NationStates Jolt Archive

So, who would you most like to be president, and of the candidates that you do not like, who do you feel would do the least damage?

I would most like Ron Paul to be President. He is the one exception to the Gang of 535 in that he is not a political prostitute.

The best of the worst candidates for me is Hillary Clinton. She has basically no friends on the right, and the hard left of her party is rather displeased with her. I feel all of the candidates with any chance of victory are a danger. But the other major candidates have some level of charisma and party unity, but Hillary does not have either. She would have the least political capital to do damage with.

Howard Dean

Ah, the choice between the giant douche and the turd sandwich. So grand.

Preferred Candidate: Al Gore
Still Preferred, But Less Preferred Candidate: Barack Obama
Least Favorite Dem: John Edwards. I like him, but I'm sick of the shit his supporters like to throw.
Least Favorite Candidate: John "Just a Stroll" McCain

Right now the "least worst" is Obama. Just wish he had about 10 years more experience.

Hillary has too great a hate factor. Need new blood. Would be under constant attack. Couldn't work with Reps.

Edwards just doesn't have that "it" factor that a leader needs.

McCain too old too sick. We tried that with Reagan.

Giuliani not trustworthy. Too many scandals. Health problems.

I used to be a McCain supporter - but the crap that has come out of his mouth the last few months has surprised and disappointed me.

I would pick Al Gore over just about everybody - but there is very little chance of him running.

So.... Obama, Hillary or Rudy G.

I give the nod to Rudy.

A Hillary administration would be just too divisive. Not to mention her total lack of charisma.

Obama is just too inexperienced. After Bush, can we afford any more novices?

Rudy is liberal enough for the mainstream and just barely conservative enough to placate the Republicans. He also exudes competence - a trait that, after Bush, should be seen as a big plus.

Eric Cartman.

I love that what others perceive as a vice in Hillary, I see as a virtue.

Is "no one" an option?

I love that what others perceive as a vice in Hillary, I see as a virtue.

I give her this much--she's had every bullshit charge possible thrown at her over the last twenty years and she's still got negatives lower than 50%. That takes some doing, politically speaking. And I'd vote for her happily in the general over any Republican now running or likely to jump into the race, without question.

But she's not my ideal candidate. Of the people currently running, I'm between Edwards and Obama. If Gore gets into the race, that changes everything. I think a Gore-Obama ticket might win 35 states, given the likely competition.

I hear talk about "experience" but really, that's nonsense. The very idea that there is any job at all like the Presidency is fairly silly. Most Presidents have to learn on the run. Moreover, if you look, Barrack Obama has years of experience as a State Legislator, community organizer, and as the President of the Harvard Law Review. This man has experience in management and in organization: the real important traits for the Presidency. I think that when the word "experience" is used, what is really meant is "insider status", and, seeing what insiders have done to the nation, I am forced to note that insiders seem like a bad idea to me.

And, on the subject of Rudy Giulliani, I'd like to note that the man is a nepotist, and a corrupt, mostly incompetant man who, if it weren't for 9/11 would have never accounted for anything.

Is "no one" an option?

That goes under the "Eric Cartman" option, by default.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12552485&postcount=7

That goes under the "Eric Cartman" option, by default.

Eric Cartman?

I think I'll pass on that one, too.

What, can't you respect his authoritah?
He's a real go-getter, of sorts. Not much of a flip-flopper.

He couldn't be much worse then the folks we've had in the white house for the past century and a half.

EDIT: A step to the left...a step to the right...

Eric Cartman?

I think I'll pass on that one, too.

What, can't you respect his authoritah?
He's a real go-getter, of sorts. Not much of a flip-flopper.

What, can't you respect his authoritah?

He would probably find me laughable.

I just find him disgusting.

He's a real go-getter, of sorts. Not much of a flip-flopper.

Steadfastness is not always a good thing.

Most Preferred: John Cox, just so we can have president cox :D
Least Worst Preferred: Mcain
Least Preferred: Hillary Clinton

He would probably find me laughable.

I just find him disgusting.

Steadfastness is not always a good thing.Quite remniscient of current circumstances, imnsho.

*Whoa, there's an episode that covers both statements, methinks - the WoW one. *nods emphatically*

My preferred: The Green Party nor any of the other left-wing parties, haven't to my knowledge, announced candidates yet. So I'll have to go with Obama here.
Least worst: Giuliani. He seems to be the least socially authoritarian of the Republicans.

Is "no one" an option?

I don't see why not.

I would most like Ron Paul to be President.

Agreed.

Senator Arnold Vinick is my preferred candidate for president.

I think a John McCain presidency would be great for Japan and other US allies (which is why I secretly wish that he would become the president), but I don't think he would be great for the US (which is why I don't actively promote the idea of his presidency).

Ron Paul is the man I'd like to see leading the US. I don't see this happening, but one never knows. The least worst candidate would be Guliani as far as I am concerned.

I want Jesse Ventura for President.

Of the candidates already running, my least unpalatable would be Rudy Giuliani. Any political leader with the guts and sense of humor to appear on national television in drag and to play a cab driver badmouthing 'Frickin Giuliani', has got my vote. :)

My favorite candidate? Obama

My second favorite Dem? Edwards.

Of the Republicans, the one I hate least is McCain.

So, who would you most like to be president, and of the candidates that you do not like, who do you feel would do the least damage?
Obama and McCain.

So, who would you most like to be president, and of the candidates that you do not like, who do you feel would do the least damage?

I would most like Ron Paul to be President. He is the one exception to the Gang of 535 in that he is not a political prostitute.



Ron Paul, yes.



The best of the worst candidates for me is Hillary Clinton. She has basically no friends on the right, and the hard left of her party is rather displeased with her. .

I really, but really, hope you're right.

in Germany? Most preferred... whoever runs for chancellor in my party, least preferred Schäuble.

in the USA: Most preferred: rms, least preferred: any lobby-obeying fundamentalist.

in Germany? Most preferred... whoever runs for chancellor in my party, least preferred Schäuble.

in the USA: Most preferred: rms, least preferred: any lobby-obeying fundamentalist.

My preferred: The Green Party nor any of the other left-wing parties, haven't to my knowledge, announced candidates yet. So I'll have to go with Obama here.
Least worst: Giuliani. He seems to be the least socially authoritarian of the Republicans.

Well, Giuliani said he was pro-choice and pro-gay rights when he was running for office in NYC; less so now. But when it comes to being authoritarian politically, he's right up there with Dubya.

is gore running???

Prefered (assuming gores not running)-Obama
2nd place-Edwards
3rd place-Hillary
4thplace-Mcain
5th place-any other republican canadaite.

so the question isn't "who's the best candidate?" anymore, it's "Who's the least worse?" :confused:

my favorite candidate is bill richardson--the man who just went on a mission to take possession of remains of US soldiers who died in the korean war and left with an agreement for the north koreans to dismantle their nuclear reactor.

if he cant be president, we need him as secretary of state no matter who wins.

my least sucky republican candidate is rudy giuliani. he would probably do a reasonable job.

What, can't you respect his authoritah?
He's a real go-getter, of sorts. Not much of a flip-flopper.

Cartman's authoritah' is illegitimate.

That said, my current favorite presidential candidate is Elaine Brown. She's trying to get the Green Party nomination, and was also the last chair(wo)man of the Black Panthers.

so the question isn't "who's the best candidate?" anymore, it's "Who's the least worse?" :confused:

If you'd talked to me a year ago, it would have been the best. But I am now so disillusioned with the political system that I am only interested in cutting my losses.

I really, but really, hope you're right.

I think I am, there's been a lot of Hillary-hating at leftie rallies. Hopefully she'll have a presidency that is as impotent as Carter's was.

in the USA: Most preferred: rms, least preferred: any lobby-obeying fundamentalist.


*takes Rejistania aside and gives her a lecture on the positive value of American Evangelicals as the strategic allies of libertarian Republicans and Libertarians*[/quote]

Among the Dems I prefer John Edwards, followed by Barack Obama. I don't buy into a Hillary candidacy, not because she is female, but because she is clearly divisive. Bill Richardson is my third choice.

McCain in the span of 7 years has gone from respected Senator and excellent candidate for President to alarming kookburger. He's flat lost it. By far the least desirable choice for President.

Most attractive Republican. Rudy. Not accounting for McCain, I detest Mitt Romney with all of my soul and hope he falters fast and early.

Great, so your favorite candidate is a racist.

Um, why?

Cartman's authoritah' is illegitimate.

That said, my current favorite presidential candidate is Elaine Brown. She's trying to get the Green Party nomination, and was also the last chair(wo)man of the Black Panthers.

Great, so your favorite candidate is a racist.

Um, why?

Re-read Trotskylvania's post. Specifically, the part regarding the Black Panthers.

Re-read Trotskylvania's post. Specifically, the part regarding the Black Panthers.

I read it right the first time.

The Black Panther Party was not racist - not in ideology, anyway.

I read it right the first time.

The Black Panther Party was not racist - not in ideology, anyway.

They were extremely racist. They were basically a black version of the KKK, except whereas the KKK were mostly terrorists, the BP were mostly hooligans and gangsters.

They were basically a black version of the KKK

The BPP advocated the liberation of an oppressed group.

The KKK advocated the continued oppression of that oppressed group.

Only if these two objectives are morally equivalent could even the beginnings of such a claim be justified.

I would most like Ron Paul to be President.

With you 100% Is anyone else in the one party system worth voting for?


Gore: currently involved with a company that is trying to convince big buissnesses to give them money so that they'll be seen as caring by idiot sheep that can't think clearly but have very strong feelings.

McCain: Famous for being a POW (where he turned on his fellow Americans faster than most), the McCain Fiengold act, which has done so much to reduce corruption in politcs, and in general being good at making headlines when he wants his name in the paper.

Clinton: Socialized health care, ending private firearms ownership, and in general dragging the US down to the ninth circle of hell, that's what Hillary is all about.

Gulianni: A New York City conservitive, which means he wants to lock up both pot smokers and gun owners, while taxing us all to death.

Obama: When he was running for Senate he was presented as an amazing man by Newsweek. I read the seven or so page article and learned that he was the son son of an immagrant and believed in responsibility and grassroots action. (no details on positions though, just good old-fashoned platitudes that everyone can get behind)

Romney: Said that he identified strongly with the Mexican illegal aliens because he's Mormon and Mormons have big families too. Yeah, base national policy on your religion's traditions. Or more acurrately: Suck up to people that can not legally vote in hopes of getting their (illegal) vote. Either way, it sucks.

Everyone else: more of the same. If Tancredo is stil running, he's got at least one thing right, but he still doesn't believe in following the US constitution. Ron Paul looks like he's the only one.

Obama: When he was running for Senate he was presented as an amazing man by Newsweek. I read the seven or so page article and learned that he was the son son of an immagrant and believed in responsibility and grassroots action. (no details on positions though, just good old-fashoned platitudes that everyone can get behind)

I read his platform. It is so generic, it might as well have been just "Barack Obama loves kittens!"

Ségolène Royal. When pitted against the likes of Sarkozy, she is the only choice one deems acceptable.

Barack Obama. I've read "Dreams from My Father" and i now love him. I believe he can do America a lot of good, escpecially after eight horrible years of Bush.

Ségolène Royal. When pitted against the likes of Sarkozy, she is the only choice one deems acceptable.

She's a wee bit 'Father Knows Best' socialist for my liking, but she looks a little like Jeana Yeager whom I greatly respect. *nod*

pretty much any dem.
clinton would be horrible, as would obama. this next election will be a joke, because people will either be voting for the first woman or first black president. while overlooking the fact that neither of them are any good.
i am balck. and a republican. and 15. the state of the party now is abysmal. maybe romney, but he's a mormon.

Barack Obama. I've read "Dreams from My Father" and i now love him. I believe he can do America a lot of good, escpecially after eight horrible years of Bush.
Anybody could do America a lot of good compared to eight years of Bush.

And this is where people mention Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Oprah...

They were extremely racist. They were basically a black version of the KKK, except whereas the KKK were mostly terrorists, the BP were mostly hooligans and gangsters.

Uhh, no. The Black Panthers were not racist, nor where they "hooligans and gansters". The Black Panthers spent more time helping their communities then almost any other group (picking up trash, keep the real thugs at bay etc.)

There Ten Point Program isn't anything racist.

1. We want power to determine the destiny of our black and oppressed communities.
2. We want full employment for our people.
3. We want an end to the robbery
4. We want decent housing, fit for the shelter of human beings.
5. We want decent education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present-day society.
6. We want completely free health care for all black and oppressed people.
7. We want an immediate end to police brutality and murder of black people, other people of color, all oppressed people inside the United States.
8. We want an immediate end to all wars of aggression.
9. We want freedom for all black and oppressed people now held in U. S. Federal, state, county, city and military prisons and jails. We want trials by a jury of peers for all persons charged with so-called crimes under the laws of this country.
10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice, peace and people's community control of modern technology.

– The Ten Point Program (October 15, 1966)

Howard Dean

Seconded. Too bad he isn't running.

To me, and to many of my European counterparts, the American Democracy leaves little choice does it not? Chosing between two people only really leaves you with a choice between evil and a little less evil sometimes. Kerry and Bush were both assholes, but Kerry was slightly better.

So my choice would be:

Clinton

or if it need be a republican: McCain.

To me, and to many of my European counterparts, the American Democracy leaves little choice does it not? Chosing between two people only really leaves you with a choice between evil and a little less evil sometimes. Kerry and Bush were both assholes, but Kerry was slightly better.

So my choice would be:

Clinton

or if it need be a republican: McCain.

Why do you hate America?

Why do you hate America?

I don't its a beautiful country, the people are great (believe it or not I have many American friends from when I lived there) but the political system in my mind is absolutely well... odd. Isn't it odd that when you ellect a president in Say a state with 18 electoral points, and in that state 49% votes republican but that all 18 electoral points go to the democratic candidate?

I just like the European system a whole lot better, more choice... You don't just get to chose between, no euthenasia or yes euthenasia but you also get the choice of yes but only when.... or yes but only if... or yes but only after...

See when you have a war, and my country says: we want you to honor the Geneva convention, and the USA responds with: "well invade your country if you persecute american troops for not doing so in the International Court of Justice". And when the USA claims Germany and France to be the "old Europe" just because they don't lick your nations heels. It's hard for the political system of the USA to be applauded.

I don't its a beautiful country, the people are great (believe it or not I have many American friends from when I lived there) but the political system in my mind is absolutely well... odd. Isn't it odd that when you ellect a president in Say a state with 18 electoral points, and in that state 49% votes republican but that all 18 electoral points go to the democratic candidate?

I just like the European system a whole lot better, more choice... You don't just get to chose between, no euthenasia or yes euthenasia but you also get the choice of yes but only when.... or yes but only if... or yes but only after...

Then why Clinton and McCain?

Because clinton is the one that looks out for the American healthcare and education system which needs attention, and because Clinton is not one who forces christian beliefs on non-christians. No problem with christianity (besides the fact that I dont believe in it) but I do have a problem with Chrisitians that want non-christians to follow their beliefs.

And McCain because he doesnt want to violate for example the Geneva convention just because their enemies do. In otherwords McCain (unlike Bush) is against lowering the US moral standards just because it's enemies are doing it. And I agree. Why? If America fights terrorists for what they do to America, it would be hypocrite for America to do the same thing to others it would make America not much better.

Then why Clinton and McCain?

Those are probably the two worst candidates possible. Even the turd sandwich would be better.

Uhh, no. The Black Panthers were not racist, nor where they "hooligans and gansters". The Black Panthers spent more time helping their communities then almost any other group (picking up trash, keep the real thugs at bay etc.)

There Ten Point Program isn't anything racist.

What do you think of the New Black Panthers?

Obama, Gore, Kucinich, Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, McCain.


That's who I'd like to run, in that order.

Romney would be too easy for the Dems. Turn the flip-flopper charge right around at them.

So, who would you most like to be president,

Olivier Besancenot. I'll be voting for him in the first round of the Presidential election this Sunday.

If he weren't there, my vote would probably go to Marie-George Buffet.


and of the candidates that you do not like, who do you feel would do the least damage?


Hmmm... François Bayrou, I think.

The BPP advocated the liberation of an oppressed group.

The KKK advocated the continued oppression of that oppressed group.

Only if these two objectives are morally equivalent could even the beginnings of such a claim be justified.

BPP = racist thugs
KKK = racist thugs

Olivier Besancenot. I'll be voting for him in the first round of the Presidential election this Sunday.

If he weren't there, my vote would probably go to Marie-George Buffet.



Hmmm... François Bayrou, I think.

I don't really care for any of the candidates, but I find Besancenot and Voynet to be mildly interesting. I do agree that Bayrou would probably actually suck the least.

Uhh, no. The Black Panthers were not racist, nor where they "hooligans and gansters". The Black Panthers spent more time helping their communities then almost any other group (picking up trash, keep the real thugs at bay etc.)

There Ten Point Program isn't anything racist.

You need to do a few things:

A) Study the real history of the Black Panthers, not the whitewashed propaganda leftoids produce
B) Separate their rhetoric from their actions

I don't really care for any of the candidates, but I find Besancenot and Voynet to be mildly interesting. I do agree that Bayrou would probably actually suck the least.
Likewise. I think they are all terrible. I suppose I take more to Sarkozy than any of the other candidates though. I dislike both his rival, Royale (the person I'd least like to see governing France), and Le Pen. When given the option between the plague and cholera though...

Well, Giuliani said he was pro-choice and pro-gay rights when he was running for office in NYC; less so now. But when it comes to being authoritarian politically, he's right up there with Dubya.That's what I meant - his earlier stated positions. Of course, he'll have to backtrack on them if he tries running nationally.

BPP = racist thugs
KKK = racist thugs

Blah, blah, blah...

Do you have an argument yet?

What do you think of the New Black Panthers?

Well, after Wiki'ing them and visiting their site, I think they are a bunch of morons. They don't seem to understand history very well, and seem like the attitude of Huey Newton dressed up to fit a modern hip-hop audience.

You need to do a few things:

A) Study the real history of the Black Panthers, not the whitewashed propaganda leftoids produce
B) Separate their rhetoric from their actions

Okay, let's seperate rhetoric from actions. The Black Panther's rhetoric (as a group mind you. There where racists within the group, but that doesn't make the group racist by default) states that they want socialism, direct democracy, health care and safety from the police. Their actions: feeding impoverished black children breakfast, suppressing crime in their neighborhoods, generic social activism. That's not racist, nor is it an example of thuggery. Individuals in the group committed some violent acts, but that was condemned by the Black Panthers.

Hell, they later dropped Black Nationalism in favor of "intercommunalism" and allowed people of all races to join before they ended withering away.

Dennis Kucinich.

I don't care much for his ideas about Kyoto, but I see single payer healthcare as an absolute necessity for economic reasons.

Also, I have reason to believe he will be cool about weed.

Everyone else leaves me cold, with the exception of Ron Paul, because he's funny.

It doesn't really matter anyway. I'm sure the one of the Goldman Sachs candidates (Clinton/Obama) are going to win barring a black swan moment.

Well, after Wiki'ing them and visiting their site, I think they are a bunch of morons. They don't seem to understand history very well, and seem like the attitude of Huey Newton dressed up to fit a modern hip-hop audience.

OK. What do you think of David Horowitz?

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H.L. Mencken. I'd never noticed your sig before.