Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dunenewt

Next US President?

If you could vote in the upcoming US elections, who would you vote for?  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. If you could vote in the upcoming US elections, who would you vote for?

    • John McCain
      8
    • Hillary Clinton
      2
    • Barrack Obama
      14
    • Some left-wing candidate with no chance of winning
      4
    • Some right-wing candidate with no chance of winning
      1


Recommended Posts

Who will it be?  I hope its McCain.  Thank God Romney dropped out though, according to a study into the political viewpoints expressed by all the Presidential Nominee Candidates, Romney came across as mildly Fascist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing Hillary/Obama.

But I'm sure they'll find a way to screw it up :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing Hillary/Obama.

But I'm sure they'll find a way to screw it up :P

You know, that second sentence just made my day. It sounds like a certainty rather than a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, that second sentence just made my day. It sounds like a certainty rather than a possibility.

It is a certainty that they will win, or that they will screw up?

An obama/clinton would be unstoppable I would think. Preferably obama for president and hillary as vice. Never been a black or woman president before. Or you can vote for an old white guy on republican side.

Not that I think if Hillary/Obama win, the US might actually get better, they will continue to do the same things they always have.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Also if Hillary wins as president and gets two terms, that will mean for 32 16 years the US will have presidents only from two families. Not very democratic looking.

EDIT:

My math is bad :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmnaah.

I think Obama will win.

That's not hope, that's a prediction. I hope that Hilary will win. Though truly, if they joined forces that would be swell.

Don't really like any of the Republican candidates, but that's hardly a surprise. Am glad that Gulliani seems to have dropped out though. Anyone who legislates against ferrets can't be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
according to a study into the political viewpoints expressed by all the Presidential Nominee Candidates, Romney came across as mildly Fascist.

Romney is (was?) just trying his best to become the religious right's darling. He's a mormon, and during his tenure as governor he was actually fairly liberal, wich didn't help. He's a lot more pragmatic and moderate than he's trying to appear.

I'm glad that McCain practicly has the nomination (theoretically Huckabee can still overtake him, but I think not). There's a lot to like about the guy. With him, the Republicans might actually stand a chance because McCain isn't a neocon and has more often than not been a thorn in the party's side. Centrist voters will love him.

About the democrats: I don't like or trust Billary, Obama looks like a sympathetic guy but I'm not sure if I'd trust him to run a country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am pleasantly surprised at how well Obama seems to be doing, I do not support his platform at all.  Once again, I will surely vote republican.  And Hillary?? No, just no.  ;)  Whereas I would totally support a McCain/Rice ticket!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havn't heard or seen Rice anywheres on the campaign. Pretty sure she is not in it or has taken sides. But maybe she will once a republican leader has been declared a winner.

I think the winner usually picks someone who also tried to get elected leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that the VP choice is at the discretion of the presidential nominee. At least I don't recall Cheney being the GOP runner up for the 2000 elections.

McCain will probably pick someone who's closer to the GOP base than he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney is (was?) just trying his best to become the religious right's darling. He's a mormon, and during his tenure as governor he was actually fairly liberal, wich didn't help. He's a lot more pragmatic and moderate than he's trying to appear.

[c]

Actually in order to become a Governor, he had to appear a lot more liberal than he actually he is, so now it appears that he is 'flip flopping' in his views, which is what cost Kerry votes in the last Presidential elections.

Oh, and I just suggested the Rice thing as possibly an ideal candidate for VP, I hadn't heard it from anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, frankly, all three current front-runners would make horrible presidents, but some are worse than others.

McCain is the status quo candidate. Yes, many people point out that he's part of the moderate wing of the Republican Party (that is to say, the non-fascist wing - not being a fascist is enough to qualify you as a Republican "moderate"). But to me it seems that McCain is a moderate in the same sense that Tony Blair was a moderate: it's not that he genuinely believes in centrist policies, it's that he lacks principles altogether. And all of McCain's promises sound like a continuation of current policies, perhaps watered down here and there. President McCain would just try to keep things as they are - in particular, he's enthusiastic about the war in Iraq. Given the fact that Bush's presidency has been an unmitigated disaster, it would be very bad indeed to get a president that pretty much wants to preserve the disastrous status quo.

Obama is the candidate of warm fuzzy feelings with no substance. I'm not really sure what his policies are, because he doesn't like to talk about them. His entire campaign is built around vague promises of "change" and "renewal" (whatever that means). He seems to think that being a young outsider automatically makes him the "radical" candidate that young people in particular should support. I'm not impressed. He comes across as a rebel without a cause at best and a cynical manipulator of youthful idealism at worst.

Hillary is the candidate of the Democratic Party establishment, and in my opinion she is the least bad of the three, because she has something the other two lack: A clear idea of what she wants to do with her presidency. She often gets portrayed as a calculating, cold-hearted mastermind. That's probably true, and that's precisely the reason why I like her. I don't trust Obama because his campaign is built too much on vacuous slogans and warm feelings, and I oppose McCain because he just promises more of the same. But Hillary is a person who can be counted on to overturn many of Bush's policies and firmly replace them with her own. Her ideas aren't particularly good and her policies are only mildly beneficial to the American people, but at least she has policies of her own, which is more than can be said about the other two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton is dynastic, the two others are not. You find this relevant?

(I don't know their programs, besides)

Edric, would you happen to know anything of Kennedy's election program/approach to compare? He had warm and charismatic discourse of unification as well, while I don't know if he went in the details before election... I don't know if this = wishy-washy presidency or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That's probably true, and that's precisely the reason why I like her"

I'm a little uncomfortable with this idea of solidarity between calculating, cold-hearted masterminds!

Bear in mind that the US president plays a rather odd role. It's an executive, but it has the power to veto mandates (to a point). It doesn't just submit its own policies (though it does on occasion) - that's more up to the parties in the parliament, if I understand things correctly. The exception is where the policies are ones of execution which the executive can get away with doing without consent of the parliament. Thus, you can interpret mandates how you like and do shifty things with them. There's a lot of power in appointments of judges, mind, and that's where Clinton might be noticeably better than the other candidates, though she might just as easily manoeuver herself into sticking some bigots in there to please the right.

But Clinton's overall record is fairly right-wing, well to the right of most of her party, though fairly mainstream within the upper echelons of the Democrat Party. To be honest, I don't think we'll be seeing much of a break from Bush on the majority of issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually in order to become a Governor' date=' he had to appear a lot more liberal than he actually he is, so now it appears that he is 'flip flopping' in his views, which is what cost Kerry votes in the last Presidential elections.[/quote']

Well, there's no way to know what he really thinks. I think we can agree that it's secondary to what his voters want him to think, though.

McCain is the status quo candidate. Yes' date=' many people point out that he's part of the moderate wing of the Republican Party (that is to say, the non-fascist wing - not being a fascist is enough to qualify you as a Republican "moderate"). But to me it seems that McCain is a moderate in the same sense that Tony Blair was a moderate: [b']it's not that he genuinely believes in centrist policies, it's that he lacks principles altogether. And all of McCain's promises sound like a continuation of current policies, perhaps watered down here and there. President McCain would just try to keep things as they are - in particular, he's enthusiastic about the war in Iraq. Given the fact that Bush's presidency has been an unmitigated disaster, it would be very bad indeed to get a president that pretty much wants to preserve the disastrous status quo.

I'd actually say that McCain is one of, if not the, most principal men that have been in the race. I haven't seen him back down from anything that he seriously believes in. He never distanced himself from his support for the Iraq war (like Clinton did) and during one of the GOP debates (in Michigan, I think) where Romney was blating on about how he would save the car industry (being unclear about how, I might add) McCain simply said what he meant even though he knew that some wouldn't like it: that some of those jobs would be gone forever, and that new jobs would have to be created or found.

He has made it clear on multiple occassions that he fervently opposes Guantanamo and use of torture in interrogation (again, in contrast to Romney who said he'd "double" Guantanamo).

He opposed Bush' tax cuts (wich didn't endear him to the conservative base), mostly because of this administrations' "borrow and spend" policies.

I actually thought that Romney was the Bush look-a-like in this election, except that he seems more competent. McCain on the other hand has very little in common with Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do find quite interesting, is they all have the same view regarding Israel, Cuba, and China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these views:

Israel = give billions in defense money

cuba = communist = evil

China = Bad for human rights, good for manufacturing cheap crap, evil for being communist

I've only recently become aware that a lot of food is being imported from China. Mmm, lead in food. I'm going to have to read the labels more now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these views:

Israel = give billions in defense money

cuba = communist = evil

China = Bad for human rights, good for manufacturing cheap crap, evil for being communist

I've only recently become aware that a lot of food is being imported from China. Mmm, lead in food. I'm going to have to read the labels more now.

You aren't telling me they'd tell you in their labels, right? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody's mentioned Ron Paul yet.  :( :D

Ron Paul is a moron who is thankfully getting the beating he deserves in the primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst part about Ron Paul I don't like is that he would support a gold standard which I think is stupid. Other than that he sounds like a radical that might do some good, rather than the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The worst part about Ron Paul I don't like is that he would support a gold standard which I think is stupid. Other than that he sounds like a radical that might do some good, rather than the status quo.

It is a sad state of affairs when people are so willing to support anyone opposed to the status quo just because he might shake things up a bit - no matter how reactionary or insane his policies.

Ron Paul's ideas are idiotic and ruinous in more ways than one. He not only intends to crash the global economy by returning to the gold standard, but he also wants to abolish public education, social security, medicare and medicaid, what little is left of unemployment benefits in the US, and so on. Oh, and he is also a racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...