involved Republicans and their policies, including:
Republican Senator Trent Lott Jr.'s co-researcher admitting their gun control research was flawed
Allegations of Democrats' votes being illegally thrown out, Bush refuses to meet with NAACP over it
Torture and mistreatment at Abu-Graib and Guantanamo, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld asks to resign twice
Allegations of pre-Iraq intelligence being fixed. (see Downing Street Memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_street_memo))
An investigation that Tom DeLay investigated for misuse of campaign funds.
An investigation that Karl Rove leaked CIA Agent Plame's name to the press.

With the Democrats, there have only been minor scandals, such as the press construing a joke Hillary made about Ghandi as being racist, or the outrage people faced over Howard Dean's comment about the Republicans being a "white, Christian party." Such things are arbitrary and minor in the face of scandals that votes were thrown out, that people are being tortured, that pre-Iraq intelligence was fixed, and so on. So, the Republicans will have a tough Congressional election soon, and for the distant future (2009), they'll have to do quite a bit of preparation and not allow these scandals to get out of hand or for any others to surface.

The Democrats main goal right now should be to focus on political-corruption, because the Clinton scandal is rather old hat and not a big deal compared to recent scandals. So, currently, they have the "high ground," when it comes to apparent political corruption and could denounce the Republicans with a laundry-list of complaints involving recent events, rather than attacking them over old news, lies, and arbitrary quotes, which will likely be the Republican strategy.

They'll also have to change the Democratic party. Since 9\11, a "soft on defense," party can no longer exist in America. With the cuts Bush made to military veterans' pay, firefighter and police pay in NY, and cuts to Washington D.C. security (not to mention cutting counterterrorism funding before 9\11), the Democrats have the playing field laid out before them. But at the same time, while seemingly not caring about people serving in the military, Bush, of course, increased weapons funding. So, he's lost support among the military as well (which even Senator Kerry noted, when he ran for president). It's almost as if Bush handed the Democrats HIS OWN ASS on a silver plate.

John Kerry would be a good choice for a Democratic candidate for the presidency, because of how the public percieved him as "assertive," and "General-like," with his extremely tall height, macho posture and tone, and actually having fought in Vietnam (though, admittedly, his record is splotchy and we all know he didn't earn three purple hearts in a 6 month tour). Polls also showed approval of Kerry went up after he lost, because he was percieved as arrogant (hanging out with celebrities was a mistake) and his somber "defeat," speech showed the humble, human side to John Kerry. But it's unlikely he'll run, as Kerry has said he won't.

Hillary Clinton appears to be preparing to enter the presidential race. She doesn't deny it as a possibility and Clinton has spoke about it in a rather round-a-bout way (specifically, saying she won't, but that he'd support her if she did). But she definitely seems to be preparing for it because she's been taking a far more moderate stance. She has scarcely said a word on Iraq or abortion, which suggests that she's looking to gain Republican support. Being that she is an ex-Republican and is symbolic of "family values," by sticking by her husband during the Lewinsky scandals, she'd also be a good choice, but only if the Republicans choose a female candidate as well. A clever political tactic might even be to name her as the top Democratic candidate, see if the Republicans name their candidate as a woman, and then suddenly attempt to switch their candidate to a male. Other than that--with the Democrats--who knows.

And finally, the Republicans don't hold the overwhelming majority of Congress the way that they have in previous years, making a Democratic comeback much more possible, although, yes, Congress has a 99% incumbency rate, with there going to be only roughly 30 actual races in the next Congressional election. Internationally, foreign citizens also have a somewhat negative view of Republicans, especially President Bush, because of the Iraq war. This is relevant because it is likely to sway immigrants' votes.

Out of all the Republicans I'd actually approve of, McCain is an excellent choice and I believe (and hope) he'll be the top Republican candidate, instead of some religious fanatic, like Jeb Bush. I also liked Bob Dole years ago, especially because of his liberal sense of humor, the fact that he came here as a poor immigrant, and that he had a LEGITIMATE, NON-EXAGGERATED military record, unlike Kerry or Bush. He's also very, very worthy of respect for being a major driving force in getting the WWII memorial created. But of course, obviously he's not going to run for President again.

A Libertarian!

Definitely a Democrat, no way with another Republican. I strongly support the Democratic Party, why not Hillary Clinton or another good fellow like Howard Dean (wahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!).
Republicans suck, they are screwing the world and the U.S. image in the world, and I don't believe that they can protect the United States and its allies appropriately: I am pretty sure that a Democrat would do the job better and I would also say that he would be much more tolerant and more open on domestic issues (abortion, death penalty, gay rights, freedom of speech, etc.).
I do also hope that the next president would take measures to defend and protect our environment and I hope that he will make sure that the U.S. joins with the world and signs the Kyoto Protocol.
I also think that we need another strategy in winning the war against terrorism: not just targeting insurgents in Iraq but in other places, and with full cooperation with those countries concerned. Any country that does not accept shall be deemed uncooperative and siding with the terrorists.
However, fighting the war on terror also means to protect our rights and freedoms, not to curve them, and in correlation to provide adequate security for people.
I sincerely also hope that the next president will be one that will support abortion, that will be against capital punishment, and one that will strongly support gay rights: I think the U.S. needs to take an example on Canada's liberal and progressive views, it has indeed legalised same-sex marriages. I think that the U.S. could perfectly follow suit if people became more tolerant and more open. I also think that the religion thing should not be linked to it: this has nothing to do with it, those guys just wanna marry, that's their fundamental human right.
I therefore give my full support to the Democratic Party and hope that they will intensify their opposition to the Bush administration's policies (those that have the most polarised the country).

Wow....oh, thank you. I needed that laugh....man, I got tears running down my face I'm laughing so hard...

No president with said views will ever be elected in America.

And, sorry to say, but no one likes Howard Dean, not even the dems.

I'd vote for Czardas, why vote for the lesser evil? ;)

Honestly? I'd have to say it depends on the candidate. McCain and I disagree with each other on quite a few issues, but I'd be very tempted to vote for him nonetheless, simply because I tend to think of him as the last honorable man in Washington on either side of the aisle. If it were Hillary, by contrast, I don't know that I could ever vote Dem again (I say this not because I'm one of the "Hillary is the Devil!" conservative crowd, but because I'm a true-liberal Dem who is tired of having to pick between a conservative right-winger and a slightly less right-wing little L libertarian, which is precisely what the DLC neoliberals are).

Jesse Ventura... from erm I don't know what party
Minnesota Progressive Party, I believe. That'd be interesting, actually. I can see the headlines: MINNESOTA CONQUERS UNITED STATES!

Head Of Lettuce! Hey Hey Hey!

Head Of Lettuce! All The Way!

Why did you list the green party as the third party, by the way? They have little to no clout in America. The parties, by membership are as follows, I believe:
1)No Party
2)GOP
3)Democrats
4)Libertarians
5)Green
6)Other (Peace & Freedom, Reform, American Independent, etc.)

Libertarian all the way!

I believe that Howard Dean would make a great president. Antics aside his work as governer of Virginia speaks for itself. Plus he was against the war in Iraq, right from the get go. That's something that neither John Kerry nor John McCain can brag about.

I believe that Howard Dean would make a great president. Antics aside his work as governer of Virginia speaks for itself. Plus he was against the war in Iraq, right from the get go. That's something that neither John Kerry nor John McCain can brag about.
...Vermont... He was governor of Vermont.
He's already my president, he's president of the DNC.

Any candidate that is socially conservative and fisclly liberal. And that would be: The Peace and Justice Party. A true Christian Socialist that would uphold and protect morality and achieve a one class economic society.

Christian morals and values on the one hand, while ending poverty and greed on the other. A true Christian Utopia.

GOD bless!

But in the poll I put Green Party, because I really dislike the big 2. They pretend to be different, but they are just like 2 points off of each other in the Political Compass. Please. It's like trying to pick between Coke and Pepsi, when I'd really rather have a seven up or a bottled water or something.

Pepsi is gross. Coke all the way!

I say Democrat, just to balance the current creepy guy. I wouldn't mind the Green Party either though, I just want someone to make up for the past 5, and future 3, years.

Libertarian.

Libertarian.

Head Of Lettuce! Hey Hey Hey!

Head Of Lettuce! All The Way!

dude, you're going to split the green vote. ficus for president!

Is there an option for leaving the White House vacant?

Libertarian.
When will the average American realize that, if they took their heads out of the sand, they would find they have more in common with the libertarian party then the big two?

COME ONNNNNNN, LETTUCE!

Who loves ya? Who loves ya, lil' lettuce? Come on baby! Show these boojwah muthas what it's all COMIN' DOWN TO!!

Num-ber One! Num-ber One! Num-ber One!

WOO!! McCain 2008!! Centrism!!

Honestly, I have to agree. We need a moderate, and McCain is a pretty good choice.Fuck McCain. Why in the hell does anyone actually like this man?

Fuck McCain. Why in the hell does anyone actually like this man?

Because he's a good guy. I've got a lot of respect for him. He speaks well, unlike our current president, doesn't come off as a moron, unlike our current president, doesn't tow the party line, he's not afraid to work with both sides of the aisle.

Libertarian.
When will the average American realize that, if they took their heads out of the sand, they would find they have more in common with the libertarian party then the big two?

I'd prefer a Constitutionalist President (just to see what would happen ;) ), but I'd settle quite happily for a Libertarian (generally speaking, that is).

A Canadian sleeper agent.

I want a moderate libertarian Republican...got that? Does that make any sort of sense? It probably doesn't. Goodnight.

I didn't vote in the poll. Mostly, I don't judge candidates by their political party.

Because he's a good guy. I've got a lot of respect for him. He speaks well, unlike our current president, doesn't come off as a moron, unlike our current president, doesn't tow the party line, he's not afraid to work with both sides of the aisle.
Strangely enough, I like McCain because he does the American late shows. I dunno, he just seems so nonchalant.

Well, okay, I guess I also like him because he's moderate (if I must have some "substance" to base my choice on) and because he's hot (he represents Arizona!).

Everyone makes a big deal over what party someone aligns themselves, but there are Democrats like Zell Miller. I would never want to see him in the White House. And there are Republicans like John McCain, who I wouldn't mind as President. Ideally, I'd like to see Feinstein (http://feinstein.senate.gov) or Obama (http://obama.senate.gov) run for nomination for my party.

:p Lettuce would have more intelligence.

...Vermont... He was governor of Vermont.
He's already my president, he's president of the DNC.My mistake. :eek:

Is there an option for leaving the White House vacant?

I believe that would fall under "other".

What, precisely, is the difference between a head of lettuce and the current President?

:p

Because he's a good guy. I've got a lot of respect for him. He speaks well, unlike our current president, doesn't come off as a moron, unlike our current president, doesn't tow the party line, he's not afraid to work with both sides of the aisle.

Despite how the rest of this post may sound, I actually like John McCain as a Senator and a person. He served extremely honorably during the Vietnam conflict, surviving a horrific plane crash and living as a POW for five and 1/2 years from 1967 to 1973 (much of it in solitary confinement). During his service, he rightfully earned the military honors of the Bronze Star, Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and Distinguished Flying Cross. Earning a deserved reputation of being honest and a straight-shooter, he has served honorably in the Congress and Senate since early in the Regan presidency, and I have no question as to the quality of his character.

That said, I have witnessed firsthand how mentally unstable the man is. On Capitol Hill, he also has a reputation for having a quick temper--flying into fits of rage at the drop of a hat. During law school, I worked for the Senate's judiciary committee and had regular contact with many of our Senators. I remember in particular one day when we were in a subcommittee, just going through our regular course of business, when John McCain interrupted the meeting, walked into the room flustered and screaming (if you can imagine this) as loud as he possibly could, "F***.... YOU!!!!!!!!" All of us just sat in stunned silence as he walked out. I wish I was kidding or making this up. The thing is that I can totally understand that level of frustration, and I'm sure that pretty much every single one of us on Capitol Hill have wanted to do exactly that from time to time, but this is not a person who should be trusted to have his finger on the nuclear button. Even though it's not his fault, the fact is that 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war would take it's toll on anyone.

What, precisely, is the difference between a head of lettuce and the current President?

:p
Well for one, a head of lettuce can't screw up the country as much as the current President. Also, if there is a great famine, I'm sure the head of luttuce will be able to magically regrow, it could feed America. :)