NationStates Jolt Archive

For the 2008 presidency I elect :confused:

For the 2008 presidency I elect :confused:

You can't serve more than two terms, so you can't elect George again.

I elect Ann Coulter, and Glen Beck.

Lassie for president of Benin.

I can pick anybody?

Dennis Kuicinich and former Senator Bob Krueger.

I elect Obama and Giuliani

Me, myself, and I!

Other, we have horrible selections right now.

Either Obama or Mit Romney. I'm still on the fence though. If Fred Thompson jumps in I'll concider him as well. He seems to know more of what the people want then anybody else running.

whoever the Green's eventually decide to put forward/LG running with Fass

Whoever the libertarian party puts forth.

Either Obama or Mit Romney. I'm still on the fence though. If Fred Thompson jumps in I'll concider him as well. He seems to know more of what the people want then anybody else running.

Watch a lot of cable news do ya?

Me. I'd pick one of my friends for vice president.

Not really, of course... but I can't think of anyone else.

Noam Chomsky for prez.
Jello Biafra for VP.

Santa Claus

Obama/Dodd.

Watch a lot of cable news do ya?

No. I take democracy seriously so I do my own research about a candadite. I refuse to allow anyone, other then myself, to tell me who I should vote for. I want to know why I need to vote for any candidate.

It's not enough for them to say, "I''l do x". I want them to say how they will accomplish x.

Whoever the libertarian party puts forth.

I heard that the Libertarians wouldn't run a candidate if Ron Paul runs as a Republican.

Anyways, Ron Paul. Otherwise, the Libertarian candidate.

Ron Paul and Neal Boortz!

Obama as President and Stephen Colbert as Vice President because the US Americans need to get their entertainment on.

Gore/Schwartzenegger.

Now, that'd be a pair :D

For the 2008 presidency I elect :confused:

John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

I heard that the Libertarians wouldn't run a candidate if Ron Paul runs as a Republican.


The Libertarians are barely a party anyway. It's about time they get reabsorbed back into the Mother Party. Neofeudal Company Towns 2008!

My choices are "Clinton/Obama 2008" or "Giuliani/Romney 2008"



...



Guess I'll be voting for "no selection" (currently leading the "Decline to State" party nomination bid by 100%)

Stewart/colbert 2008!

Richardson/Obama.

Richardson has the experience, let the kid from Chicago get experience.

Oh, and make the Department of Peace part of the Cabinet and put Kucinich at the head so he can build it however way he wants. It's a good enough idea, he doesn't have to be President to get it going. In fact, if he was President, he'd have a very hard time getting it off the ground.

Noam Chomsky for prez.
Jello Biafra for VP.

Get your commie ways away from my freedom!

Geraldo Rivera, with Bob Dole as his vice president.
Ileists of the world, unite!

Either Obama or Mit Romney. I'm still on the fence though. If Fred Thompson jumps in I'll concider him as well. He seems to know more of what the people want then anybody else running.

No. I take democracy seriously so I do my own research about a candadite. I refuse to allow anyone, other then myself, to tell me who I should vote for. I want to know why I need to vote for any candidate.

It's not enough for them to say, "I''l do x". I want them to say how they will accomplish x.

obama or romney i get (not that i get why you couldnt choose between them) but why thompson? what has he ever SAID that makes you think he knows anything about what the people want?

We're not a republic.

Eh. Maybe the five threads asking the same question in the last 36 hours might be merged? :p

Richardson/Obama.

Richardson has the experience, let the kid from Chicago get experience.

Oh, and make the Department of Peace part of the Cabinet and put Kucinich at the head so he can build it however way he wants. It's a good enough idea, he doesn't have to be President to get it going. In fact, if he was President, he'd have a very hard time getting it off the ground.

Kucinich? Seriously? :p

Gotta love our fringe candidates this time around though, I must say. I just read that Ron Paul was the sole vote against (with 400+ in favor) creating a medal to honor Rosa Parks. I mean, I suppose her significance to the Civil Rights Movement might be exaggerated a bit, but who opposes something like that? And I can't imagine he did it out of respect for historical accuracy, preferring someone else. :p Odd guy.

We're not a republic.
He never said you were, he just wanted to know who you'd like to see when a 2008 presidential election. Nowhere in the OP does it mention, or even imply, that they be the president of your country (or of any country, really).
Fatir could be discussing any number of Presidential positions that will be contested in 2008.
The Student Government of Flatfield High School, for instance.

If only I could get Washington as president again, Hamilton VP, the world would be good.
_________
Out of our candidates Richardson/Kucinich.

Dave Barry/Stephen Colbert

Kucinich? Seriously? :p

Gotta love our fringe candidates this time around though, I must say. I just read that Ron Paul was the sole vote against (with 400+ in favor) creating a medal to honor Rosa Parks. I mean, I suppose her significance to the Civil Rights Movement might be exaggerated a bit, but who opposes something like that? And I can't imagine he did it out of respect for historical accuracy, preferring someone else. :p Odd guy.

IIRC, he didn't want it being paid for with tax revenue, but offered to pay for the medals out of pocket if the rest of Congress would do the same. When they declined, he voted no.

Noam Chomsky for prez.

:rolleyes:

Noam Chomsky is almost enough to make me embarrassed to be an MIT alum.

In linguistics, Chomsky may be an expert, but when it comes to politics he is a horse's ass.

Pres: Giuliani
VP: Rice

Go Rudy!

For the 2008 presidency, I elect Grigory Alexeyevich Yavlinsky.

In linguistics, Chomsky may be an expert, but when it comes to politics he is a horse's ass.

You should talk.

:rolleyes:

Noam Chomsky is almost enough to make me embarrassed to be an MIT alum.

In linguistics, Chomsky may be an expert, but when it comes to politics he is a horse's ass.
How so?

I may not totally agree with all of Chomsky's views, but he's hardly a horse's ass. What's your beef?

Mike Gravel should become president! I mean... it's high time a Unitarian who compared himself to a potted plant gets into office. Or rms as president and Larry Wall as Vice.

How so?

I may not totally agree with all of Chomsky's views, but he's hardly a horse's ass. What's your beef?

He's an extreme left-wing America-hater, and from what I can tell probably a self-hating Jew as well. Whenever he opens his mouth, all you have to do is take the exact opposite view and you will be right more often that if you listened to anything short of divine revelation. I will certainly raise a glass the day he retires.

He's an extreme left-wing America-hater, and from what I can tell probably a self-hating Jew as well. Whenever he opens his mouth, all you have to do is take the exact opposite view and you will be right more often that if you listened to anything short of divine revelation. I will certainly raise a glass the day he retires.
'America-hater'. K.

And here's me thinking you had a reasoned response to intelligent political debate.

More fool me.

I want someone who will have a sensible plan for peace in the Middle East. I want someone who will understand that Plan B is not automatically twice as much gunpowder as Plan A. I want someone who won't piss ll over the Constitution and everything it stands for. I want someone who will recognize that women are more than walking, talking baby incubators. I want a domestic policy that actually helps people in need instead of trapping them in a cycle of dependence on government handouts. I want a realistic trading policy. I want decent health care for all, at affordable prices. I want realistic disaster response and recovery to be mandatory at all levels of government. I want someone to resolve the dichotomy of our 'two China' policy. (I want, I want, I want the moon, as my grandma used to say...)

Will I get any of this? I doubt it.

Chris Rock and Chris Tucker.

Press conferences would be hilarious!

We're not a republic.

I believe someone earlier said whoever the Greens put forth with you as VP (if I read correctly) You got my vote.

I just read that Ron Paul was the sole vote against (with 400+ in favor) creating a medal to honor Rosa Parks. I mean, I suppose her significance to the Civil Rights Movement might be exaggerated a bit, but who opposes something like that?


Libertarians have a reputation for being staunch supporters of the concept of "state's rights" stemming from the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. There is a concentration of Libertarians from the American South who extend the concept of "state's rights" to argue that state governments had every right to institute and legally sanction and protect human slavery and discriminatory law (Jim Crow, etc.), and that the federal government could not interfere in such because of the 10th Amendment.

I can't understand why Libertarians of any sort would advance such an argument. At the most basic level, individual human beings possess rights above and superior to any government. Thus, Libertarians are supposed to stand against the abuses of government in favor of the liberty of the individual, and yet a good many of them would at least tolerate the continued existence of slavery and discrimination because their blind hatred of government prevents them from admitting, or even considering, that in working to end legally-sanctioned oppression the U.S. Federal Government actually did something good. Between the ears of a Libertarian, government (especially the Federal Government) is only capable of doing bad.

Thus, a simple Google search makes it easy to find all sorts of examples of (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-American-History-Guides/dp/0895260476) Libertarian conspiracy theories about how ending slavery and Jim Crow makes government more powerful and abusive, was unjust government regulation and thus bad for the economy (!), etc.

Of course, the wealthy plantation owners of the South made financial fortunes on the backs of slaves and racial discrimination. Considering the general Libertarian agenda (elimination of regulation, law-of-the-jungle "market" economics) it is not difficult to see why some adherents might take the position they do vis-a-vis the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, etc. Slavery and discrimination flourished nicely in the good 'ol days of law-of-the-jungle markets.

So, in the end, Rosa Parks (and Martin Luther King, Jr., and every other member of the Civil Rights Movement), by working to end legal discrimination, and the power of those governments which instituted it, was actually just an agent of the state working to increase the government's ability to regulate, enslave, and oppress you.

...

Yes, it is pretty damn stupid.

EDIT: Other posters participating in this thread have shown that Ron Paul is not a member of the group of Libertarians described above. He just needs to try harder to not act in ways that cause people to think otherwise.

Or rms as president and Larry Wall as Vice.

The GPL'ing of the Constitution will solve the Strict Constructionist vs. Judicial Activism issue once and for all.

Libertarians have a reputation for being staunch supporters of the concept of "state's rights" stemming from the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. There is a large concentration of Libertarians from the American South (including Mr. Paul, apparently) who extend the concept of "state's rights" to argue that state governments had every right to institute and legally sanction and protect human slavery and discriminatory law (Jim Crow, etc.), and that the federal government could not interfere in such because of the 10th Amendment.

I can't understand why Libertarians of any sort would advance such an argument. At the most basic level, individual human beings possess rights above and superior to any government. Thus, Libertarians are supposed to stand against the abuses of government in favor of the liberty of the individual, and yet a good many of them would at least tolerate the continued existence of slavery and discrimination because their blind hatred of government prevents them from admitting, or even considering, that in working to end legally-sanctioned oppression the U.S. Federal Government actually did something good. Between the ears of a Libertarian, government (especially the Federal Government) is only capable of doing bad.

Thus, a simple Google search makes it easy to find all sorts of examples of (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-American-History-Guides/dp/0895260476) Libertarian conspiracy theories about how ending slavery and Jim Crow makes government more powerful and abusive, was unjust government regulation and thus bad for the economy (!), etc.

Of course, the wealthy plantation owners of the South made financial fortunes on the backs of slaves and racial discrimination. Considering the general Libertarian agenda (elimination of regulation, law-of-the-jungle "market" economics) it is not difficult to see why some adherents might take the position they do vis-a-vis the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, etc. Slavery and discrimination flourished nicely in the good 'ol days of law-of-the-jungle markets.

So, in the end, Rosa Parks (and Martin Luther King, Jr., and every other member of the Civil Rights Movement) by working to end legal discrimination, and the power of those governments which instituted it, was actually just an agent of the state working to increase the government's ability to regulate, enslave, and oppress you.

...

Yes, it is pretty damn stupid.

Eh. I'm sympathetic to some of the goals of libertarianism, even if it's still better for me to vote Republican most of the time. I haven't met any libertarians who look at the Civil Rights movement that way. That said, there's only one way people are going to interpret something like denying an honor to Rosa Parks - regardless the justification, it takes a dumb politician to vote something like that down.

Ballmer/Jobs

I haven't met any libertarians who look at the Civil Rights movement that way.


They do seem to be a minority (my previous statement about a "large concentration" is inaccurate; I was mistaking staunchness of position with actual physical number. One guy with a megaphone is still one guy. Or I just can't stand the idea that by previously regarding myself a Libertarian, I was actually establishing a common identity with such people. In that case, even only one is one far too many.)


That said, there's only one way people are going to interpret something like denying an honor to Rosa Parks - regardless the justification, it takes a dumb politician to vote something like that down.


Which is really the larger point. Regardless of a particular politician's personal beliefs (which are ultimately known only to him or her), actions such as those described are going to imply sympathy for the party's share of kooks. This is probably a bad thing. Especially when the entire party in general is widely considered kooky from the start.

A brick for president, a 36 year old Twinkie for VP. There, we have the winning team.

Homer & Krusty 2008!!!:)

Zombie Reagan for 2008!

Zombie Reagan for 2008!

A reanimated drug war and weapons-for-hostages scandal is just what the doctor ordered.

A reanimated drug war and weapons-for-hostages scandal is just what the doctor ordered.

and plus, look at what he can do!

http://www.superdickery.com/images/oneshot/reagansmash5on2dp.jpg

:eek:

and plus, look at what he can do!

http://www.superdickery.com/images/oneshot/reagansmash5on2dp.jpg

:eek:

Please....real conservatism requires a man's man (http://www.superdickery.com/images/oneshot/batmanisadick26lx.jpg).

In all seriousness...

Gore/Obama

What I might just wind up writing in...

Stewart/Colbert

Ideally...

...well, ME, and dictators don't hold elections. :p

In all seriousness...

Gore/Obama

What I might just wind up writing in...

Stewart/Colbert

Ideally...

...well, ME, and dictators don't hold elections. :p

Hmm, too bad I'll have to kill you then.

*snip*

Yeah, but that's not why Paul voted against that medal.

He has been criticized at times for being the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal. The medals and ceremonies held to bestow them on recipients are expensive. According to Texas Monthly, “When he was criticized for voting against the medal [for Parks], he chided his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal [along with himself]. No one did. At the time, Paul observed, ‘It's easier to be generous with other people's money.’”

In a speech on 25 June 2003, criticizing giving Tony Blair a Gold Medal of Honor, Paul said, “These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons — as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals.”[117] Texas Monthly awarded him the “Bum Steer” award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles Schulz.

Although the New York Times claims he voted against the medal for Reagan.

In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks: Paul voted against similar medals for Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?pagewanted=3

Yeah, but that's not why Paul voted against that medal.


I, and my post, stand corrected.

That said, Mr. Paul is still an idiot for taking actions which will cause him to be associated with particular unsavory ideologies, even if he doesn't share them. The other 424 members of the House know that some adherents to their own parties share such ideologies, and they voted accordingly.

If Mr. Paul expects to be president, he is going to have to learn how to act accordingly.

I, and my post, stand corrected.

That said, Mr. Paul is still an idiot for taking actions which will cause him to be associated with particular unsavory ideologies, even if he doesn't share them. The other 424 members of the House knew that some adherents to their own parties share such ideologies, and they voted accordingly.

If Mr. Paul expects to be president, he is going to have to learn how to act accordingly.

I guess I'm too tired to really know what you're talking about here. By "taking actions" are you referring to opposing the medal for Parks and thus being associated with anti-civil rights elements? If he's to maintain the image of holding to his principles he can't vote for things his principles are opposed to (buying the medals, to be clear) just because a group of racist fucktards happen to be against them. I think the biggest appeal he has among most of his supporters is that his voting record is largely in tune with his rhetoric.

I think his biggest fuckups to date he's made are the newsletters from '96 (it doesn't matter if one of his staffers wrote them, they were from his organization and thus his responsibility), voting for the "Secure Fence Act" and voting for the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003. The Secure Fence Act doesn't seem very libertarian, and the Partial Birth Abortion Act certainly doesn't sit well with his antifederalist views.

Just for disclosure's sake, I'm not a libertarian, nor an ardent Paul supporter. He's my preferred from the current candidates, but that's not saying much. I'm actually a social democrat, but I'm also an antifederalist, which is why I dislike him the least.

Maher/Olbermann 08!

Here is an article where Ron Paul rejects racism as a form of "collectivism." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html)

Of course, the argument presented is entirely absurd. He claims that "Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations."

Of course, the historical record of the United States shows that slavery as an institution and the rampant racism that fuels it were well established and thriving until the Federal Government finally took decisive action to end both. In the "rugged individualist" colonial times that Libertarians, including Ron Paul, idealize, where government regulation was apparently nil and free individuals reigned, slavery and racism were the order of the day. The "group thinking" and "collectivism" that leads to racism, according to Paul, were alive and well long before the Federal Government started to become a problem in the Libertarian eye.

Of course, if one studies the history of civil rights in the United States, one will find lots of instances of trade unions, socialist political parties and organizations (including the American Communist Party), and other left-wing groups and organizations taking the lead in fighting racism and discrimination when no one else would. The case of the Scottsboro Boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys) is one of the most famous examples.

Paul says "the political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism." Incorrect sir. We state plainly that federal laws were in simple fact needed in order to end slavery and Jim Crow; one need only read the historical record to encounter the plain truth of the matter. Slavery and Jim Crow flourished until the Union crushed the South and passed laws abolishing slavery and legally sanctioned discrimination. It's really that simple.

So Ron Paul isn't a racist. He's just willfully ignorant of history and devoid of common sense.

By "taking actions" are you referring to opposing the medal for Parks and thus being associated with anti-civil rights elements?


Correct.


If he's to maintain the image of holding to his principles he can't vote for things his principles are opposed to (buying the medals, to be clear) just because a group of racist fucktards happen to be against them.


He can, however, learn to choose his battles. A vote to honor Rosa Parks is NOT a good place to decide to stand up for fiscal responsibility. If he had taken at least two seconds to think in advance about the consequences of his actions, he would have realized that about 99.9% of people are not going to respond to his "no" vote by appreciating his concern for the taxpayer. They are going to wonder why he "hates" Rosa Parks. A person with such a lack of foresight has no business being president.

If Ron Paul wishes to further protect and advance his principles, including by advancing to higher offices as he is currently trying in vain, he needs to learn how to not shoot himself in the foot.


I think the biggest appeal he has among most of his supporters is that his voting record is largely in tune with his rhetoric.


He needs to stop trying to convert the already converted, and start trying to win new supporters. A good place to start would be not appearing to oppose popular heroes like Rosa Parks.


The Secure Fence Act doesn't seem very libertarian...


It's plainly anti-libertarian, but fear mongering about foreigners is popular at the moment.


...but I'm also an antifederalist, which is why I dislike him the least.

I used to consider myself a Libertarian, but I became tired of the bald-faced hypocrisy, ignorance (including that of history), and the aforementioned xenophobia in the name of "national security." Libertarians holding hands with Republicans over "national security." I'd laugh if I didn't want to throw up. Anyway, this is why I dislike Ron Paul the most.

Giuliani/Thompson ones smart nd experienced enough to get things done and the other is damn good at talking about it.

Either Obama or Mit Romney. I'm still on the fence though. If Fred Thompson jumps in I'll concider him as well. He seems to know more of what the people want then anybody else running.

What the hell kind of decision is that? A touchy feely black guy, a shadowy change-of-place family politician, and an actor who hasn't said shit about anything?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over!!!

Silent Bob for president. Think about it, legal weed, no boring speeches, and Jay as VP to entertain the masses and keep the tabloids in business by being his dumb ass self.

Giuliani/Thompson ones smart nd experienced enough to get things done and the other is damn good at talking about it.

He may be smart and experienced enough to get things done, but it's what he wants to get done that I'm afraid of.

I elect Obama and Giuliani

Interesting mix. o.0
BUT ... Giuliani sucks. His anti-weasel stance shows him to be of low moral stock.

Either Obama or Mit Romney. I'm still on the fence though. If Fred Thompson jumps in I'll concider him as well.

Again, with the o.0

Strange mixes.

John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Absolute given.
Absolute agreement.
*bows*

Get your commie ways away from my freedom!

Move your freedom a little more to the right, maybe you'll be surrounded less by them.
Oh wait, there *IS* no freedom that far to the right? :rolleyes:

Maher/Olbermann 08!


switch it around, and I could absolutely agree :D

Geraldo Rivera,Running poster:
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/geraldo-rivera.jpg

with Bob Dole as his vice president.
Talking point:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/12/04/senior_std/story.jpg&imgrefurl=http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/12/04/senior_std/index.html&h=205&w=300&sz=36&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=ysLh_JASGaGhjM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBob%2BDole%2BPepsi%2BBritney%2BSpears%2Beasy%2Bboy%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Mhhmm.

Giuliani/Thompson ones smart nd experienced enough to get things done and the other is damn good at talking about it.

That would be fine by me, provided Newt stays off the list. :)

We're not a republic.

How regional. :rolleyes:

Absolute given.
Absolute agreement.
*bows*

Meh. Be fair and elect their writing staff instead. :p

Meh. Be fair and elect their writing staff instead. :p

It's a group effort ... btw, the cast may be reabsorbing Corddry anytime soon?

Pres: Giuliani
VP: Rice

Go Rudy!Hell no, and hell no again.

Chris Rock and Chris Tucker.

Press conferences would be hilarious!

I've never heard a preacher use the "MF" word so many times!

What's wrong with you? What you screamin' for? Every 5 minutes there's somethin', a bomb or somethin'. I'm leavin'. bzzzz.

....you're onto something there.

Probably Obama. The way I see it, Democratic control of Congress will be gone fairly early and we'll revert to Republican/Democratic gridlock like we had in the 1990's.

Probably Obama. The way I see it, Democratic control of Congress will be gone fairly early and we'll revert to Republican/Democratic gridlock like we had in the 1990's.

The good old days?
Oh wait ... the good old days weren't always good, tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems.
*snaps fingers*