NationStates Jolt Archive

This isn't really just about potential Republican presidents. This is about you, what party you may belong to (or have more in common with) and who you might find to be acceptable as President of the United States even though they belong to a party that mostly disgusts you, like the Republicans do me.

I had heard this guy being interviewed on KNPR and he seemed to have a good head on his shoulders. I don't know about a lot of his policies but he seemed like the kind of guy that would work with everyone to come up with the best solution for any given problem. I agree with his stance on how Iraq should be split though I don't agree with him that the war was teh right thing to do.

If I had to accept a Republican President again, I might not care so much if it was Tommy Thompson (http://tommy2008.com/Home.aspx)

Who would you be willing to accept as President if you didnt get your pick in there?

The way to avoid having to accept a Republican president again is to work to make sure that the Democratic candidate wins. Until the GOP is no longer in the grasp of the extreme right-wing, I cannot in good conscience support even the most moderate of Republican candidates. If Thompson were to win, he would be beholden to, and bring with him all the people who were repudiated in last November's elections.

I'd like Dan Savage to be the next US president.

A dead one?

Of the Republicans, I don't have too much of a problem with Rudy Giuliani. The only Democrat I can think of offhand (of those still active in politics) that I'd find remotely palatable would be Joe Lieberman, but he's not running.

I'm a libertarian, so I've got no allegiance to either of the two major parties in the US.

The way to avoid having to accept a Republican president again is to work to make sure that the Democratic candidate wins. Until the GOP is no longer in the grasp of the extreme right-wing, I cannot in good conscience support even the most moderate of Republican candidates. If Thompson were to win, he would be beholden to, and bring with him all the people who were repudiated in last November's elections.

He could possibly get rid of them and choose someone more moderate like him though right? Still I am not so worried about this next election because it won't be Bush again.

I'd like Dan Savage to be the next US president.

Dan Savage for President!

A dead one?

I could see more sensible decisions than what we get at present.

Of the Republicans, I don't have too much of a problem with Rudy Giuliani. The only Democrat I can think of offhand (of those still active in politics) that I'd find remotely palatable would be Joe Lieberman, but he's not running.

I'm a libertarian, so I've got no allegiance to either of the two major parties in the US.

Again, anybody is better than Bush so that wouldnt bother me too much.

I'd like Dan Savage to be the next US president.

I'd just like Dan Savage.

The way to avoid having to accept a Republican president again is to work to make sure that the Democratic candidate wins. Until the GOP is no longer in the grasp of the extreme right-wing, I cannot in good conscience support even the most moderate of Republican candidates. If Thompson were to win, he would be beholden to, and bring with him all the people who were repudiated in last November's elections.
I made much the same point in the Rudy thread--presidential elections can't be person over party. There's too much infrastructure that comes along with the presidency to expect otherwise. Conservatives know that if a Democrat is elected president, no matter how conservative he or she claims to be personally, that any judge he or she nominates is going to support the right to privacy, because that's a requirement of the base of the party. And vice versa--Rudy can claim to be pro-choice, but if he's the guy, he'll nominate who his base tells him to, because he'll owe them his job.

How about we dig up Eisenhower's corpse and give him a chance to run again. He was pretty good last time around.

I really don't care which party the president is if they just have some sense and sanity.

Unfortunately you don't see that kind of thing at the presidential level.

How about we dig up Eisenhower's corpse and give him a chance to run again. He was pretty good last time around.


http://www.barvennon.com/~reanim/Reanimator.gif

Of the Republicans, I don't have too much of a problem with Rudy Giuliani. The only Democrat I can think of offhand (of those still active in politics) that I'd find remotely palatable would be Joe Lieberman, but he's not running.

I'm a libertarian, so I've got no allegiance to either of the two major parties in the US.
And yet you support Lieberman, a man at the forefront of the pro-censorship movement?

...If I had to accept a Republican President again, I might not care so much if it was Tommy Thompson...


He would probably have the best chance of locating Osama Bin Laden.

"TomTom, find nearest Al-Qaeda stronghold."

I made much the same point in the Rudy thread--presidential elections can't be person over party. There's too much infrastructure that comes along with the presidency to expect otherwise. Conservatives know that if a Democrat is elected president, no matter how conservative he or she claims to be personally, that any judge he or she nominates is going to support the right to privacy, because that's a requirement of the base of the party. And vice versa--Rudy can claim to be pro-choice, but if he's the guy, he'll nominate who his base tells him to, because he'll owe them his job.

Great minds, Nazz, great minds, I made much the same point over there, too. ;)

He would probably have the best chance of locating Osama Bin Laden.

"TomTom, find nearest Al-Qaeda stronghold."
*groan*

He would probably have the best chance of locating Osama Bin Laden.

"TomTom, find nearest Al-Qaeda stronghold."


hehe

ABE LINCOLN!!!!!!!

*runs*

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/ClintEastwood.jpg
(He'd) Make my day.

http://www.barvennon.com/~reanim/Reanimator.gif

And just in case that doesn't work out well

http://artscool.cfa.cmu.edu/~lee/deanimator.html

We need a candidate who is truly revolutionary, yet pragmatic, who seeks to bridge together all Americans regardless of ideology, who repudiates extremism of all stripes and wants simply a solution that is most beneficial and satisfactory for everyone. Someone like Robert Lane Saget.

We need a candidate who is truly revolutionary, yet pragmatic, who seeks to bridge together all Americans regardless of ideology, who repudiates extremism of all stripes and wants simply a solution that is most beneficial and satisfactory for everyone. Someone like Robert Lane Saget.

He'd spend all day smoking weed and fingering Kimmy Gibbler.

Bob Marley's son.

I made much the same point in the Rudy thread--presidential elections can't be person over party. There's too much infrastructure that comes along with the presidency to expect otherwise. Conservatives know that if a Democrat is elected president, no matter how conservative he or she claims to be personally, that any judge he or she nominates is going to support the right to privacy, because that's a requirement of the base of the party.
Good point, but what about Nixon. Now he wasn't a good president, but he did many liberal things, despite being of the more conservative party.

We need a candidate who is truly revolutionary, yet pragmatic, who seeks to bridge together all Americans regardless of ideology, who repudiates extremism of all stripes and wants simply a solution that is most beneficial and satisfactory for everyone. Someone like Robert Lane Saget.
Well, he's already got the routine down http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/FunnyFinger.gif:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/BobSagetFinger.jpg_http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/GWBFinger.jpg

Good point, but what about Nixon. Now he wasn't a good president, but he did many liberal things, despite being of the more conservative party.

Didn't Nixon start the War on Drugs?

If the last six years have proven anything, it is that the republicans are not to be trusted, not to be given the benefit of the doubt and not to be presumed benign.

He'd spend all day smoking weed and fingering Kimmy Gibbler.

so he's a conservative then?

If the last six years have proven anything, it is that the republicans are not to be trusted, not to be given the benefit of the doubt and not to be presumed benign.

Well, to not make it about Republicans for a second, I'd say that it proved that there is a a reason we have checks and balances and that unchecked power not might, but will be abused.

I'd vote for Roscoe Bartlett.

so he's a conservative then?

No, at least not on environmental issues. In his documentary "Farce of the Penguins" he makes a point of including a character named "What's Global Warming?" penguin and another named "There's no snow" penguin.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488539/

I'll have to check that out

Well, since all politicians are basically self-serving (they have to be), I'll go with the most obstinate Republican president if there's to be a Democratic congress. That way there will be plenty of gridlock and infighting, and they won't be able to do any crappy legislation.

No republican is acceptable for president. Why? Because someone with any decency would have already left that party.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/ClintEastwood.jpg
(He'd) Make my day.

How about.. ?

http://static.flickr.com/34/71473654_51fefca1db_o.gif

That'd be the best primary ever. :p

How about.. ?

http://static.flickr.com/34/71473654_51fefca1db_o.gif

That'd be the best primary ever. :p
How about those two were running mates? That'd be kinda crazy and scary, but I'd like it!!!

I made much the same point in the Rudy thread--presidential elections can't be person over party. There's too much infrastructure that comes along with the presidency to expect otherwise. Conservatives know that if a Democrat is elected president, no matter how conservative he or she claims to be personally, that any judge he or she nominates is going to support the right to privacy, because that's a requirement of the base of the party. And vice versa--Rudy can claim to be pro-choice, but if he's the guy, he'll nominate who his base tells him to, because he'll owe them his job.

You may be right but I still like Rudy. I even like John McCain although he's starting to scare the shit out of me lately. As long as I can be sure he's just pandering to the "nuts" as Rov calls them, then I am fine.

http://www.hollywoodonthepotomac.com/Walken.jpg

Even though I live on the Left side of the Atlantic, I wouldn't mind John McCain being my Imperial Overlord.

Even though I live on the Left side of the Atlantic, I wouldn't mind John McCain being my Imperial Overlord.

The US is on the left side of the atlantic...

Good point, but what about Nixon. Now he wasn't a good president, but he did many liberal things, despite being of the more conservative party.

The political times demanded it--the center in 1968-1975 was considerably to the left of where it is today, and he was faced with a Congress that could very nearly overturn anything he tried to veto.

The way to avoid having to accept a Republican president again is to work to make sure that the Democratic candidate wins. Until the GOP is no longer in the grasp of the extreme right-wing, I cannot in good conscience support even the most moderate of Republican candidates.

The way to avoid having to accept a Democratic president again is to work to make sure that the Republican candidate wins. Until the Democratic Party is no longer in the grasp of the extreme left-wing, I cannot in good conscience support even the most moderate of Democratic candidates.

Corrected.

The US is on the left side of the atlantic...

It clearly isn't.

The way to avoid having to accept a Democratic president again is to work to make sure that the Republican candidate wins. Until the Democratic Party is no longer in the grasp of the extreme left-wing, I cannot in good conscience support even the most moderate of Democratic candidates.

Corrected.

Actually, the way to avoid having a Democratic president is to have an election close enough in a swing state that you can send it to the Supreme Court and have them stop the recount for you.

The way to avoid having to accept a Democratic president again is to work to make sure that the Republican candidate wins. Until the Democratic Party is no longer in the grasp of the extreme left-wing, I cannot in good conscience support even the most moderate of Democratic candidates.

Corrected.

As most NSG leftists would happily point out, the Dems are not extreme left-wing.

No republican is acceptable for president. Why? Because someone with any decency would have already left that party.

The self-righteous arrogance and presumptuousness of that statement would be stunning if it didn't come from the land of the Fighting Banana Slugs. But since it does, it's obviously discountable :p

The self-righteous arrogance and presumptuousness of that statement would be stunning if it didn't come from the land of the Fighting Banana Slugs. But since it does, it's obviously discountable :p

It never ceases to amaze me how the most hardcore Republicans can act as though they reside in the majority of public opinion when the last election clearly showed them to be currently on the fringes. But then again, you folks still believe Bush is doing a good job, so it's not a wonder that you're far from reality.

As most NSG leftists would happily point out, the Dems are not extreme left-wing.

In the US context, the leadership of the Democrat party is in fact extreme left-wing. They're the ones that have the power and make the decisions, so they're the ones that matter. Whether or not the "average" Democrat voter is extreme left-wing is irrelevant.

The fact that they wouldn't be considered so in Euro-land or wherever only proves how far such areas have degenerated politically.

This isn't really just about *snips*

There is no acceptable potential Republican President. No acceptable potential Republican President. No acceptable potential Republican President...

It never ceases to amaze me how the most hardcore Republicans can act as though they reside in the majority of public opinion when the last election clearly showed them to be currently on the fringes. But then again, you folks still believe Bush is doing a good job, so it's not a wonder that you're far from reality.

Thanks, Nazz. [high fives]

Then again, I would have pointed out how ridiculous an excuse for an argument it is in a political thread to criticize someone for their school's mascot. The phrase "grasping at straws" comes to mind.

In the US context, the leadership of the Democrat party is in fact extreme left-wing. They're the ones that have the power and make the decisions, so they're the ones that matter. Whether or not the "average" Democrat voter is extreme left-wing is irrelevant.

The fact that they wouldn't be considered so in Euro-land or wherever only proves how far such areas have degenerated politically.

Harry Reid is far left wing? He's an anti-abortion Mormon, for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:

Thanks, Nazz. [high fives]

Then again, I would have pointed out how ridiculous an excuse for an argument it is in a political thread to criticize someone for their school's mascot. The phrase "grasping at straws" comes to mind.

Besides, the Banana Slug is the awesomest mascot of all time, followed closely by the Burrow Owl. Anyone can be a Tiger or a Trojan or a Seminole--it takes a school with massive cojones to be a Banana Slug or a Burrow Owl.

The self-righteous arrogance and presumptuousness of that statement would be stunning if it didn't come from the land of the Fighting Banana Slugs. But since it does, it's obviously discountable :p
Don't be messin' with the Banana Slugs...

In the US context, the leadership of the Democrat party is in fact extreme left-wing. They're the ones that have the power and make the decisions, so they're the ones that matter. Whether or not the "average" Democrat voter is extreme left-wing is irrelevant.

The fact that they wouldn't be considered so in Euro-land or wherever only proves how far such areas have degenerated politically.

Um... this statement is just so disconnected from reality that it's hard to comment on. The Speaker of of the House is Nancy Pelosi. She is liberal, but to call her "extreme left-wing" is laughable. I've hung out with a few people that I could describe as "extreme left-wing," and Nancy would have to be much more leftist to be comparable to any of them. Last I checked, she wasn't railing against capitalism and advocating abolishing it.

The Senate Majority Leader is Harry Reid. I dread to think how far right someone would have to be to think he's an extreme leftist.

All of the front-running Democratic hopefuls for '08 are fairly moderate. I also heard that Howard Dean's a member of the NRA. Try again dear.

Besides, the Banana Slug is the awesomest mascot of all time, followed closely by the Burrow Owl. Anyone can be a Tiger or a Trojan or a Seminole--it takes a school with massive cojones to be a Banana Slug or a Burrow Owl.

I guess humor is lost on the right. Such a pity that they cannot share in our fun and amusement. Mascots are supposed to be fun. Otherwise what's the point?

I guess humor is lost on the right. Such a pity that they cannot share in our fun and amusement. Mascots are supposed to be fun. Otherwise what's the point?
Making up for a lack of penis size?

This isn't really just about potential Republican presidents. This is about you, what party you may belong to (or have more in common with) and who you might find to be acceptable as President of the United States even though they belong to a party that mostly disgusts you, like the Republicans do me.

I had heard this guy being interviewed on KNPR and he seemed to have a good head on his shoulders. I don't know about a lot of his policies but he seemed like the kind of guy that would work with everyone to come up with the best solution for any given problem. I agree with his stance on how Iraq should be split though I don't agree with him that the war was teh right thing to do.

If I had to accept a Republican President again, I might not care so much if it was Tommy Thompson (http://tommy2008.com/Home.aspx)

Who would you be willing to accept as President if you didnt get your pick in there?

Since my views as a left-libertarian (if anything; I'm not too sure) are discredited in modern politics, I get free reign.

Republican: Guliani but NOT Jeb
Democrat: No idea who's running here. Possibly Obama but NOT hillary.

In the US context, the leadership of the Democrat party is in fact extreme left-wing. They're the ones that have the power and make the decisions, so they're the ones that matter. Whether or not the "average" Democrat voter is extreme left-wing is irrelevant.

The fact that they wouldn't be considered so in Euro-land or wherever only proves how far such areas have degenerated politically.

Let's see...with the Republicans in power they have tried or succeeded to:
Ban gay marriage, flag burning, curb personal rights, started two wars, cut taxes for the rich, given hand jobs to big business (I'll grant that at this point both parties give out said hand jobs, making the 'extreme leftist' thing so laughable it's almost embarrassing), squelched science in favor of 'faith based' science...frankly the list goes on.

These are extreme conservative positions, not just market-driven ideologies.

Now, care to point to extreme left leaning ideas that the Democrats are supposedly owned by? Please restrict yourself to actual legislation introduced and not what conservative pundits tell each other before going to sleep at campouts with a flashlight under their faces...

Since my views as a left-libertarian (if anything; I'm not too sure) are discredited in modern politics, I get free reign.

Republican: Guliani but NOT Jeb
Democrat: No idea who's running here. Possibly Obama but NOT hillary.

What part of you is left and what part is libertarian? If you're left economically and libertarian socially, the progressive side of the Democrats might just be a fit. If you're libertarian economically however, can't really help you.

Making up for a lack of penis size?

I guess so. Makes me kinda feel sorry for them.

In the US context, the leadership of the Democrat party is in fact extreme left-wing. They're the ones that have the power and make the decisions, so they're the ones that matter. Whether or not the "average" Democrat voter is extreme left-wing is irrelevant.

The fact that they wouldn't be considered so in Euro-land or wherever only proves how far such areas have degenerated politically.

Oh, and by the way, it's Democratic Party. Saying "Democrat Party" makes you look even more ignorant, since Democrat is a noun, not an adjective.

Oh, and by the way, it's Democratic Party. Saying "Democrat Party" makes you look even more ignorant, since Democrat is a noun, not an adjective.

They think it's an insult, when what it really is is a salute, an homage if you will, to their ingrained anti-intellectualism.

I guess humor is lost on the right. Such a pity that they cannot share in our fun and amusement. Mascots are supposed to be fun. Otherwise what's the point?

Have you heard our Fight Song (http://sg1.allmusic.com/cg/smp.dll?link=otfbgtnc0ye7ret59xo4lp1&z=MP3&r=20.asx)?

Bah, that link might not work, but it's by Austin Lounge Lizards and I got tired of looking for a link...

What part of you is left and what part is libertarian? If you're left economically and libertarian socially , the progressive side of the Democrats might just be a fit. If you're libertarian economically however, can't really help you.

That sorta fits.

However, I can't support either party since they are basically the same.

And by the same, I mean heading to authoritarianism. Which I don't like.

Left by PC, right by theorcracy.

That sorta fits.

However, I can't support either party since they are basically the same.

And by the same, I mean heading to authoritarianism. Which I don't like.

Left by PC, right by theorcracy.

The PC threat is, to say the least, exaggerated by the right.

It clearly isn't.

Turn your map so that you can read the words, GC...you have it upside down. America is on the left.

Have you heard our Fight Song (http://sg1.allmusic.com/cg/smp.dll?link=otfbgtnc0ye7ret59xo4lp1&z=MP3&r=20.asx)?

Bah, that link might not work, but it's by Austin Lounge Lizards and I got tired of looking for a link...

It started to work then crapped out. :(

The PC threat is, to say the least, exaggerated by the right.

Quite. Most liberals I know are pretty un-PC. That is, they're of the "free speech means people will get offended sometimes, oh well," school of thought.

Turn your map so that you can read the words, GC...you have it upside down. America is on the left.

America may be to the West, I grant you that. But its comparitively low tax rates, its lack of a National Health system, its comparitively small social security net, highly religious political discourse. Compared to the European nations, who almost all have free-at-point-of-delivery healthcare, extensive social security networks, comparitively high tax rates, secularist discourse, etc...

I repeat, Europe is clearly on the Left side of the Atlantic.

(Also, a map cannot be upside-down, it is merely a Northern-centric cultural bias that leads you to assume that our nations belong at the top of a map.)

Quite. Most liberals I know are pretty un-PC. That is, they're of the "free speech means people will get offended sometimes, oh well," school of thought.

There's no question that there are liberal people who are looking for a reason to get offended--but then again, there are conservatives who are the same way. You know the ones--the people who say that if you don't goosestep with the President, you hate the troops. That kind of asshole. Asshole comes in all political shapes and sizes.

It started to work then crapped out. :(

Try this (http://cdbaby.com/cd/austinll)...track 14.

Try this (http://cdbaby.com/cd/austinll)...track 14.

Oh my god, our fight song is awesome!

The only Democrat I can think of offhand (of those still active in politics) that I'd find remotely palatable would be Joe Lieberman, but he's not running.

Being in the pants of the Republicans, he would never get the nomination.

Yeah, a lot of us consider him pretty worthless these days.

Thanks, Nazz. [high fives]

Then again, I would have pointed out how ridiculous an excuse for an argument it is in a political thread to criticize someone for their school's mascot. The phrase "grasping at straws" comes to mind.
Nazz is an honorary Slug, really. I feel we can give that out.
Oh my god, our fight song is awesome!

Isn't it? I wish I had found that before I graduated...

Nazz is an honorary Slug, really. I feel we can give that out.
Oh definitely. It's our obligation to give it out to worthy people.


Isn't it? I wish I had found that before I graduated...
Totally awesome. Though I still like "Hail to California," but that's not a fight song, it's more a UC hymn. This bouncy song about banana slugs racing down the field is an excellent fight song, though.

Oh definitely. It's our obligation to give it out to worthy people.

I damn near applied for a Creative Writing gig there this past winter, but the manuscript wasn't quite ready, and a friend of mine with a book was applying. I'd have been spinning my wheels.

How about we dig up Eisenhower's corpse and give him a chance to run again. He was pretty good last time around.
Nah, not worth the time. Now Reagan on the other hand... :)

Anyway, the only acceptable Republican by my standards is Ron Paul.

I damn near applied for a Creative Writing gig there this past winter, but the manuscript wasn't quite ready, and a friend of mine with a book was applying. I'd have been spinning my wheels.

That would mean that you moved to Santa Cruz right as I moved to San Francisco. Classic.

Meh, screw it. Abolish both parties, and crown Ms Ivanka Trump as your absolute Monarch. That'll bring you closer to your buddies across the Atlantic. :fluffle: Paris Hilton can be the Controller-General (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FController-General_of_Finances&ei=iUHJRYSeNaKGwQH36untDQ&usg=__K7m4LL41ezEc3U6dmMEtYAQB8VQ=&sig2=vHAW1CbVvKPoPtdn9bzd0A). :) (perhaps that should be the reverse though... )

http://newyorkmetro.com/fashion/06/spring/ivanka060206_1_338.jpg

http://www.ariela.no/images/193tg.jpg

The only acceptable Republican candidate I can see right now is Guliani. I once thought McCain, but time spent on NSG reading up on his various pro-censorship positions has changed my mind significantly on that.

For the Dems, the only one I can see liking right now is Obama.

But frankly, do we really need a Democrat OR a Republican President? Why not a Green party President, or a Libertarian party President, or--PLEASE!--a President who is not affiliated with any party? Why must we constantly limit ourselves to, as Nazz puts it in his signature, angry or stupid? Typically the two go hand in hand, you know.

This sounds rather prejudiced but generally speaking, I think history shows the further from the coast someone lives the better president they make. With that in mind I would say Hagel from Nebraska Or the former Gov. of IA, I can't remember his name but heard him on the radio and he sounded reasonable.

Democrats---I would really like to vote for you but unless the Reps put up a far righter, I don't see anyone on your list. And I generally vote Democrat for Pres.

But frankly, do we really need a Democrat OR a Republican President? Why not a Green party President, or a Libertarian party President, or--PLEASE!--a President who is not affiliated with any party? Why must we constantly limit ourselves to, as Nazz puts it in his signature, angry or stupid? Typically the two go hand in hand, you know.
Why do we need a president, period!? :) Look above^.

Although in all seriousness, none of the non-Republicrats have a chance in Hell of winning, let alone outsiders such as Ron Paul who have joined in with the dominant Republicrat party.

Meh, screw it. Abolish both parties, and crown Ms Ivanka Trump as your absolute Monarch. That'll bring you closer to your buddies across the Atlantic. :fluffle: Paris Hilton can be the Controller-General (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FController-General_of_Finances&ei=iUHJRYSeNaKGwQH36untDQ&usg=__K7m4LL41ezEc3U6dmMEtYAQB8VQ=&sig2=vHAW1CbVvKPoPtdn9bzd0A). :) (perhaps that should be the reverse though... )
Haven't you had enough of having for President a bubble-headed idiot who only got where he was because of his family connections?

But frankly, do we really need a Democrat OR a Republican President? Why not a Green party President, or a Libertarian party President, or--PLEASE!--a President who is not affiliated with any party? Why must we constantly limit ourselves to, as Nazz puts it in his signature, angry or stupid? Typically the two go hand in hand, you know.
Because they usually have crazy positions on economics or government and wouldn't be able to get shit done.

Haven't you had enough of having for President a bubble-headed idiot who only got where he was because of his family connections?
She isn't Paris Hilton (seriously, read up on her - she's bright and ambitious). :p And besides, I'm not American.

Because they usually have crazy positions on economics or government and wouldn't be able to get shit done.

I beg to differ. I find that most Republicrats, to quote Europa Maxima, rather incompetant. I only listed the Greens and Libertarians as examples anyway. My point is that we limit ourselves ridiculously so. I know that if Vetalia were running for President, for example, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat because he's got the soundest head on his shoulders when it comes to the economy that I've seen from anyone I've interacted with ever. Right now, the two parties are basically identical in terms of the political spectrum and how they control the U.S. They only care about power. Now I'm not going to say that other parties wouldn't do they same if they were in the position to do so, because they would. It's why I'm an Independent and not a member of a political party. I just think we need to stop limiting ourselves.

'Course, most of the problem is actually the two parties in control refusing to have anything to do with other parties or independents. The candidates always refuse to engage in a debate with other candidates, for one. (Mainly because the debates are just used as a way to get sound bites out there rather than actually debate the issues. Makes me sick.)

I beg to differ. I find that most Republicrats, to quote Europa Maxima, rather incompetant.
Sir, I dub thee the master of understatement! A bit incompetent? :p I agree with everything you said though.

Nah, not worth the time. Now Reagan on the other hand... :)

Anyway, the only acceptable Republican by my standards is Ron Paul.

I remember Reagan. He was a GW that could speak and smile. The legend that has developed in the realm of the far right has nothing to do with reality. He started the nation on a 28 year death spin into disaster. And we have at least 2 of those 28 left. The policies of GW are just his policies without the charisma.

This isn't really just about potential Republican presidents. This is about you, what party you may belong to (or have more in common with) and who you might find to be acceptable as President of the United States even though they belong to a party that mostly disgusts you, like the Republicans do me.

I had heard this guy being interviewed on KNPR and he seemed to have a good head on his shoulders. I don't know about a lot of his policies but he seemed like the kind of guy that would work with everyone to come up with the best solution for any given problem. I agree with his stance on how Iraq should be split though I don't agree with him that the war was teh right thing to do.

If I had to accept a Republican President again, I might not care so much if it was Tommy Thompson (http://tommy2008.com/Home.aspx)

Who would you be willing to accept as President if you didnt get your pick in there?

The Democrats are too ignorant, and the Republicans are just stupid. Both parties can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

The Democrats are too ignorant, and the Republicans are just stupid. Both parties can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

Democrats aren't the ones pushing Intelligent Design and denying global warming and starting unnecessary wars. You can call them lots of things, but ignorant isn't one of them.

It never ceases to amaze me how the most hardcore Republicans can act as though they reside in the majority of public opinion when the last election clearly showed them to be currently on the fringes. But then again, you folks still believe Bush is doing a good job, so it's not a wonder that you're far from reality.

I'm an Ex-Republican, and I fell insulted by this: "But then again, you folks still believe Bush is doing a good job, so it's not a wonder that you're far from reality." Mainly: "you folks still believe Bush is doing a good job"

HOW DARE YOU?!?!?

How about we dig up Eisenhower's corpse and give him a chance to run again. He was pretty good last time around.
Last good president we had.

I'm an Ex-Republican, and I fell insulted by this: "But then again, you folks still believe Bush is doing a good job, so it's not a wonder that you're far from reality." Mainly: "you folks still believe Bush is doing a good job"

HOW DARE YOU?!?!?

Here's the key--you said you're an ex-Republican and I was talking about hardcore Republicans. See the difference? It's not exactly subtle.

Dem's I'd vote for if the Reps run a bad candidate: Clark and maybe Obama.

How about we dig up Eisenhower's corpse and give him a chance to run again. He was pretty good last time around.

I like Zombie Ike! (I like zombie Goldwater better...)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/ClintEastwood.jpg
(He'd) Make my day.

A good solid libertarian. (http://www.libertarianrock.com/clint.html) (Plus when he was mayor, he repealed the anti-ice cream law in Carmel! :) )

Didn't Nixon start the War on Drugs?

He coined the term, but the US war on drugs has been going since 1880.

(Also, a map cannot be upside-down, it is merely a Northern-centric cultural bias that leads you to assume that our nations belong at the top of a map.)

That's beautiful in it's near parody of PCness.

Anyway, the only acceptable Republican by my standards is Ron Paul.

The only presidential candidate I've met personally - a great guy.

Dem's I'd vote for if the Reps run a bad candidate: Clark and maybe Obama.
So it's pretty much a given you'll be voting for a Dem? ;)

Here's the key--you said you're an ex-Republican and I was talking about hardcore Republicans. See the difference? It's not exactly subtle.

Uh, dude, listen. Hard Core Reps HATE Bush. Why? Because there is no way in hell he is anywhere near a "Hard Core Republican".
He is a Republicrat, like the rest of 'em.
See, Republicans don't all massively support a candidate like the Dems did with Clinton. It's just Bush vs. Kerry was "Dumb and DumbER".

like the Dems did with Clinton.

You're funny.

So it's pretty much a given you'll be voting for a Dem? ;)

Nah, there're some good potential ones out there, especially if the elephants answer the wake up call they got in November.
I'm hoping for Rudy at the moment. Dr. Paul would be even better. And McCain... well that'll depend. I might hold my nose and ignore his disgraceful playing kissy face with the nutters. Andd one more - Hagel.

Uh, dude, listen. Hard Core Reps HATE Bush. Why? Because there is no way in hell he is anywhere near a "Hard Core Republican".
He is a Republicrat, like the rest of 'em.
See, Republicans don't all massively support a candidate like the Dems did with Clinton. It's just Bush vs. Kerry was "Dumb and DumbER".

The polls call you mistaken. It's the evangelical base who hasn't deserted him. Pretty much everyone else has.

Uh, dude, listen. Hard Core Reps HATE Bush. Why? Because there is no way in hell he is anywhere near a "Hard Core Republican".
He is a Republicrat, like the rest of 'em.
See, Republicans don't all massively support a candidate like the Dems did with Clinton. It's just Bush vs. Kerry was "Dumb and DumbER".

The bit that bugs me is how the Bushies seem to be able to get away wqith the whole RINO business, when Bush is really the RINO when one looks at more trad. GOP pesidents.

You're funny.

Well, if I'm wrong (and it would be amazing if I was, after how Clinton's approval went-up after he left office...you do know I was talking about FORMER PRESIDENT Clinton, correct? Using male and female terms can get confusing with those two) then maybe the Dems aren't so dumb after-all. maybe we both just have retards running for office falsly representing the parties.

Uh, dude, listen. Hard Core Reps HATE Bush. Why? Because there is no way in hell he is anywhere near a "Hard Core Republican".
He is a Republicrat, like the rest of 'em.
See, Republicans don't all massively support a candidate like the Dems did with Clinton. It's just Bush vs. Kerry was "Dumb and DumbER".

Then who are those 30% or so that still support Bush?

And who are those 20% flip-floppers who voted for Bush, then a month later abandon him?

Third, when you know you have a total failure in office and you have someone who MAY be a failure running against him. Why would anyone vote for the known loser over the possible loser? At least if you voted for the possible failure, you have a chance of improvement, and if he's no good vote him out in 4 years.

If I had to accept a Republican President again, I might not care so much if it was Tommy Thompson (http://tommy2008.com/Home.aspx)

Trust me...you would care.

He left this state in a budget fuck-up of epic proportions. His economic policies during his 14 years as Wisconsin's governor created budget deficits that have yet to be fully resolved after six years, and have forced the current governor to trim or eliminate many programs enacted by Thompson that were actually worthwhile.

If you like Bush's policy of Tax cuts combined with record spending levels, then Thompson is your man.

Well, if I'm wrong (and it would be amazing if I was, after how Clinton's approval went-up after he left office...you do know I was talking about FORMER PRESIDENT Clinton, correct?

Yes.

The former president Clinton who was repeatedly attacked from the left for his support for NAFTA, his intervention in Kosovo, his "welfare reform", his "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, his bombing of Iraq, and a number of other things.

Not to mention his cheerleading for Bush on the Iraq War - though I suppose that was after he left office.

Then who are those 30% or so that still support Bush?

And who are those 20% flip-floppers who voted for Bush, then a month later abandon him?

Third, when you know you have a total failure in office and you have someone who MAY be a failure running against him. Why would anyone vote for the known loser over the possible loser? At least if you voted for the possible failure, you have a chance of improvement, and if he's no good vote him out in 4 years.

First Answer: I DEMAND PROOF!

Second: Well, even if Bush is a moron, he's better then Kerry.

Third: I've read a considerable amount on Kerry, and he is, in fact, worse then Bush.

The polls call you mistaken. It's the evangelical base who hasn't deserted him. Pretty much everyone else has.

Well the fundies are just plain crashing the party (in more ways than one). Good old Barry warned of the threat, but the GOP made their pact with the minions of Satan anyway.

Yes.

The former president Clinton who was repeatedly attacked from the left for his support for NAFTA, his intervention in Kosovo, his "welfare reform", his "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, his bombing of Iraq, and a number of other things.

Not to mention his cheerleading for Bush on the Iraq War - though I suppose that was after he left office.

Great, then we both agree that he's a twit.

Great, then we both agree that he's a twit.

Yes, but I bet for substantially different reasons.

I remember Reagan. He was a GW that could speak and smile. The legend that has developed in the realm of the far right has nothing to do with reality. He started the nation on a 28 year death spin into disaster. And we have at least 2 of those 28 left. The policies of GW are just his policies without the charisma.

Pretty much. Except Bush panders even more to the religious right. Without ray-gun there wouldn't be Dubya though.

Condi Rice

Ann Coulter

Colin Powell

Milt Romney

Jeb Bush:p :p :p

First Answer: I DEMAND PROOF!You need a lesson in logic.

Second: Well, even if Bush is a moron, he's better then Kerry.
Define better. Better at what--mismanaging an unnecessary war? I'll concede that much. Better at using family connections to avoid service in Vietnam? Sure. Better at running things into the ground and then begging for Daddy to bail his ass out? Absolutely. I can do this all day if you want.

Third: I've read a considerable amount on Kerry, and he is, in fact, worse then Bush.
See above.

Anyway, the only acceptable Republican by my standards is Ron Paul.

Same here.

As an Englishman and Guardian reader I feel it is my duty to comment on every US electoral debate, in fact, to tell you how to vote. I know you weren't mad keen last time, but let's face it, we were right and you were wrong...
Anyway, there's an obvious solution here. Vote for Osama Bin Laden himself!
Then, when he turns up, you arrest him, and hand over all power to the House of Representatives, scrapping the Electoral College and turning the Senate into an equivalent of our House of Lords, and make Nancy Pelosi Prime Minister of the United States of America.
Problem solved!

As an Englishman and Guardian reader I feel it is my duty to comment on every US electoral debate, in fact, to tell you how to vote. I know you weren't mad keen last time, but let's face it, we were right and you were wrong...
Anyway, there's an obvious solution here. Vote for Osama Bin Laden himself!
Then, when he turns up, you arrest him, and hand over all power to the House of Representatives, scrapping the Electoral College and turning the Senate into an equivalent of our House of Lords, and make Nancy Pelosi Prime Minister of the United States of America.
Problem solved!

o.O

Come on people. You know I'm talking sense. My chair agrees. Don't you, Chairy?

Chairy says yes, she does, vote Osama now.

Condi Rice
Bushevik. So no.

Ann Coulter
Complete and utter ****. So no.

Colin Powell
Could be better used for target practice. So no.

Milt Romney
Don't know enough about him, so no.

Jeb Bush:p :p :p
Related to the Shrub, so no.

As an Englishman and Guardian reader I feel it is my duty to comment on every US electoral debate, in fact, to tell you how to vote. I know you weren't mad keen last time, but let's face it, we were right and you were wrong...
Anyway, there's an obvious solution here. Vote for Osama Bin Laden himself!
Then, when he turns up, you arrest him, and hand over all power to the House of Representatives, scrapping the Electoral College and turning the Senate into an equivalent of our House of Lords, and make Nancy Pelosi Prime Minister of the United States of America.
Problem solved!
*Throws organic beans at the TV*
Ahhhhh, too weak!

Who would you be willing to accept as President if you didnt get your pick in there?
At this point, I have zero respect for anybody who is willing to belong to the same political party as George W. Bush. Any club that will have the Chimperor as a member is a club that no self-respecting human being would belong to. If the Republican party is prepared to tolerate that sort of filth, then it's sunk waaaaaaaaaaay below my minimum standards.

John McCain, as he resembles the dominant part of the original Republican Party platform and ideals...which would be financial conservatism and moderate light libertarianism, not the neoconservative branch of the Republican Party which President George W. Bush belongs to, at least from what I know...

John McCain, as he resembles the dominant part of the original Republican Party platform and ideals...which would be financial conservatism and moderate light libertarianism, not the neoconservative branch of the Republican Party which President George W. Bush belongs to, at least from what I know...
You have eleven months to educate yourself before the primaries start. I suggest you get started, because you have a lot to learn.

Pretty much. Except Bush panders even more to the religious right. Without ray-gun there wouldn't be Dubya though.

I agree, that's part of that death spin. Not to mention what removing the tax deductions for energy conservation did on 9/11. And what the tinkle down economics did for the middle class.

John McCain, as he resembles the dominant part of the original Republican Party platform and ideals...which would be financial conservatism and moderate light libertarianism, not the neoconservative branch of the Republican Party which President George W. Bush belongs to, at least from what I know...

A couple years ago I would have agreed, but he's taken a hard turn to the right. I guess to get nominated. I have trouble with people that sell out like that.

Condi Rice

Ann Coulter

Colin Powell

Milt Romney

Jeb Bush:p :p :p

You forgot Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh for president!

A couple years ago I would have agreed, but he's taken a hard turn to the right. I guess to get nominated. I have trouble with people that sell out like that.

What? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Apparently you don't pay too much attention; everyone who wants to be even considered to be a possible candide, by necessity, must lean hard to either the left or the right to satisfy the hard-liners who will be voting in the primaries.

And the Democrats do it just as much as the Republicans (although, sometimes I wonder if they just aren't showing their true colors).

I'm going for Oxy. He may be a moron, but at least he's honest.

What? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Apparently you don't pay too much attention; everyone who wants to be even considered to be a possible candide, by necessity, must lean hard to either the left or the right to satisfy the hard-liners who will be voting in the primaries.

And the Democrats do it just as much as the Republicans (although, sometimes I wonder if they just aren't showing their true colors).

I'd rather have a left-wing idiot in the White House than a right-wing idiot. And anyway, we've already had six years of right-wing idiocy, with two more to go, it's time to swing the other way!

I'd rather have a left-wing idiot in the White House than a right-wing idiot. And anyway, we've already had six years of right-wing idiocy, with two more to go, it's time to swing the other way!

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

Apparently you don't pay too much attention; everyone who wants to be even considered to be a possible candide, by necessity, must lean hard to either the left or the right to satisfy the hard-liners who will be voting in the primaries.

Thus Kerry, Gore, and Clinton?

Are you serious?

Thus Kerry, Gore, and Clinton?

Are you serious?

...Ya. When they were appealing to their party, do you really think they were as moderate as they are/claim to be?

...Ya. When they were appealing to their party, do you really think they were as moderate as they are/claim to be?

You mean, "did they act as moderate in the primaries as they did during the general election?"

Of course not. So? That does not justify your assertion that candidates must "lean hard" to the left or right to be nominated.

You mean, "did they act as moderate in the primaries as they did during the general election?"

Of course not. So? That does not justify your assertion that candidates must "lean hard" to the left or right to be nominated.

No, that's what I meant. If you're not willing to lean far to the right/left for the primaries, don't even bother running, you won't get anywhere.

If you're not willing to lean far to the right/left for the primaries, don't even bother running, you won't get anywhere.

Can you provide specific examples to support that assertion?

Certainly, during the primaries, candidates must respond to attacks from the left (or the right, depending on the party), but it hardly amounts to leaning "far" in that direction.

Last time I checked I didn't see any Democratic candidates waving red flags or calling for the expropriation of the capitalist class.

...Ya. When they were appealing to their party, do you really think they were as moderate as they are/claim to be?The hard-left candidate in that field was Kucinich. Everyone else was moderate to center-left, which is why there was so little excitement for any of them. Since that election, Edwards has moved left on economic issues, but is about where he was on social ones, which is to say pretty centrist.

The hard-left candidate in that field was Kucinich. Everyone else was moderate to center-left, which is why there was so little excitement for any of them. Since that election, Edwards has moved left on economic issues, but is about where he was on social ones, which is to say pretty centrist.

Kucinich wasn't that far left. Further to the left than the others, but not hard left.

I agree, that's part of that death spin. Not to mention what removing the tax deductions for energy conservation did on 9/11. And what the tinkle down economics did for the middle class.

Yeah, we got tinkled on.

Certainly, during the primaries, candidates must respond to attacks from the left (or the right, depending on the party), but it hardly amounts to leaning "far" in that direction.

OK, sorry, I was trying to keep this simple

Last time I checked I didn't see any Democratic candidates waving red flags or calling for the expropriation of the capitalist class.

Maybe they have a secret :eek:

Kucinich wasn't that far left. Further to the left than the others, but not hard left.

For the US, he's pretty hard left.

For the US, he's pretty hard left.

That's really not saying much.