NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't really want to know who you think will win, but the one you think is most qualified or better suited for the job as President.

Poll:

1. Rudy Giuliani

2. Mitt Romney

3. Fred Thompson

4. Ron Paul

5. John McCain

6. Hilary Clinton

7. Barack Obama

8. John Edwards

9. Joe Biden

10. I left out some important ones, click here (Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and all the rest.) here.

I don't really want to know who you think will win, but the one you think is most qualified or better suited for the job as President.

6. Hilary Clinton

Barack Obama looks like he can party.

*points to his sig*

Other --> Mike Gravel

6. Hilary Clinton
What a dumb thing for you to say. You're one of NS' biggest critics of American "imperialist" foreign policy. If you beleive the Neo-Cons are bad at foreign policy, which you do, then Clinton will be just as bad. :rolleyes:

Optimus Prime for '08! (http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs19/f/2007/227/6/5/optumis_prime_for_president_by_valkiereon.jpg)

Obama, hands down for democrat, then probably John Edwards. Clinton just seems to be the least trustworthy of the whole bunch...

For Republican, I'd go with Giuliani. McCain would be my second choice.

Rudy or Fred for me. I'm not really feelin' Romney or McCain, and I won't comment on Ron Paul. :p But really, Giuliani is a good enough choice among the current crop of politicians, even with his 'quirks.' ;)

What a dumb thing for you to say. You're one of NS' biggest critics of American "imperialist" foreign policy. If you beleive the Neo-Cons are bad at foreign policy, which you do, then Clinton will be just as bad. :rolleyes:
Well you gave Bush 8 years to royally screw up your country.....the least you could do is give Hilary 4 years to prove herself. :D

BTW, who is your choice?

Well you gave Bush 8 years to royally screw up your country.....the least you could do is give Hilary 4 years to prove herself. :D
Or we realize, as I have, that neo-conservatism as an idealogy has failed and let's try something new, instead of more neo-conservatism branded with a 'Democrat' stamp instead of a 'Republican' one.
BTW, who is your choice?
Dr. Paul. I think we need to lay low for our while overseas while we fix the problems in this country and get our economy back on track. Ron Paul, with his great understanding of economics (he's well read on Austrian economics), his excellent stance on the border/immigration/birthright citizenship and his wanting to limit the federal government (much more than I want to, but still) makes him a prime candidate to shapen this country up and really brings some freshness to American politics that we don't have at all right now.

I'm not anywhere near as extreme as Ron Paul, but I feel that with the general American public, being moderate, and also Congress holding him back, if he aims for 100% of his policies he'll get about 25% or so done, which will fall into around my views...so yeah....I'll be voting for Ron Paul.

As it stands though, unfortunatly it's looking like a Clinton vs. Guliani, in which case I'll vote for Guilani but pop some X before doing it so it doesn't feel so bad.

Obama is a nice guy and a charming person, but I don't like his policies. I'd like to be his friend though, if that matters at all. :D

As it stands though, unfortunatly it's looking like a Clinton vs. Guliani, in which case I'll vote for Guilani but pop some X before doing it so it doesn't feel so bad.

That's the spirit! :)

You forgot Huckabee, his is #2 in a few polls.

That's the spirit! :)
It's really shitty. I mean Guilani IS better than any of the Democrats running, but that's like saying a dingleberry is better than a log. They're both still shit. :(

It's really shitty. I mean Guilani IS better than any of the Democrats running, but that's like saying a dingleberry is better than a log. They're both still shit. :(

As are both of our votes, as Californians. :p ...another item on the list of things to be thrilled with. However, I'm still confident that the GOP will outperform expectations in '08. :)

Edit: Well, I mis-read your location line, but the point still stands for a good number of us. :p

I would vote for Kucinich, but, unfortunately, I turn 18 a week after the election and live in a strongly Republican state.

I would vote for Kucinich, but, unfortunately, I turn 18 a week after the election and live in a strongly Republican state.

Texas? Naw... Kucinich has a fighting chance, no question. ;)

Texas? Naw... Kucinich has a fighting chance, no question. ;)

He has it won. The other candidates shouldn't even try.

As are both of our votes, as Californians. :p ...another item on the list of things to be thrilled with. However, I'm still confident that the GOP will outperform expectations in '08. :)

Edit: Well, I mis-read your location line, but the point still stands for a good number of us. :p

Don't like it? Get the electoral college removed and change the presidential vote to be purely popular.

I'm still confident that the GOP will outperform expectations in '08. :)
I hope you're right.

I'm just hoping that Ron Paul can get some more publicity. The problem is that most people I ask about Ron Paul are like Ron who? It's unfortunate the amount of ignorance and apathy that runs rampent these days. Anyway, once I inform them about Ron Paul, people generally like him because his message is a very likable one, regardless of what some Lefties on NS will have you think.
Edit: Well, I mis-read your location line, but the point still stands for a good number of us. :p
That's ok. California still flows through my blood, as that's my birth-state...I've adopted Florida though and it's treating me real nice.:)

I will be voting for Dr. Paul in the Republican primaries.

As for best candidate on the other side of the aisle, I initially liked Richardson. But then he said he wanted to make a large scale diversion from the Great Lakes system to quench the thirst of the west (even though they have plenty of water). So, as much as it pains me to say it, Clinton would be my Democratic Selection.

I'm not voting.

As a registered Republican (I registered about three months ago to keep Steve Beshear out of office - didn't work anyway), I'm voting for Ron Paul in the primaries. Every other candidate offered amnesty of some sort for illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately it will probably be Giuliani versus Hillary Clinton, in which case I'll go shit a chicken. Or drink a few beers, go vote, and then drink some more so I don't care about the results.

Ron Paul is living in the past, he still thinks Isolationism works.

of those on your list, hillary clinton has the best qualifications.

off your list, bill richardson does.

It's really shitty. I mean Guilani IS better than any of the Democrats running, but that's like saying a dingleberry is better than a log. They're both still shit. :(
I really don't see how Giuliani, being the neo-conservative, fear-mongering hawk that he is, is better than any of the Democrats. I think that people are too easily swayed by the stigma against Clinton, the likely nominee, to to really understand the consequences that the United States faces if we elect another Republican to the presidency. These consequences include:

- The continuation of a broken healthcare system that favors insurance companies over the health of the American people

- The indefinite continuation of the Iraq quagmire, for who knows how long, nor at the expense of how many lives and how much money

- The continued propagation of expanded Executive Branch authority, thus eroding our entire system of government

- The continued policy of giving breaks to the wealthy while ignoring the deflation of the wages of the average worker, as well as the growing number of those living in poverty

- Further serious inaction on climate change

- Firmly solidifying the United States as the pariah of the Western world, and further eroding our ties with other countries


If you believe firmly in seeing a change occur with any of the aforementioned issues, how can you possibly vote Republican in '08?

I'd say Colbert if he was allowed to run.

Hm. Anyone who is for Obama, I would suggest you look at Joe Biden: he isn't black and young, but he is the only one on either side that has any sort of sensible plan for Iraq and is one of the leaders in the senate, not to mention is deeply respected overseas.

As for Giuliani he is not all that trustworthy. He's probably my favorite on the Republican side, but I still think Joe Biden is better.

Who's the candidate of the United States Fascist Party?

I'd probably go for Obama

The only way I'd go for Clinton, is if Thompson, Romney, Paul or Tancredo got the Republican nomination.

Barack Obama. I can't trust Hillary Clinton, she'll make everything worse. If not any of the Democrats, then Guiliani. If Hillary actually winds up on the ballot.... actually, I still wouldn't vote either way, I'd only be 16 :(

Who's the candidate of the United States Fascist Party?

I doubt they'll bother with one. They know they wouldn't win anyway.

now here's a question.

after the 2004/2006 elections, people were complaining about America's two party system. Now, people are expressing their discontent with both dem and reps already in office. So why are people only concentrating on Dem and Rep? One would think that this would be the time for the Independants and other parties (http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_search.php?type=party) to rise up.

The Question is which candidate would you feel do the best job. so let's open the feild up to EVERYBODY and break the hold of the Dems and Reps! :cool:

I think McCain is by far the best in foreign policy. I saw him in that movie "Why We Fight" and I think he truly understands foreign policy and is, by far, the most experience player in the election, however he is old and old people, generally smell bad, so I would probably go with Obama, even though I don't really want to support anyone that wants to pull out of Iraq. I don't like Rudy because I don't think he understands foreign policy.

But besides all of that, I can't vote, so it doesn't much matter, however my girlfriend can, so I might make a decision for her.

BTW, does anyone have another candidate to recommend that isn't a NeoCon and doesn't want to withdraw from Iraq?

Ron Paul.

These guys *points to sig*. I don't even care which of them would be Prez and which would be Veep, but anything's better than another Republican -- except maybe Hillary.

I think McCain is by far the best in foreign policy. I saw him in that movie "Why We Fight" and I think he truly understands foreign policy and is, by far, the most experience player in the election, however he is old and old people, generally smell bad, so I would probably go with Obama, even though I don't really want to support anyone that wants to pull out of Iraq. I don't like Rudy because I don't think he understands foreign policy.

But besides all of that, I can't vote, so it doesn't much matter, however my girlfriend can, so I might make a decision for her.

BTW, does anyone have another candidate to recommend that isn't a NeoCon and doesn't want to withdraw from Iraq?

Why is staying in that god-awful clusterfuck we've created so important to you?

Why is staying in that god-awful clusterfuck we've created so important to you?

Because it may turn into a worse god-awful clusterfuck if we leave. Some people believe that we have an obligation to fix what we broke.

*snip*
The Question is which candidate would you feel do the best job. so let's open the feild up to EVERYBODY and break the hold of the Dems and Reps! :cool:

If a third steps up, it's either because our two have merged, or one has died. Perhaps with some form of proportional representation? *shrug*

If a third steps up, it's either because our two have merged, or one has died. Perhaps with some form of proportional representation? *shrug*

or the fact that the media is so focused on the two parties that people forget that others are running.

Link in my post shows one resource that lists (and gives some info) about all those running and their stands on various issues.

While some of those really are frightening, others seem very reasonable with their answers.

or the fact that the media is so focused on the two parties that people forget that others are running.

Link in my post shows one resource that lists (and gives some info) about all those running and their stands on various issues.

While some of those really are frightening, others seem very reasonable with their answers.

Nah, nah, seriously, more than two parties just doesn't work with the way we do things.

Because it may turn into a worse god-awful clusterfuck if we leave. Some people believe that we have an obligation to fix what we broke.

What makes you think it won't get worse even if we stay? And how can you justify continuing an illegal occupation (on top of an illegal, unnecessary invasion) on the premise that we "have an obligation to fix what we broke"? How many more have to die to "fix things"? If you think Halliburton and other companies are there to rebuild Iraq, you need to re-examine the situation. But suppose you're right: suppose that as long as we're there we really could keep Iraq from disintegrating in to total anarchy (highly unlikely in the long run, but let's pretend). How long will it take until we can be sure they can survive intact without us? A year? Ten years? Until the end of time?

What makes you think it won't get worse even if we stay? And how can you justify continuing an illegal occupation (on top of an illegal, unnecessary invasion) on the premise that we "have an obligation to fix what we broke"? How many more have to die to "fix things"? If you think Halliburton and other companies are there to rebuild Iraq, you need to re-examine the situation. But suppose you're right: suppose that as long as we're there we really could keep Iraq from disintegrating in to total anarchy (highly unlikely in the long run, but let's pretend). How long will it take until we can be sure they can survive intact without us? A year? Ten years? Until the end of time?

(playing devils advocate here)

Iraq was a functioning country before we invaded. We broke it. We broke it bad. It could be said that breaking a country and leaving it to degrade is worse then just breaking a nation in the first place. We have a responsibility to fix what we broke. And we have a responsibility to stay until it's fixed, no matter how many die.

Again, I don't believe any of this, I'm just giving an example of what some would say.

(playing devils advocate here)

Iraq was a functioning country before we invaded. We broke it. We broke it bad. It could be said that breaking a country and leaving it to degrade is worse then just breaking a nation in the first place. We have a responsibility to fix what we broke. And we have a responsibility to stay until it's fixed, no matter how many die.

Again, I don't believe any of this, I'm just giving an example of what some would say.

Yeah, I was against the Iraq war but once the U.S invaded, I was against them pulling out. Now things seemed to have stalled and maybe the only way forward for Iraq is for the U.S to pull out.

Nah, nah, seriously, more than two parties just doesn't work with the way we do things.

annnnd... the way we are doing things now is fine? ;)

seriously tho.
some of the things I'm seeing for these candidates are rather intersting...
So far, I like Kelcey Brian Wilson, but still going through the list.

Gravel for me. The fact that he's unable to be in debates due to an arbitrary donations cap that you have to be over is ludicrous.

annnnd... the way we are doing things now is fine? ;)

Mmm, dunno, I'm just saying I think Duverger has a point.

my vote is for the Dark Lord Cthulu.

Mmm, dunno, I'm just saying I think Duverger has a point.

Ah. point taken.

I don't think it matters who becomes president, the democrats and republicans seem to have similar ideas on everything. I feel old mentioning this but ever since the clinton years, it's been that way. There was a big to do about bipartisanship and suddenly we have one party instead of two.

my vote is for the Dark Lord Cthulu.

How about this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544360)?

On second thought, I vote LG. :)

On second thought, I vote LG. :)

ahem... you mean Vermin Love Supreme, don't you?

I would vote Obama, but I hate black people. So its Ron Paul for me.

I don't think it matters who becomes president, the democrats and republicans seem to have similar ideas on everything. I feel old mentioning this but ever since the clinton years, it's been that way. There was a big to do about bipartisanship and suddenly we have one party instead of two.

I know, its true, I can hardly tell a democrat from a republican anymore.

If you beleive the Neo-Cons are bad at foreign policy, which you do, then Clinton will be just as bad. :rolleyes:

Exactly.

I doubt they'll bother with one. They know they wouldn't win anyway.

Why not? They won in 2000 and 2004.

*runs*

can anyone give me a reason do vote for obama besides "he is black"

If I had to choose a Republican, it'd be Guiliani. If I had to choose a Democrat, it would be Kucinich.

Schrandtopia;13257521']can anyone give me a reason do vote for obama besides "he is black"

He has a nice smile?

*shrug*

If he were running (there is a campaign to draft him, though I'm not sure if he will run), Walter E. Williams would get my vote.

Schrandtopia;13257521']can anyone give me a reason do vote for obama besides "he is black"

hes a democrat. he has a good character. he supports what i support. i believe him when he tells me what he would do as president.

It's really shitty. I mean Guilani IS better than any of the Democrats running, but that's like saying a dingleberry is better than a log. They're both still shit. :(

You mean he's better than any of the democrats, at the top of the polls. Joe Biden is way better than him, and so is Mike Gravel. Unfortunately, those who give the most funding to the candidates don't really want strong people to win.

Read the sig.

Schrandtopia;13257521']can anyone give me a reason do vote for obama besides "he is black"

The better question is: Can anyone give me a reason to vote for Clinton besides "She's a woman"? She and her husband flip-flop more than fish on land.

Anyway, maybe you should go to Obama's website and read some of his policies. Then you'd know why the majority of his supporters support him.

I hope you're right.

I'm just hoping that Ron Paul can get some more publicity. The problem is that most people I ask about Ron Paul are like Ron who? It's unfortunate the amount of ignorance and apathy that runs rampent these days. Anyway, once I inform them about Ron Paul, people generally like him because his message is a very likable one, regardless of what some Lefties on NS will have you think.

Ron Paul getting more publicity might not be what you really want. There are those of us who actually look into a candidates voting history and such instead of just listening to the pretty propaganda they put out. Ron Paul's propaganda makes him sound great. Unfortunately, his record doesn't. And the more propaganda you guys put out, the more people like me continue to look at his record.

Ron Paul getting more publicity might not be what you really want. There are those of us who actually look into a candidates voting history and such instead of just listening to the pretty propaganda they put out. Ron Paul's propaganda makes him sound great. Unfortunately, his record doesn't. And the more propaganda you guys put out, the more people like me continue to look at his record.

Rudy Giuliani had sex with 2 6-year-old girls.

Notice how I claim things without giving evidence.

now here's a question.

after the 2004/2006 elections, people were complaining about America's two party system. Now, people are expressing their discontent with both dem and reps already in office. So why are people only concentrating on Dem and Rep? One would think that this would be the time for the Independants and other parties (http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_search.php?type=party) to rise up.

The Question is which candidate would you feel do the best job. so let's open the feild up to EVERYBODY and break the hold of the Dems and Reps! :cool:

Strangely enough, I found a candidate among the Dems I actually think would do a great job.

Of course, if he doesn't get the nomination, I'll might be looking at third party candidates as well. I'm so sick of playing the "lesser evil" game.

If he were running (there is a campaign to draft him, though I'm not sure if he will run), Walter E. Williams would get my vote.

Wow, that guys name looks nice in print.

Of course, if he doesn't get the nomination, I'll might be looking at third party candidates as well. I'm so sick of playing the "lesser evil" game.

Please don't waste your vote on a 3rd-party candidate. I know that they are the much better choice, but seriously - their names aren't even on the ballots of many states and you know that they aren't going to win.

Strangely enough, I found a candidate among the Dems I actually think would do a great job.

Of course, if he doesn't get the nomination, I'll might be looking at third party candidates as well. I'm so sick of playing the "lesser evil" game.

... which one if I may ask?

So far I like Frank Zilaitis... but I'm still looking over the lists. (yes, I started from the bottom.) :p

Schrandtopia;13257521']can anyone give me a reason do vote for obama besides "he is black"

He's got good ideas and actually seems to care about them, rather than simply pushing a purely political agenda. He also hasn't been in Washington or even high-level politics long enough to get embroiled in it, so he's less likely (especially given his policy of giving back money from lobbyists) to be in the pocket of any particular interests.

If you don't agree with his ideas, you aren't going to want to vote for him, of course.


Rudy Giuliani had sex with 2 6-year-old girls.

Notice how I claim things without giving evidence.

There have been numerous threads on Ron Paul. I didn't think I needed to rehash it all here.

He claims to be the "defender of the Constitution" and never to vote for anything not authorized in it, yet he is the only candidate in the running who has stood before Congress and voted for a bill he personally stated was unconstitutional.\

He claims to support liberty, but he constantly brings up the "We the People Act" which would take away the ability of the people to appeal when their civil liberties are infringed upon by state governments. This act makes it quite clear that Paul does not think that you have a right to freedom of religion or a right to privacy. Also, homosexuals don't have a right to equal treatment under the law.

He also supports unequal legal treatment of homosexuals - both through DOMA and through his own vote to try and keep homosexual couples from adopting children in DC. He has point-blank stated that black youths should be treated differently by criminal law than white youths (something he later tried to claim he did not write - but that he claimed as his own words at the time). His supposed "liberty" is for the states, apparently, rather than for the people (hence the reason white supremacists like him so much).

He claims that we should stay out of other countries, but wants to claim the Panama Canal as sovereign US territory forever.

He claims that even trade sanctions are essentially an act of war, but personally put forth a bill at one point to deny financial aid to Iranian students - and only Iranian students - living in the US.

He claims to support diplomacy, but wants to pull out of every diplomatic organization we are a part of and seems to have a major issue with signing treaties.

He's supposedly not a warmonger, but wanted to pull out of the ABM treaty in the middle of the Cold War.

He claims that his policies will make everyone rich, and yet he has proposed bills that would bankrupt nearly all of us in a single blow by making all of our money useless.

He claims that he doesn't support funding of embryonic stem cell research because the government shouldn't fund research, but voted in favor of federally funding private corporate research into space tourism.

His supporters seem to take great comfort in his MD, despite the fact that he voted in favor of a bill with only one effect - to endanger the lives of patients who need medically indicated late-term abortions.

He claims to be all for getting out of the war, but the only effort he has made to do so was to propose a do-nothing bill which basically said, "In 6 months, we might start getting out. Maybe. If we feel like it." He has put forward no plan for doing so, unlike many of the other candidates.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ron+paul+on+the+issues&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

Please don't waste your vote on a 3rd-party candidate. I know that they are the much better choice, but seriously - their names aren't even on the ballots of many states and you know that they aren't going to win.

If, for instance, it came down to Guiliani vs. Clinton, I wouldn't (at this point, at least) see any reason to vote for either of them. At the very least, a 3rd party vote at that point would boost the 3rd party numbers and make it clear that people weren't satisfied with their 2-party choices.


... which one if I may ask?

Obama

Obama
with his support that his has currently? I can see him actually still run as an independant and have a great chance of winning...

or would you vote for Clinton if Obama became her running mate? (seriously curious. no hidden pretext to this question.)

with his support that his has currently? I can see him actually still run as an independant and have a great chance of winning...

It would be nice, but I don't think he'll do it. That, and it would probably guarantee a Republican win if he did.

or would you vote for Clinton if Obama became her running mate? (seriously curious. no hidden pretext to this question.)

I'm not sure. He's pretty much said that he isn't planning on taking a VP slot, so I doubt it'll happen, but it might help sway me somewhat.

I'm pretty focused on the primaries right now, so I'm not sure who I'll have my eye on in the general election. Hopefully, it'll still be Obama, but I'll have to take another long, hard look at what candidates are running at that point.

It would be nice, but I don't think he'll do it. That, and it would probably guarantee a Republican win if he did.
true dat.

I'll be voting for Kucinich in the primary. Unless a miracle happens, he won't be getting the nod however, and I would like to work on the campaign of Cynthia McKinney, should she get the green party nod.

I'd like Dennis Kucinich to win, even though he probably wont.
Of the more popular candidates I like Barack Obama, but I'd be happy if any Democrat wins...

Ron Paul getting more publicity might not be what you really want.
No, it really is what I want.

I'll be voting for Kucinich in the primary. Unless a miracle happens, he won't be getting the nod however, and I would like to work on the campaign of Cynthia McKinney, should she get the green party nod.

McKinney's possibly running for president?


No, it really is what I want.

Suit yourself. But know that the more he gets shoved in our faces, the more we look into him, and the more adamantly we oppose him.

Suit yourself. But know that the more he gets shoved in our faces, the more we look into him, and the more adamantly we oppose him.
No problem. He's got an assload more support and his message of freedom will only spread as the election draws nearer. You guys won't be able to spew out your lies fast enough to counter his sucesses.

Picking the least of the evils again with Barack Obama.
But really, I just don't want to see Hillary in office because she'd bring Bill with her. It shows she's a bad judge of character.

Suit yourself. But know that the more he gets shoved in our faces, the more we look into him, and the more adamantly we oppose him.

actually, when one is alone in the booth, it will come down to name reconition as well as remembering what issues that candidate stands for.

And realize not everyone is as well informed as us NSG posters. :p

No problem. He's got an assload more support and his message of freedom will only spread as the election draws nearer. You guys won't be able to spew out your lies fast enough to counter his sucesses.

What lies? All I'm spreading is his actual voting record, his own words, and the bills he has actually put forth. What good is a "message of freedom" when his actions are counter to that message?


actually, when one is alone in the booth, it will come down to name reconition as well as remembering what issues that candidate stands for.

This is, unfortunately, true. And when someone is putting out as many BS propaganda videos as the Ron Paul campaign, internet voters are going to have a lot name recognition and some vague idea of an idealist candidate, with no idea of his actual record.

Luckily, internet-savvy voters are only a small proportion of total voters.

And realize not everyone is as well informed as us NSG posters.

Sad, isn't it. Even NSG posters are often woefully uninformed or even misinformed and we actually tend to pay more attention to these things than the average voter.

This is, unfortunately, true. And when someone is putting out as many BS propaganda videos as the Ron Paul campaign, internet voters are going to have a lot name recognition and some vague idea of an idealist candidate, with no idea of his actual record.

Luckily, internet-savvy voters are only a small proportion of total voters.
careful. Mainstream media uses the internet for their news stories. ;)

Sad, isn't it. Even NSG posters are often woefully uninformed or even misinformed and we actually tend to pay more attention to these things than the average voter. ... I would say more cemented in their ideals than the average voter... but yeah, basically agree. :cool:

Dude..Dennis Kucinich...Seriously.

He claims that we should stay out of other countries, but wants to claim the Panama Canal as sovereign US territory forever.

Well, considering we built and paid for the goddamn thing, it should be ours.

He claims to support diplomacy, but wants to pull out of every diplomatic organization we are a part of and seems to have a major issue with signing treaties.

Or maybe, he believes diplomacy should be conducted nation-to-nation? And what the hell is wrong with pulling out of those organizations? Why not just have diplomatic relations and trade with every country (including ones we don't like, such as Cuba), and do cultural exchanges, but otherwise mind our own damn business?

He's supposedly not a warmonger, but wanted to pull out of the ABM treaty in the middle of the Cold War.

Good. Considering how blatantly and regularly the Soviets violated treaties, it would have been stupid to stick to that treaty.

He claims that his policies will make everyone rich, and yet he has proposed bills that would bankrupt nearly all of us in a single blow by making all of our money useless.

What bills?

Vote for Ron Paul and win a free country!

Well, considering we built and paid for the goddamn thing, it should be ours.

We agreed to build and fund its construction, in return for the Panamanians revolting against the Colombians. We got the canal for 99 years. Then it gets returned to a poorer, third-world nation and you want to take it back? Do you realize that that area isn't the most stable in the world? Thatd be like the British simultaneously claiming the Suez Canal, Hong Kong, and most of African cities (they built them after all). After all the Anti-Americanism in the world, youre just going to arbitrarily sieze soemthing from a poor 3-world country. I understand foregin relations arent strong points for isolationists like Paul, but still.......no offense, but I think that that is one of his crazier ideas



Or maybe, he believes diplomacy should be conducted nation-to-nation? And what the hell is wrong with pulling out of those organizations? Why not just have diplomatic relations and trade with every country (including ones we don't like, such as Cuba), and do cultural exchanges, but otherwise mind our own damn business?

No comment, not even regarding our status on the security council, our duty to the world, or how this kind of isolation led to Hitler and World War Two. McCain was right. But mainly because we have diffrent ways of looking at the world

Good. Considering how blatantly and regularly the Soviets violated treaties, it would have been stupid to stick to that treaty.

We violated most cold war treaties too. Does that make SALT less important? Absolutley not



What bills?

While I dont entirely understand this one, I think it has to do with his gettig rid of the Federal bank

We agreed to build and fund its construction, in return for the Panamanians revolting against the Colombians. We got the canal for 99 years. Then it gets returned to a poorer, third-world nation and you want to take it back? Do you realize that that area isn't the most stable in the world? Thatd be like the British simultaneously claiming the Suez Canal, Hong Kong, and most of African cities (they built them after all). After all the Anti-Americanism in the world, youre just going to arbitrarily sieze soemthing from a poor 3-world country. I understand foregin relations arent strong points for isolationists like Paul, but still.......no offense, but I think that that is one of his crazier ideas

I don't support taking it back by force, but by negotiating its return, or offering to buy it back, or whatever. If the Panamanians refuse, then we won't press it further.

No comment, not even regarding our status on the security council, our duty to the world, or how this kind of isolation led to Hitler and World War Two. McCain was right. But mainly because we have diffrent ways of looking at the world

No, the Treaty of Versailles led to World War II.

We violated most cold war treaties too. Does that make SALT less important? Absolutley not

SALT should have never been signed. The Soviets began violating it immediately.

While I dont entirely understand this one, I think it has to do with his gettig rid of the Federal bank

That's a good thing.

Well, considering we built and paid for the goddamn thing, it should be ours.

So we should arbitrarily break agreements. Great diplomacy there!

Or maybe, he believes diplomacy should be conducted
nation-to-nation?

What's the point when we're supposed to be breaking treaties left and right?

Good. Considering how blatantly and regularly the Soviets violated treaties, it would have been stupid to stick to that treaty.

You're right. In the middle of the cold war, we should have just pulled out of the ABM treaty. That wouldn't have been seen as aggressive at all.

You're not very good at this whole diplomacy thing, are you?

What bills?

Didn't bother to check the links, eh?

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Scroll to the bottom. You can see where, in more than one bill, Paul has tried to make our currency either worthless, or useful only in paying debts to the federal government. He has tried to do this immediately, without bothering to replace it with anything. Considering that most people in this country don't have holdings in other currencies, that would effectively bankrupt us.

So we should arbitrarily break agreements. Great diplomacy there!

Strawman. And you missed what I added about only trying to regain it through peaceful means, and with Panamanian consent.

What's the point when we're supposed to be breaking treaties left and right?

Withdrawing from a treaty and breaking it are not the same thing. And treaties that violate our sovereignty deserve to be broken.

You're right. In the middle of the cold war, we should have just pulled out of the ABM treaty. That wouldn't have been seen as aggressive at all.

Who gives a shit what it would have been seen as? The Soviets never follow treaties.

Scroll to the bottom. You can see where, in more than one bill, Paul has tried to make our currency either worthless, or useful only in paying debts to the federal government. He has tried to do this immediately, without bothering to replace it with anything. Considering that most people in this country don't have holdings in other currencies, that would effectively bankrupt us.

Yes, he wants to restore the gold standard. That's a good thing.

Tbh, among all the candidates I can't find any who I would trust the United States to. Even if, by some miracle, we elected a candidate with something approaching principles, I doubt that said principles could weather the unremitting storm of politics.

*Czardas takes out the scrying glass!*

I suspect that Obama will get the Democratic nomination, but lose the election to the Republican candidate, whoever that is (I can see Giuliani or McCain, maybe; it's a bit early to tell on that front). Most likely this will end up being another "lesser-of-two-evils" Election Day; it'll be a close vote slightly in favour of the Republican Party, unless one of the candidates manages to fuck up royally. This will be compounded by Bush Administration morale-"raising" activities -- i.e. capturing a major Al Qaeda insurgent, such as Osama bin Laden, or uncovering a new terrorist plot requiring more astringent airport security -- in order to subliminally sway the voting populace in favour of the preferred candidate. Seems to happen an awful lot around here.

*Czardas puts away the scrying glass.*

I really don't see how Giuliani, being the neo-conservative, fear-mongering hawk that he is, is better than any of the Democrats. I think that people are too easily swayed by the stigma against Clinton, the likely nominee, to to really understand the consequences that the United States faces if we elect another Republican to the presidency. These consequences include:

- The continuation of a broken healthcare system that favors insurance companies over the health of the American people

- The indefinite continuation of the Iraq quagmire, for who knows how long, nor at the expense of how many lives and how much money

- The continued propagation of expanded Executive Branch authority, thus eroding our entire system of government

- The continued policy of giving breaks to the wealthy while ignoring the deflation of the wages of the average worker, as well as the growing number of those living in poverty

- Further serious inaction on climate change

- Firmly solidifying the United States as the pariah of the Western world, and further eroding our ties with other countries


If you believe firmly in seeing a change occur with any of the aforementioned issues, how can you possibly vote Republican in '08?

And we wouldn't have this with a Democrat, why?

I am going for Obama, because hillary is shit. She can't choose what she wants to believe, except what the recent poll shows others want. She is so flip-flop.

I would like to see Rudy vs. Barak. that could get good.

:D:Di vote for the weasel:D:p:p:rolleyes:

I voted, "Other", and I submit myself. I'm tired of these people trying to find the right combination of talking points to sway the mass of uninformed voters who just want someone to tuck them into bed at night.

Write-in "Greg" in '08!

I'd choose Mike Gravel, but there's no way he could even get elected to be the candidate, let alone win the presidential run. If America COULD elect Gravel, they wouldn't need him.

Also, anyone that would vote for Ron Paul should have their right to vote revoked.

Withdrawing from a treaty and breaking it are not the same thing. And treaties that violate our sovereignty deserve to be broken.


Why? Apart from the fascism-as-patriotism that the last few decades have seen pumped into American politics, what is gained from asserting sovereignty as god?


Who gives a shit what it would have been seen as? The Soviets never follow treaties.


Like the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty? No - wait - we're the ones that have trafficked nuclear technology, aren't we...


Yes, he wants to restore the gold standard. That's a good thing.

Not if it treats your currency the way Bush has treated the Constitution.

Strawman. And you missed what I added about only trying to regain it through peaceful means, and with Panamanian consent.

....which wasn't what Paul advocated. So, what's your point?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.CON.RES.231:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d094:h.res1410:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.2522:

I don't see anything in there about asking Panama's permission, do you?

Withdrawing from a treaty and breaking it are not the same thing. And treaties that violate our sovereignty deserve to be broken.

By the definition being used here, any treaty "violates our sovereignty". Heaven forbid that we be actually held to our agreements, eh?

Who gives a shit what it would have been seen as? The Soviets never follow treaties.

Your first sentence makes it quite clear that you have no understanding of diplomacy.

Yes, he wants to restore the gold standard. That's a good thing.

You missed something here. These bills didn't institute a gold standard. They would have just instantly made all of our money useless, without replacing it with gold or anything else.

In other words, anyone who didn't already have holdings in some other currency would have a bunch of useless money and the economy would grind to a halt because there would be no standard currency with which to do business.

Ron Paul is living in the past, he still thinks Isolationism works.

Or maybe it's unwarranted aggression and endless war that don't work.

Or maybe it's unwarranted aggression and endless war that don't work.

Hmmm....maybe neither works!

Maybe, instead of heading backwards a century or two, we should try something new?

McKinney's possibly running for president?


She is
http://www.runcynthiarun.org

None, I don't really care for any of them, I think its a bad batch of presidential hopefuls unless someone really, and I mean really, steps up in the next year. On the Republican side? Uhhh, well if Ron Paul is considered republican maybe. On the Democrat side? The only one that I really care for is Edwards.

the best qualified to actually RUN the country, any country, almost never stand a snowflakes chance in hell.

i'd go for kusenich and gravel for the dems. ron paul MAYBE for the rubes, camejo for the greens. i don't know who the liberlites have, unless that's where ron paul is.

i'd LIKE to see maxine waters or jerry brown even.

the big trouble is that what it takes to run for office and what it would take to do an honest good and responsible job in that office are almost two exact opposite things.

so i don't have a whole lot of hope for seeing anyone really worth a dam in it, but i do believe we could see someone who MIGHT screw everyone less then even the corporate mafia wishes them to.

obviously hillary and obama stand the best chance, acting like their already bought and paid for.

if i see another white male republican in 2008 there ain't no way i'm gonna believe the election wasn't rigged.

=^^=
.../\...

Acutally I saw McCain on MTV the other day, trying to encourage youth initiative, saying it didnt matter who you voted for, just vote