Who do you want to be the next president?

Post Reply New Topic

I think Obama and Clinton would make the perfect pair. They both have what the other doesn't. Obama would make a great diplomat especially on Middle East issues. Clinton is really smart and has the experience of being in the white house before. Plus Bill Clinton could stand in as a diplomatic guy too. People love the man. USA really needs to clean up it's image problem. Although Kunich does crack me up

On a side note I don't understand Ron Paul's popularity. Heres what I know about the guy and it scares me. He was a former libertarian which makes absolute no sense why he wants to outlaw abortions. That kind of rubs me the wrong way. I mean if you don't believe in government regulation why do you want to regulate women's bodies

This guy just reminds me of a snake oil salesman. Yeah he can make the federal government disappear but considering the number of pple the fed govt employs it seems to me that getting rid of it would be a bad economic policy. Although the whole homeland security dept is a bit much I will give him that. I mean isn't the CIA, FBI and the ATF enough to prevent terrorism? And if not the govt should just fund them for that purpose instead of creating a whole new dept.

It is because he is a Republican but also a novelty who stands against the status quo I would guess. Actually, that merely shows some divisions within the libertarian groups. The division amongst ideological libertarians on abortions is about the same as the average populace. The libertarians who want to ban abortion usually take a natural rights stance, and claim that the fetus has these natural rights, it is not incredibly odd of a stance once it is recognized that abortion is murder to some people.

It really depends on the suddenness he gets rid of them and the economic theories you judge his actions by. Suddenly reducing government spending could send us into a recession, however, according to the economic theories that Ron Paul likes, the government is waste so even though strain may exist now, cutting the government will increase long-term efficiency. I dunno, Ron Paul doesn't make me think he is dishonest, mostly because a dishonest politician would seem more rational for taking a different strategy.

George Carlin.

Oh, I thought this was a serious thread. Sorry!

The libertarians who want to ban abortion usually take a natural rights

It's seem odd to me. If anyone has a natural right to a woman's body it should be the woman. Not all women are physically/psychologically capable of becoming mothers. I also don't think one can legally/philosophically call it murder since women who have abortions didn't intend to become pregnant in the first place (murder is based on intent) and no one, not even a fetus should have the right to invade one's body if the host of the body doesn't want them too.

.

But won't it also give corporations even more power then they do now. How is this not going to end up as an oligarchy society? Efficiency is important but not at the expense of democracy. It's hard for me not to want a rational person in office. I have seen the damage already of what happens when an irrational person is prez.

Actually Ron Paul is personally against abortions but does not want to outlaw them from the federal government. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade but only in the manner of returning the control to the states where it should reside. So that each state would be able to decide themselves what to do.

His whole platform is basically restrict the FEDERAL government to doing only those things explicitly granted to it in the constitution and returning all other functions to the state level where the constitution actually puts that power. It's not that he is against all of the programs themselves but that he is against the FEDERAL government being in charge of them. It's a whole States Rights vs. Federal Rights and going by a strict interpretation of the constitution he is correct.

Since the civil war and Lincoln, the federal government has been ursurping more and more power and control that was originally retained by the states.

As such, right now I'd probably vote for Ron Paul but primarily because of some of the other things he has/hasn't done. No lobbyist paid travel, no government paid travel. Over 91% of his campaign donations are individual contributions as oppossed to corporate. He's time in and time out stood up for his beliefs no matter the outcome. He's all for bringing the US troops home ASAP.

I'm a registered Democrat, unfortunately, so I can't help Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, and he probably won't. If he does, he definitely has my vote. In terms of the Democrats, I like Obama's attitude, but I haven't read up on anyone's platforms as of yet. Except for Dennis, whom I don't like. So yeah. Undecided.

I have a feeling that either Giuliani or Romney will be winning the primary for the GOP so, I have a feeling it'll be one of those two I'll be voting for. McCain would be nice as well but he's looking a little shaky in the stats.

Thinking more on the topic. Yes I guess he would go that route. I remember in my legal classes the possiblity of Roe vs Wade rested on very shaky ground in which it is certainly possible that it could be overturned. Though it would always be controversial and back up for grabs if that happened as it is a form of government intrusion on a personal matter.



I have alot of problems with that approach. The first is that with medicaid alone the states are overburdened to the max to fund any program for their state. My state turns into chaos during budget times cuz there just isn't enough money to go around and of course the most influential lobbyists will pork it all to themselves. I took Con Law so yeah I get the whole state vs federal rights. My point is that the fed gov. will always trump the states. I am sorry but LINCOLN was right! Sucessionism was so trendy before that bloody war and it took a war with massive death tolls to make pple actually get Lincoln's message.

I think it can be argued that the executive power started co-opting the other branches after WWII not before and this was due to the expansion of enforcment powers which I don't agree with. Regulators have their place but the whole turf wars between state cops and fed cops is a waste of resources. Fed cops instead of profiling should be inspecting meat if you ask me but that is just my humble opinion. I also think that the public should impeach it's presidents more. I dont think a piece of paper no matter how sacred is going to solve the current dilemma we are in. It's going to take a Congress with a backbone that actually listens to it's constituents and who take's the prez to task for basically doing a crappy job, not another prez that promises to do a better job ( which is not saying much)



This is one of those rare instances in which I agree with Ann Coulter. As much as I despise the whole idea of corporations being considered "people" under the 13 th (?) amendment I don't see how an individual contribution is considered more worthy than a buisness one. Money is money and an individual can be just as amoral and have just as much cash as a corporation. If he respects his beliefs why did he switch parties? I don't mean to offend but it's hard for me to get past that.



Which kind of makes me not trust him. That is the one thing that the public has wanted for a couple of years now. Lately on the news I have heard that the troops arn't going to stay much longer in Iraq anyway given the whole mission accomplished part 2 junk. Ron Paul has one redeeming quality though ; he is the smartest Repub that is running but that is not saying much when you got pple like Giulani and Romney in the running. If i didnt' have to put up with Bush for 8 yrs I would almost feel bad for the Repubs.

My canidate has arrived.

Colbert announces presidential pursuit (AP)

NEW YORK - Stephen Colbert has announced his candidacy for president on "The Colbert Report," tossing his satirical hat into the ring of an already crowded race.

"I shall seek the office of the president of the United States," Colbert said Tuesday on his Comedy Central show as red, white and blue balloons fell around him.

Colbert, 43, had recently satirized the coyness of would-be presidential candidates by refusing to disclose whether he would seek the country's highest office — a refusal that often came without any prompting.

more...

Calandale

As a conspiracy nut, I dont believe it makes any difference who the president is, or voting for that matter.

Stephen Colbert. I'm with you.

That's not being a conspiracy nut. That's being a realist. Everybody else is a nut.

Who do I want to be president next? Anybody but the current candidates right now!

there's evidence that leans to the side that the 2004 elections and the 2000 elections were rigged.


i wouldn't be surprised if it was more of the same.

the media is going a great job of directing the public away from ron paul.