NationStates Jolt Archive

There's an election in '08? :confused:

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.

The Obama/Client ticket! :)

I want to take a poll who do you support for the Nomination for the US Presidency?

So far, nobody. Maybe a decent candidate will show up later.

I want to take a poll who do you support for the Nomination for the US Presidency?

I think I said in another thread that I voted for John Edwards., even though I am sure the rest of Illinois will go to Obama :(

I'd vote for Gumby and his Running Mate Pokey.

tho I'm slowly leaning towards...

http://www.monkeyblah.com/content/img/cthulhu_2008_1.png
Why vote for the LESSER Evil?

I'd vote for Gumby and his Running Mate Pokey.

tho I'm slowly leaning towards...

http://www.monkeyblah.com/content/img/cthulhu_2008_1.png
Why vote for the LESSER Evil?

Even if it's the lesser evil, it boils down to: the evil you know or the evil you don't know. *nods*

Even if it's the lesser evil, it boils down to: the evil you know or the evil you don't know. *nods*

yep... at least with this Great Old one... you KNOW where you stand. :cool:

yep... at least with this Great Old one... you KNOW where you stand. :cool:

Trembling before him, waiting for your turn to be eaten. :)

yep... at least with this Great Old one... you KNOW where you stand. :cool:

I don't know where I stand. But I damn well know where I sit! :D

No one.

I vote for Duncan Hunter, hes a strong Passionate leader and he'd be as great if not better than Reagen was!

Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who is also seeking the Republican nomination for President, has stated that Hunter might play a role in a potential Huckabee administration, noting that he is "extraordinarily well qualified to be Secretary of Defense."

I vote for Duncan Hunter, hes a strong Passionate leader and he'd be as great if not better than Reagen was!

Wow. There's a ringing endorsement. :p

Its too early to say.

Whoever the GOP nominee is. Might not be my first choice from the looks of it, but it's early. :)

I don't like Obama much.

Even though I am not American, I would prefer a Hillary/Edwards ticket.

Obama. The more I read about him and his politics, the more I like.

If not him, Edwards.

My vote will be a dual protest.
First, I turn 18 just five days after election day. I'm sure that those responsible for voter registration will get to know me very well over the summer and into the fall.

Second, my candidate of choice, Kucinich, has been the victim of several corporate attempts to push him out of the election (cropping him off photos, excluding him from debates, etc.), and I intend to write him in if he isn't part of the Democratic ticket.

Right now? No one! Why? Because no one is the candidate yet.

Right now? No one! Why? Because no one is the candidate yet.

Yes, that.

Clinton, because oddly enough I like her. Originally I was going to vote for Obama, until he decided to start playing the "I'm so very black" ticket...I don't care if a candidate is white, black, purple or chartreuse with sage stripes. But when a candidate deliberately pulls out the race card, it tends to piss me off a bit.

Added to that, Kerry's supporting Obama, and I have a deep and abiding contempt for him.

I won't vote republican this election, because most of the candidates set my teeth on edge. Clinton has her issues, but I've always had a sneaking fondness for her.

Clinton, because oddly enough I like her. Originally I was going to vote for Obama, until he decided to start playing the "I'm so very black" ticket...I don't care if a candidate is white, black, purple or chartreuse with sage stripes. But when a candidate deliberately pulls out the race card, it tends to piss me off a bit.

Almost as bad as Clinton's "tearful moment" in New Hampshire. ;)

I will say this, if you had a history of being labelled "not black enough" by black voters, you'd want to up the campaigning in that area too.

I vote Lunatic Goofballs, and would be willing to organize his campaign.

Obama

Like what he stands for.

Kucinich. Look at him. Look at him and tremble.

obama or mccain

Almost as bad as Clinton's "tearful moment" in New Hampshire. ;)

I will say this, if you had a history of being labelled "not black enough" by black voters, you'd want to up the campaigning in that area too.

That an the fact that Clinton is paying the "gender card" to the hilt as well.

I would be trying to find a real anti-war candidate. The Democrats have proved themselves utterly useless on the matter since gaining control of congress and the less said about that bigot Paul the better.

Where are the Ralph Naders this time round?:(

Trembling before him, waiting for your turn to be eaten. :) I expect I'll be gibbering nonsenically while having things ooze out of every orfice.

I don't know where I stand. But I damn well know where I sit! :D stand, sit, it don't matter. unless you find a Ritz cracker big enough, I doubt he'll notice.

Where are the Ralph Naders this time round?:(
Probably tired of Running.

but I'd vote for Nader. maybe this year we could double his votes!

I won't vote republican this election, because most of the candidates set my teeth on edge. Clinton has her issues, but I've always had a sneaking fondness for her.

There's precious little political space between Clinton and the republicans anyway.;)

She offers more of exactly the same.

I vote Lunatic Goofballs, and would be willing to organize his campaign.

Psst...
Vermin Love Supreme (http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=53133)
http://www.vote-smart.org/canphoto/53133.JPG

LG... is that you? (http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=53133).

yes, this is an offically announced Presidental candidate! :eek:

we will be protected by his mighty army of winged monkeys!

damn, they edited his political courage test where all his write in answers were removed. :(

You forgot Ron Paul.

Kucinich. Look at him. Look at him and tremble.

Hah. I'd have to vote for him if that were his slogan. :p

...who do you support for the Nomination for the US Presidency?

"Decline to State"

Rudy Giuliani. He's the only candidate I could really see being our president, and he by far and away has demonstrated the most abillity of the whole set.

EDIT: As the "Other Republican" has more votes so far then all the republicans you gave, who, amongst those of you who took that option, are you voting for?

You forgot Ron Paul.

Who?

Mike Huckabee. I love his tax policy and his views.
Abolishing the IRS, income tax and payroll taxes sound wonderful to me.

I'd say Obama though the fact is hes a corporate dick like the rest of them however he has a chance of winning and getting universal health care in the US (which would hopefully end all those debates on NS:))

though I wouldn't be too peeved about a Clinton win seeing as how she seems to be the closest to actually doing something about American education (that is so long as she doesn't start shipping all the kids off to war)

You forgot Ron Paul.

if only.

Mike Huckabee. I love his tax policy and his views.
Abolishing the IRS, income tax and payroll taxes sound wonderful to me.

I hope his plans go through, i'll laugh my ass of when the chinese foreclose on the whitehouse due to late payment of debts :D

Mike Huckabee. I love his tax policy and his views.
Abolishing the IRS, income tax and payroll taxes sound wonderful to me.

And what about those who will lose their jobs if the IRS is abolished?

And what about those who will lose their jobs if the IRS is abolished?As long as it isn't because of some leftist or environmental policy that would benefit your health, it is acceptable :p

I really appreciate that you left Ron Paul off the poll. I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.

I really appreciate that you left Ron Paul off the poll. I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.

Well actually...he's not technically off the poll. He is under the other Republican option

Well actually...he's not technically off the poll. He is under the other Republican option

While this is true, daring to leave his name off of a poll and not surrounding it with glittery lights and the title "Saviour of America" seems to draw the wrath of paulbots.

While this is true, daring to leave his name off of a poll and not surrounding it with glittery lights and the title "Saviour of America" seems to draw the wrath of paulbots.

That's true and it is fun watching them getting mad over it to. Even more fun than watching them get hot and bothered over his own statements.

Well actually...he's not technically off the poll. He is under the other Republican option


Just as good, imo. As long as he doesn't get treated like a serious contender.

That's true and it is fun watching them getting mad over it to. Even more fun than watching them get hot and bothered over his own statements.

This is why I keep the full-text of the We the People Act bookmarked. :D

Mike Huckabee. I love that [he is a dangerous religious wingnut].
Abolishing the IRS, income tax and payroll taxes sound wonderful to me.

YES! Who needs a government, anyway? I mean, cavemen didn't have a government, and look how great that turned out: they turned into us! What could be better than that?


Oh, also, I fixed the quote for you.

While political tests indicate I'm most similar to Paul, there's problems with him. On the other hand, I'm almost halfway between Obama and McCain, thus, it's likely between one of those two.

Obama is a wank.


Kucinich, even though he has no chance of winning the primaries (too good for America....)

I would rank them as follows:
1) Obama
2) Edwards
3) McCain
4) Clinton
5) Huckabee

But I'm not American, so I am assessing them primarily based on foreign policy and environmental considerations, with some consideration of economic concerns, and a complete and utter disregard for their domestic social policy.

This is why I keep the full-text of the We the People Act bookmarked. :D
This should make the rontards squirm:

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

This should make the rontards squirm:

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

more nails in his coffin

These are the republican candidates:

McCain
Huckabee
Romney
Thompson
Paul


The only one missing from this poll is Paul;

ergo, just about every vote for "other Republican" is probably for Paul. Why does Thompson get a position on this poll?

As for this: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11...-congress.html

This had me until the line

"INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
-- He opposes the right of women to be free to control their own reproductive systems if they happen to live in particular states or other countries, or if they work for the Peace Corps."

The man is a libertarian... let me highlight the relevant text in each passage:

"To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity."

He isn't outlawing it, just preventing the government from expending money on it.

Edwards is my #1, then Clinton, then Obama, then there's a drop off of a cliff and we find McCain.

Obama is a wank.


Kucinich, even though he has no chance of winning the primaries (too good for America....)

I don't know. Isn't Kucinich demanding a recount in NH?

This should make the rontards squirm:

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

Probably not.

The followers of Dr. Man of the People will simply dismiss it as misrepresentation......

Since Ron Paul's supporters seem to live exclusively on the internet, I think leaving him out of the poll is some sort of tube violation.

And all you Obama folks are going to be really disappointed come election day.

These are the republican candidates:

McCain
Huckabee
Romney
Thompson
Paul


The only one missing from this poll is Paul;

ergo, just about every vote for "other Republican" is probably for Paul. Why does Thompson get a position on this poll?

Guiliani is also not on the poll. Do keep that in mind before making a blanket statement like this.

And what about those who will lose their jobs if the IRS is abolished?
Is that a serious argument?

Government jobs are necessarily unproductive jobs. State-run industries can be productive, but the adminsitration of government cannot be.

We'd all be better off if those IRS people didn't work at the IRS.

Is that a serious argument?

Government jobs are necessarily unproductive jobs.

So being in the military is unproductive? Technicly speaking, that is a government job. What about the Post office? Another government job.

We'd all be better off if those IRS people didn't work at the IRS.

So what will you do with all the unemployed workers?

These are the republican candidates:

McCain
Huckabee
Romney
Thompson
Paul


The only one missing from this poll is Paul;
and Giuliani.


He isn't outlawing it, just preventing the government from expending money on it.

The federal government. State governments and local govenments, which are not prohibited from expending money on it, are also governments. I fail to see very much difference between the two apart from the areas of their jurisdiction.

Is that a serious argument?

Government jobs are necessarily unproductive jobs. State-run industries can be productive, but the adminsitration of government cannot be.

We'd all be better off if those IRS people didn't work at the IRS.

Ok and how would that work? How would it be better?

So being in the military is unproductive? Technicly speaking, that is a government job. What about the Post office? Another government job.
I did specifiy that state-run industries could be productive, so that covers the post office.

And no, the military is not productive. It doesn't produce anything. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary, but it does mean we should keep it as small as it can be while still serving its core function.
So what will you do with all the unemployed workers?
Let them find work in the private sector. It's a transitional cost.

It's not the government's job to employ people just because they don't have jobs elsewhere.

Ok and how would that work? How would it be better?
The government would spend a lot less money administering its own rules. And that money it no longer spent it wouldn't then have to raise, which would leave vastly more money in the pockets or ordindary Americans (which Americans would depend on how they reduced taxes).

And no, the military is not productive. It doesn't produce anything. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary, but it does mean we should keep it as small as it can be while still serving its core function.

Oh brother! That's the biggest load of horseshit I have ever heard. Alot of companies look for people who have served in the military. Why? The training and experience.

Let them find work in the private sector. It's a transitional cost.

It's not the government's job to employ people just because they don't have jobs elsewhere.

You really are not thinking this through are you?

I did specifiy that state-run industries could be productive, so that covers the post office.

And no, the military is not productive. It doesn't produce anything. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary, but it does mean we should keep it as small as it can be while still serving its core function.

Let them find work in the private sector. It's a transitional cost.

It's not the government's job to employ people just because they don't have jobs elsewhere.
Production isn't really that important, you know. Machines put to work in a factory and left to their own devices with little more than a supply of raw materials (which, incidentally, can also be harvested mechanically) can produce quite a lot in a very short amount of time.

What people are good for is Service, and in that respect, being in a Government deskjob could be seen as quite a useful contribution. Granted, not the best contribution (the distinction for which probably goes to medical professionals or charity workers) but a contribution nonetheless, especially for those who want to find out information about what the higher-ups are doing.

The federal government. State governments and local govenments, which are not prohibited from expending money on it, are also governments. I fail to see very much difference between the two apart from the areas of their jurisdiction.

Not to mention the fact that he did vote for a federal ban on an abortion procedure and has attempted to push measures such as defining an embryo as a human person (something most pro-ban persons think is a stepping stone to banning abortion). He has also made it quite clear in his own statements that he thinks abortion should be banned.

You really are not thinking this through are you?

Didn't you know? If the IRS is gone, the economy will be perfect. There will be jobs for everyone and the streets will be paved with gold and it will rain chocolate from the sky!

Didn't you know? If the IRS is gone, the economy will be perfect. There will be jobs for everyone and the streets will be paved with gold and it will rain chocolate from the sky!

I'll believe it when I see it.

Ideally, none of the above. No candidate currently in the race has really impressed me very much. Of the choices, though, probably Edwards or Obama.

Ideally, none of the above. No candidate currently in the race has really impressed me very much. Of the choices, though, probably Edwards or Obama.

3000, well done, or my condolences, if you support Obama why?

Obama, though I suppose I didn't have to tell you that as it is clearly displayed in my signature and my name also appears in the Obama selection of the poll that is attached to this thread.

I am supporting Senator McCain for president.

Rudy.

Wow, I was amazed at the support Obama has here, that's awesome.
Hope all you American Democrats get out and vote!!

But yeah, Obama would be my man if I was livin' over those ways.

I'll vote for Wolfgang Jüttner. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/spd.gif

Trembling before him, waiting for your turn to be eaten. :)
Why wait? Be eaten first!

Oh brother! That's the biggest load of horseshit I have ever heard. Alot of companies look for people who have served in the military. Why? The training and experience.
I have no doubt that soldiers learn useful skills and gain valuable experience. But the work of the military is not productive.
You really are not thinking this through are you?
I think that's you.

Production isn't really that important, you know. Machines put to work in a factory and left to their own devices with little more than a supply of raw materials (which, incidentally, can also be harvested mechanically) can produce quite a lot in a very short amount of time.
Automation is a great way to increase productivity. I agree.
What people are good for is Service
Services can still create wealth.

so you realize that by not including ron paul in the poll, you are asking for a fight.

so you realize that by not including ron paul in the poll, you are asking for a fight.

He is included. He's under other republicans. Much like Rudy is.

You could've just had douche or turd sandwich as the options; either would suffice given the choices we're given year in and year out.

I'm starting to lean more and more to Hillary and this article is a good explanation of why - I just think America needs someone who knows what they're doing, it's not time for experiments.

Responding to recession
By Paul Krugman

PRINCETON, New Jersey: Suddenly, the economic consensus seems to be that the implosion of the housing market will indeed push the U.S. economy into a recession, and that it's quite possible that we're already in one. As a result, over the next few weeks we'll be hearing a lot about plans for economic stimulus.

Since this is an election year here in the United States, the debate over how to stimulate the economy is inevitably tied up with politics. And here's a modest suggestion for political reporters. Instead of trying to divine the candidates' characters by scrutinizing their tone of voice and facial expressions, why not pay attention to what they say about economic policy?

In fact, recent statements by the candidates and their surrogates about the economy are quite revealing.

Take, for example, John McCain's admission that economics isn't his thing. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," he says. "I've got Greenspan's book."

His self-deprecating humor is attractive, as always. But shouldn't we worry about a candidate who's so out of touch that he regards Mr. Bubble, the man who refused to regulate subprime lending and assured us that there was at most some "froth" in the housing market, as a source of sage advice?

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani wants us to go for broke, literally: His answer to the economy's short-run problems is a huge permanent tax cut, which he claims would pay for itself. It wouldn't.

About Mike Huckabee - well, what can you say about a candidate who talks populist while proposing to raise taxes on the middle class and cut them for the rich?

And then there's the curious case of Mitt Romney. I'm told that he actually does know a fair bit about economics, and he has some big-name Republican economists supporting his campaign. Fears of recession might have offered him a chance to distinguish himself from the Republican field, by offering an economic proposal that actually responded to the gathering economic storm.

I mean, even the Bush administration seems to be coming around to the view that lobbying for long-term tax cuts isn't enough, that the economy needs some immediate help. "Time is of the essence," declared Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, last week.

But Romney, who really needs to take chances at this point, apparently can't break the habit of telling Republicans only what he thinks they want to hear. He's still offering nothing but standard-issue Republican pablum about low taxes and a pro-business environment.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party's policy agenda. He's done it again on economic stimulus: Last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

And you have to say that Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I'm sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that's a bad thing, but there's something to be said for presidents who know what they're talking about.

The Obama campaign's initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I'm sorry to say, disreputable: Obama's top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from "morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending." Hmm: Claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure - doesn't that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Obama's supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be America's president. And I haven't said a word about their hairstyles.

Paul or huckabee, i want my freedom to own firearms.

WOW you guys are as bad as fox news wheres Ron Paul he is the only canidate which isnt full of crap read his website www.RonPaul08.com it will really enlighten you about his policy because u probally dont know because if you did you would vote for him

WOW you guys are as bad as fox news wheres Ron Paul he is the only canidate which isnt full of crap read his website www.RonPaul08.com it will really enlighten you about his policy because u probally dont know because if you did you would vote for him

*dies of laughter*

WOW you guys are as bad as fox news wheres Ron Paul he is the only canidate which isnt full of crap read his website www.RonPaul08.com it will really enlighten you about his policy because u probally dont know because if you did you would vote for him

See..you make people who like ron paul, like me, want to kill myself.

please learn to spell.

I'm starting to lean more and more to Hillary and this article is a good explanation of why - I just think America needs someone who knows what they're doing, it's not time for experiments.

In other words, "more of the same."

Paul or huckabee, i want my freedom to own firearms.

But not your freedom of religion, apparently. You've got one candidate there who wants to make sure that the government can ignore the 1st Amendment, and another who wants to actually amend the Constitution to reflect his own religion.

WOW you guys are as bad as fox news wheres Ron Paul he is the only canidate which isnt full of crap read his website www.RonPaul08.com it will really enlighten you about his policy because u probally dont know because if you did you would vote for him

Yes, as usual. Read the propaganda, don't look at the record. After all, if you look at the record, you realize that the propaganda is full of crap.

On a side note: Romney won Michigan as did Clinton

On a side note: Romney won Michigan as did ClintonComplete the following sentence ;) :

"This is important, because..."

Complete the following sentence ;) :

"This is important, because..."

Well it is a "who do you vote for thread so...

On a side note: Romney won Michigan as did Clinton

Of course Clinton did. She was the only viable candidate on the ballot. But it won't matter, since the Michigan delegates won't get to do anything.

On a side note: Romney won Michigan as did Clinton

Clinton won a primary where there were no delegates to be awarded and the other major players had already removed themselves from the ballot, and last I checked, 36% of the vote still went to undecided.

Romney was governor(?) in Michigan, little surprise there.

Wake me when the campaigning begins for Illinois, I can't wait to see Hilary attempt to play up the "I was born here, Obama's from Hawa'ii" angle.

On a side note: Romney won Michigan as did Clinton

Not difficult for Clinton as she was the only candidate on the ticket there (the keebler elf and Dodd dont count).


And Im still trying to figure out how anyone who isnt totally bat shit could vote for Romney.

If he wins the presidentcy (unlikely) Ill be on the next plane to England (because we all know that if we keep having neocon nuts eventually the US will invade Canada):p


ps- Romney's DAD was governer of Michigan.

Romney was governor(?) in Michigan, little surprise there.Not this Romney. I think his dad was.

Well it is a "who do you vote for thread so...Yeah, but I'm not from, nor have I ever been to Michigan. Same counts for most of the other NSers.

See, Clinton was the only viable candidate on the democrat's side and the daddy-bonus candidate won on the republican side. This diminishes the relevance of this primary by a lot.

Go Democrats!


Personally at this stage I'd prefer Hilary to get in, but as long as it's a Democrat I'm happy. Obama seems like a great candidate.


Interestingly I wonder who America is less unlikely to vote in as President: A woman or a black man.





(just to clarify: I'm not a misogynist or a racist, I'm just pointing out the obvious)

Ideally, from the available candidates, Kucinich. But yeah, not gonna happen, so Obama with Edwards as Vice President.

Clinton won a primary where there were no delegates to be awarded and the other major players had already removed themselves from the ballot, and last I checked, 36% of the vote still went to undecided.


its amusing that 36% of michigan democrats went out in the cold and snow to vote for NO ONE rather than hillary clinton in a contest that gave out no delegates.

its amusing that 36% of michigan democrats went out in the cold and snow to vote for NO ONE rather than hillary clinton in a contest that gave out no delegates.

I think they're still hoping that the DNC will relent and let their delegates vote - and they wanted to candidates to go to someone else. =)

its amusing that 36% of michigan democrats went out in the cold and snow to vote for NO ONE rather than hillary clinton in a contest that gave out no delegates.

THat is quite amusing isn't it?

Wayne Allyn Root (http://www.millionairerepublican.com/home/wherestands.php).

its amusing that 36% of michigan democrats went out in the cold and snow to vote for NO ONE rather than hillary clinton in a contest that gave out no delegates.
And Clinton had a tough fight with Nobody, too! (I voted for "the elf", whose 4% was the highest showing he's had yet.)

Giuliani/Rice '08!

It's an easy choice. Why not go for the man that's most believable about what he intends to do as President?

I give you:

General Zod! (http://www.zod2008.com/)

http://www.i-mockery.com/generalzod/media/zod4prez.jpg

McCain!!! Whoooo!!! As for the Dems, I'd say Obama. I don't like Clinton and I don't think Edwards has much of a chance. and for you Paul, Huckabee, and Hunter supporters, I have but this to say to you: Burn.

As a non-USian, I'm highly encouraged by the level of Obama support on NSG. Unfortunately, I'm also sadly aware that we're not representative of the average American public. :(

As a non-USian, I'm highly encouraged by the level of Obama support on NSG. Unfortunately, I'm also sadly aware that we're not representative of the average American public. :(


Being said however, polls show that Obama is extremelly popular with the average American.


Really, the only people who dont like him are far right conservatives and people in the south who arent aware slavery ended.

There's an election in '08? :confused:

Bill & Opus?
I beg, i beg.
http://trevor.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/republicans_for_voldemort.png

whichever of the leading dems get the nod i'll almost certainly vote for over anything the repro's have to offer. i'd prefer a kussenich or gravel, and among demos, hillary is probably my least favorite atm, being almost as obviously bought and paid for as the rightwinlicans are loonies, but even her i'll take over just about any of "them".

i'll be nominating in party for greenies, my cognative kin, so to speak, but when it comes to what is unfortunately reality time, it'll have to be the dem nominee, almost certainly obama or hillary, with edwards as their most probable running mate. although obama/kussenich or obama/gravel i'd go for too.

i think whoever the front runner is they should choose kussenic or gravel as their running mate the way the reprobates always do as 'assination insurance'. although for obama i suppose he'll probably need edwards the way j.f.k. needed johnson.

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

If i could vote for him
Jan Švejnar
Unluckly here the President is elected by Parlament and Senate in joint session...

I want to take a poll who do you support for the Nomination for the US Presidency?

I'm Canadian, so nobody.

Though I'd really like to see Obama win, it looks like it's going to be Hillary by the way things are going.

There's an election in '08? :confused:
Indeed, however the OP in a rush of 'mericacentrism or lack of knowledge that a rest of the world exists, has not stated that this thread is about the US.

Gravel/Paul '08 (yes, I want a so weird distribution of votes that GRavel becomes president and Robn Paul vice president - just for added weird :) )

Being said however, polls show that Obama is extremelly popular with the average American.


Really, the only people who dont like him are far right conservatives and people in the south who arent aware slavery ended.

http://img.webring.com/r/s/sfc/navbarlogo


Broad generalization! I used to like him, but he said that stuff about bombing Pakistan, and well....

Anyway, this is way too much of a generalization for me to stand. Anyone who does not like Obama, does not know slavery ended, or *gasp* is far-right? And anyone who does not like Israel is a Nazi too, eh? Have you thought that perhaps some people just do not want to see us bomb Pakistan?

Broad generalization! I used to like him, but he said that stuff about bombing Pakistan, and well....

What stuff about "bombing Pakistan"??

You mean the part where he said that he would act on intelligence of top Al Quaida members' whereabouts if Musharraf would not? We're talking about something that pretty much any of the candidates in the running would do.

Go Democrats!


Personally at this stage I'd prefer Hilary to get in, but as long as it's a Democrat I'm happy. Obama seems like a great candidate.


Interestingly I wonder who America is less unlikely to vote in as President: A woman or a black man.





(just to clarify: I'm not a misogynist or a racist, I'm just pointing out the obvious)
I still think America will not elect a black President. So far the primaries are backing me up on that (the only place Obama's won so far is the one without a secret ballot, so social pressure not to be a racist may have influenced voting).

I actually like Obama - I think his idealism would be a refreshing change (I support Fred Thompson for the same reason) - but I don't think he can win.

I still think America will not elect a black President. So far the primaries are backing me up on that (the only place Obama's won so far is the one without a secret ballot, so social pressure not to be a racist may have influenced voting).

Wow, Obama has only won in one race out of two! And he only came within 3 percentage points in the second one! Obviously, we can discount him by saying that it's only because it was a caucus and not a closed vote and he hasn't got a chance.

Ron Paul

Just a reminder: the Florida primary is Jan 29-don't forget to support Ron Paul in Florida!

Ron Paul

Just a reminder: the Florida primary is Jan 29-don't forget to support Ron Paul in Florida!

Let's say I was in Florida. Now why would I support someone who is intent on stripping me of my rights?

John McCain. If not him, then Obama. Everyone else I'd be disgruntled at, and if Hillary gets elected, I'm fleeing the country.

Ron Paul. Don't flame me. I just think it's time for a small-govornment candidate, and he's the only one with a track record to prove his principles aren't just pandering for votes.

Ron Paul. Don't flame me. I just think it's time for a small-govornment candidate, and he's the only one with a track record to prove his principles aren't just pandering for votes.

A track record like voting for federal laws on things he claims to be state issues, voting for federal funding of some research when he claims to be against such funding, adding pork to spending bills, etc.?

Not to mention that he is very in favor of huge government at the state level - government that invades your privacy, controls your sexual and medical decisions, treats some groups as second class citizens, etc.

The idea that Paul somehow stands by his stated ideals more than other candidates really makes me laugh.

Wow, Obama has only won in one race out of two! And he only came within 3 percentage points in the second one! Obviously, we can discount him by saying that it's only because it was a caucus and not a closed vote and he hasn't got a chance.
I said "so far". I established this position (America will not elect a black President) before any of the primaries happened, and asserted that his support owuld be overstated in polls because respondents would be embarrassed to say they weren't voting for him because he was black.

I've been through this once before. In 1993 when the Conservative government in Canada was completely collapsing, there was a new right-wing party that people seemed ashamed to support. It polled at around 7% throughout the campaign, but then got about 19% of the vote in the election and was the third largest party in Parliament.

People lie to pollsters when they hold politically incorrect opinions.

nuff said.

A track record like voting for federal laws on things he claims to be state issues, voting for federal funding of some research when he claims to be against such funding, adding pork to spending bills, etc.?

Not to mention that he is very in favor of huge government at the state level - government that invades your privacy, controls your sexual and medical decisions, treats some groups as second class citizens, etc.

The idea that Paul somehow stands by his stated ideals more than other candidates really makes me laugh.

Amen. I hate to say it, but I trust the states less then I trust the feds. Which isn't alot to begin with.

People lie to pollsters when they hold politically incorrect opinions.

Perhaps, but the fact remains that Obama has won a caucus and was damn close in the primary. I hardly think that supports the idea that he doesn't have a chance.

Based on the information we do have, I would say that the main thing that could stand in his way would be young and independent voters choosing not to participate.

Amen. I hate to say it, but I trust the states less then I trust the feds. Which isn't alot to begin with.
If you decentralised the US (restored the federation), you wouldn't need to trust the states. You'd only really be concered with the state you were in - the actions of the other states wouldn't concern you.

I vote for Duncan Hunter, hes a strong Passionate leader and he'd be as great if not better than Reagen was!

Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who is also seeking the Republican nomination for President, has stated that Hunter might play a role in a potential Huckabee administration, noting that he is "extraordinarily well qualified to be Secretary of Defense."Let me change it

I vote for Duncan Hunter, hes a strong Passionate leader and he'd be as bad if not worse than Reagen was!

Ron Paul. Don't flame me. I just think it's time for a small-govornment candidate, and he's the only one with a track record to prove his principles aren't just pandering for votes.He sure is opinionated! But in all the wrong ways :p

Let's say I was in Florida. Now why would I support someone who is intent on stripping me of my rights?Because everyone hates rights! We want to be told what to do! :headbang:

I'm caucasing tommorow, Edwards and if he is not viable then Clinton.

In 1993 when the Conservative government in Canada was completely collapsing, there was a new right-wing party that people seemed ashamed to support.
The Conservative Reform Alliance Party, or CRAP for short!

If you decentralised the US (restored the federation), you wouldn't need to trust the states. You'd only really be concered with the state you were in - the actions of the other states wouldn't concern you.

How very provincial. The carbon emissions of the US and China not bother you?

Rudy.Puke.

He's under other republicans. Much like Rudy is.Boy howdy.
http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Bush-BJ.jpg

Boy howdy.
http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Bush-BJ.jpg

And the point of this is?

I admit it, I forgot Giuliani from my list, along with hunter.

For Ron Paul's racisim charges: according to his personal acquaintences (including the Austin head of the NAACP), if he is a racist, he is either damn good at hiding it from just about everyone since those newsletters, or he in fact, isn't. Either way, it apparently bears little resemblance with his actions since then (see his treatment of Rosa Parks).

For Pork spending: his basic opinion is that he does not want to subsidize the rest of the nation with tax dollars from his district. He adds his own pork to other pork-laden bills so that, when his spend-o-crat and spend-o-can collegues vote for it, his district will get some of their tax dollars back.

I think the man is almost entirely for state spending and control so that resources are better distributed within state.

Having worked in the power sector for a few months, this is the same as some energy policies: individual states are better at deciding what is best for them in terms of renewable energy portfolios (i.e. what % of power needs to come from what types of renewables) rather than a blanket federal statement, as one is more ham-handed than the other. Ron has said as much in his opinion on the partial birth abortion ban; where he felt that the ability to save, what is in his medical opinion, a life, outweighed its lack of basis in the constitution (though some might say the same about abortion as well).

Now to fan some flames: Is it just me or are most people* voting for Obama only doing so because he is a) not a republican and b) somewhat good looking?




*this does not include the politically astute NSGers.

I'm afraid the entire republican field is disappointing to say the least. We have and out rite liar (Romney), a man who lobbied to have a rapist released from prison, who then later raped another woman before murdering her (Huckster), a total racist xenophobe (Paul), a capitulating whore (McCain). and a bunch of moronic also-rans. It's a sad, sad time for the GOP. Though I can't say that I'm personally disappointed anymore (Check the thread I started earlier).

And the point of this is?

Think harder.
*ouch*

For Pork spending: his basic opinion is that he does not want to subsidize the rest of the nation with tax dollars from his district. He adds his own pork to other pork-laden bills so that, when his spend-o-crat and spend-o-can collegues vote for it, his district will get some of their tax dollars back.

Yup. It's that whole "fight improper spending by perpetuating it" strategy. I wonder how that's working out for him?

I think the man is almost entirely for state spending and control so that resources are better distributed within state.

And so that the government can tell you who to sleep with and how to do it, what to do with your own body, and that you are a second class citizen.

Ron has said as much in his opinion on the partial birth abortion ban; where he felt that the ability to save, what is in his medical opinion, a life, outweighed its lack of basis in the constitution (though some might say the same about abortion as well).

If Ron Paul's medical opinion was that the ban of intact dilation and extraction would save lives (which he says it is), then Ron Paul should be stripped of his MD. Anyone who takes half a second to look into it knows that the ban won't stop a single abortion from actually happening, as we are only talking about medically indicated abortions in the first place. All it does is make one potential procedure illegal - meaning that doctors have to use others which might be more dangerous.

Now to fan some flames: Is it just me or are most people* voting for Obama only doing so because he is a) not a republican and b) somewhat good looking?

I don't know anyone voting for those reasons.

The Conservative Reform Alliance Party, or CRAP for short!
The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (the word Party did not appear in its name) was not formed until 2000. In 1993 it was still the Reform Party.

I so do not feel inclined to vote for anyone in this race...it's that bad. There are more people running who I would not vote for than anyone I feel strongly that I would vote for. I suppose I would vote for Edwards though I don't typically vote Democrat...but the Republican options are really lame...

08 Who do you Vote for?Bill Clinton.

I saw him campaigning today.. he Rocks !!!

Wow I am amazed to see my thread getting so much attention, I thought it had fizzled out!

McCain. I agree with him on foreign policy, which is the most important area for a President. More importantly, I think he can handle our foreign policy competently. He very well might keep us in Iraq for a while, but he won't screw it up like Bush did. Fortunately, he seems likely to get the nomination.

I say Obama. He wants to bring the troops home.