PDA

View Full Version : List your choice for President in order...


jAZ
08-18-2007, 06:54 PM
I pulled this post of mine from another thread. I'd be curious to see others lists

I included all the current declared candidates (D & R), the leading undeclared ones, and a few others that I've talked about here personally. Along with a note about why/why not.

I'd vote for the candidates in this order:

Gore - D (has the full package to be a good President... proven experience)

Clark - D (has potential to be a great President... limited proven experience)

Obama - D (has the full package to be a great presient... a little green)

Powell - R (Hard time trusting his judgement after UN, he would be #1 overall otherwise)

Biden - D (can't keep his foot out of his mouth, but I trust him on the issues)

Richardson - D (great experience)

Hillary - D (she'll do a good job, having Bill back in the WH will help fix a lot that's broken)

Edwards - D (not sold on him)

Dodd - D (same, not sold on him)

McCain - R (Like his policies best of R's)

Huckabee - R (don't like his policies, but trust him a lot... he's no Dubya)

Kucinich - D (he's a pacifist, no go for President)

Paul - R (his policies are extreme, IMO... but he'd not likely be able to enforce much of them

Gravel - D (Existential Gravel)

Romney - R (he'll do or say anything to get elected, but he'll do little damage when he's in office)

Thompson - R (he's phoney, but arrogant enough to not be a tool of NeoCons/Cheney/Rove like Bush was)

Tancredo - R (he's a little radical, IMO)

Brownback - R (don't like his policies, don't really trust him)

Hunter - R (I think he's corrupt)

Rudy - R (Like many of his policies before he abandoned them... He's Dubya 2... an empty cavern of foreign policy experience being filled by the NeoCons)

Newt - R (Imagine if Rove was President)

memyselfI
08-18-2007, 07:03 PM
Gore (a girl can dream, can't she?)

Kucinich (she can dream big dreams, can't she)

Kathleen Sebelius (still dreaming)

Edwards (I admit, I'm losing faith in this candidate)

Hillary (the ONLY way around the law allowing Bill to serve another term)

Richardson (I like him even though he's way too conservative for me)

Dodd (long shot) interchangeable with Wes Clark

Obama (I really wish I liked him more but it's just a feeling I can't explain)

Hagel (Yep, I could support this CON)

Biden (suffers from Tabago disease)

Bozo (could be no worse than the clown we currently have)

SNR
08-18-2007, 07:32 PM
I don't think Gore will be running.

patteeu
08-18-2007, 07:48 PM
Rudy - R (I like Steve Forbes and John Bolton who have decided to advise him on economic and foreign policy respectively. I believe him when he says he'd nominate the kinds of SCOTUS judges I want. He is the most likely, besides possibly McCain, to satisfy me in the way he carries on the GWoT. He'd be even better if he'd name Dick Cheney as the head of his VP search.)

Romney - R (Every Mormon I've ever known has been a high character, high achievement kind of person so the Mormon thing is a positive as far as I'm concerned. He's the most charismatic of all the candidates with the possible exception of Obama. I trust him to nominate the right kinds of SCOTUS judges. I don't trust him quite as much to aggressively pursue an offensive GWoT, but I suspect he wouldn't disappoint me too much. I think he's the most electable Republican in the race.)

Hunter - R (He'd be very good on GWoT and SCOTUS nominations, but I'd have a bit of a problem with his protectionist tendencies when it comes to economic policy. It wouldn't be any worse than the problems I've had with Bush on domestic policy though.)

Thompson - R (He talks a good game. I haven't decided yet whether he wants to be president just to be president or if he really wants to lead the country somewhere. I think he'd be satisfactory in the GWoT and SCOTUS.)

Newt - R (He's a visionary which I like. He's very good on the GWoT and I suspect he'd be good on judicial nominations. I'm more convinced with Newt than with any of the others that he would be running because he wants to make a difference. Unfortunately, he's pretty toxic and would have the same challenges that Hillary will have in the general election without the tailwind of an unpopular incumbant from the other party to play off of.)

McCain - R (He'd be reliable on the GWoT and judges. He's got a lot of baggage that I'd have a hard time overlooking like McCain-Feingold, the tobacco shakedown, his overly broad definition of torture, etc.)

Tancredo - R (I could live with a guy who isn't afraid to tell it like it is. It would be an interesting 4 years.)

Huckabee - R (As far as I know, he isn't strong on the things that are most important to me and his social conservative credentials don't mean much to me. He beats out Brownback only because he's in a rock and roll band.)

Brownback - R (He's more conservative across the board than Huckabee, but as far as I know he doesn't know how to rock. I just don't like the guy much I guess. Maybe if I got to know him better, he'd grow on me.)

3rd Party conservative candidate who supports the GWoT or myself if none is on the ballot - (This is the fallback position. No one below this line could possibly get my vote this year).

Paul - R (He's been my favorite Congressman for a long time. I agree with the vast majority of things he stands for. He'd have much difficulty getting any of his agenda enacted. But his complete misreading and misdiagnosis for the GWoT has me hoping he remains my favorite Congressman. I couldn't vote for him this year.

Biden - D (He can be entertaining when he opens his mouth and I doubt that he'd do too much damage to the country. He beats out Richardson only because he hasn't gone all-out-pander like Richardson with a call to withdraw all troops from Iraq beginning immediately.)

Richardson - D (He's as fake as anyone in the race, but he's got great experience and he's not a complete liberal whacko. His immediate withdrawal position on Iraq is a nonstarter with me though.)

Gravel - D (Because he's not as much of a nut as the rest of the democrats).

All the rest - D (Never)
















[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

Bowser
08-18-2007, 08:37 PM
Where is the "whomever is most competent" choice?

wazu
08-18-2007, 08:57 PM
1. Paul - R - The only candidate who truly believes that the Constitution is the law of the land.

2. Huckabee - R - A distant second, but he has impressed me in debate. He also supports the Fair Tax.

3. Tancredo - R - Another Fair Tax supporter.

4. Newt - R - I liked him in the 90s, even when my views were pretty liberal (prior to college). I'd need to learn more, but he seems pretty fiscally conservative, which is what I value most.

5. Romney - R - Some of the posters on this site have done a good job of lowering my confidence in this guy, but at least he claims to be a fiscal conservative.

6. Any Libertarian - Below this line, the Libertarians would pretty much need to disband and not put up a candidate for me to vote for them. Even then, the "Constitution" party might look good.

7. Powell - R - I guess. Always liked him for the most part, but a little unsure of some of his views.

8. Richardson - D - Good experience, good background. You know he cares about the border.

9. Obama - D - Seems like a well-intentioned guy, and at least he'd end the war ASAP.

10. Biden - D - He seems sane enough, and it's fun to watch him put his foot in his mouth.

11. Gravel - D - Grumpy old man would be kind of funny.

12. McCain - R - I used to be a big fan. I’m tired of war, though.

13. Thompson - R - Yuck.

14. Rudy – R – I used to be a big fan, but he seems like the “totalitarian” choice. No thanks.

15. Brownback - R - I usually don't trust candidates who campaign on being really good Christians.

16. Hillary - D - Worst of both worlds. War and Socialism.

17. Edwards - D – Total phony.

Sully
08-18-2007, 09:43 PM
Gore

Obama

HolmeZz
08-18-2007, 09:54 PM
Obama. Not really enthused about anyone else.

go bowe
08-18-2007, 10:19 PM
obama is my first choice, and my second, and my third...

ron paul would be next...

after him i'd have to go for little richard...

or maby john paul george and ringo...

not sure about them though...

after that it's go back and look a closer look at all the other candidates and see if there was one that i could support in good conscience...

Taco John
08-18-2007, 10:26 PM
Ron Paul will get my vote regardless of nomination. I think he would actually execute the war on terror while keeping us out of goofy, no-win ventures where our troops are playing bullet sponges without good cause. When Ron Paul goes to war, it will be to actually win the war, not twiddle around in order to make a bunch of military contractors rich.

Plus, he'd scrap the income tax and actually work on shrinking the government. He's the full package.

CHIEF4EVER
08-18-2007, 10:31 PM
Ron Paul will get my vote regardless of nomination. I think he would actually execute the war on terror while keeping us out of goofy, no-win ventures where our troops are playing bullet sponges without good cause. When Ron Paul goes to war, it will be to actually win the war, not twiddle around in order to make a bunch of military contractors rich.

Plus, he'd scrap the income tax and actually work on shrinking the government. He's the full package.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

1. Ron Paul

2. Ron Paul

3. Ron Paul

4th choice......it'd be a toss up between Ron Paul aaaaaaaand Ron Paul.

go bowe
08-18-2007, 11:55 PM
Took the words right out of my mouth.

1. Ron Paul

2. Ron Paul

3. Ron Paul

4th choice......it'd be a toss up between Ron Paul aaaaaaaand Ron Paul.so, you like ron paul do you?

i hope whoever wins will make ron paul the secretary of state...

now that would be a treat, wouldn't it?

CHIEF4EVER
08-18-2007, 11:57 PM
so, you like ron paul do you?

i hope whoever wins will make ron paul the secretary of state...

now that would be a treat, wouldn't it?

Yep, I like Ron Paul. Like many of my countrymen, I am sick of the partisan bullshit.

ClevelandBronco
08-19-2007, 12:12 AM
There are no Democrats on my list. Not one.

ClevelandBronco
08-19-2007, 12:14 AM
Wait. Joe Lieberman, but only if you threaten my family.

HolmeZz
08-19-2007, 12:32 AM
There are no Democrats on my list. Not one.

Would not have guessed.

Fishpicker
08-19-2007, 12:37 AM
Paul.

the only candidate I would vote for (other than RP) is Kucinich. if neither candidate is still running, my vote will go to R.P. write-in by default.

CHIEF4EVER
08-19-2007, 12:41 AM
Would not have guessed.

Is that a shock to you? The DEMS have only piles of dogshit to offer. Of course...The declared REPS are in the same boat.

We have 300 million people in this country...we can't do better than this? Damn, we are truly fooked. :shake:

ClevelandBronco
08-19-2007, 12:44 AM
Paul.

the only candidate I would vote for (other than RP) is Kucinich. if neither candidate is still running, my vote will go to R.P. write-in by default.

I'm sorry, but if you are trying to decide between Paul and Kucinich, you shouldn't even be allowed to vote. You're just trying to throw a political tantrum. Bully for you. We've noted your infantile indecision. Feel better?

Fishpicker
08-19-2007, 01:05 AM
I'm sorry, but if you are trying to decide between Paul and Kucinich, you shouldn't even be allowed to vote. You're just trying to throw a political tantrum. Bully for you. We've noted your infantile indecision. Feel better?

you... just don't get it. i would argue this with you if I thought you might catch on. but, you wont. what do RP & DK have in common?

ClevelandBronco
08-19-2007, 01:11 AM
you... just don't get it. i would argue this with you if I thought you might catch on. but, you wont. what do RP & DK have in common?

Just off the top of my head, I'd say that they are both fringe candidates at polar opposites of the political spectrum and that neither one has a snowball's chance in hell of winning or even affecting much of anything important with their rantings.

How do you see what they have in common?

SNR
08-19-2007, 01:12 AM
Just off the top of my head, I'd say that they are both fringe candidates at polar opposites of the political spectrum and that neither one has a snowball's chance in hell of winning or even affecting much of anything important with their rantings.
Well **** my ass and call me Shirley! I've had the wrong idea of what American democracy is. And to think, after all these years!

Thanks for enlightening me! :rolleyes:

Nightwish
08-19-2007, 01:16 AM
Barack Obama
Ron Paul
Al Gore, if he runs
Hillary Clinton or John McCain, it's a toss-up


I don't really give two shits about any of the others running, with the exception of Newt Gingrich, and my only care for him is that the slimebag doesn't get elected.

ClevelandBronco
08-19-2007, 01:18 AM
Well **** my ass and call me Shirley! I've had the wrong idea of what American democracy is. And to think, after all these years!

Thanks for enlightening me! :rolleyes:

There is no American democracy. We left that to the Greeks. Speaking of which,
bend over, Shirley.

HolmeZz
08-19-2007, 01:26 AM
It's that time of the month for CB. If you're lucky, he'll positive rep your post while leaving you a negative comment.

ClevelandBronco
08-19-2007, 01:50 AM
It's that time of the month for CB. If you're lucky, he'll positive rep your post while leaving you a negative comment.

Just for that, I positive repped your post with a comment that didn't amount to anything one way or the other.

I'll rip harder on you next time I leave you positive rep.

At least you have more personal integrity than this fishpuker.

Logical
08-19-2007, 01:51 AM
Richardson (I like him)
Powell (but he won't run)
Gore (Maybe I was wrong about him)
Hagel (Yep)
Dodd (long shot) interchangeable with Wes Clark
Biden
Paul (hey he would not be realistic enough to be dangerous)
Kucinich (See my Paul statement)
Edwards
Hillary (desperation move)
Obama (I need to know more)

ClevelandBronco
08-19-2007, 01:56 AM
Richardson (I like him)
Powell (but he won't run)
Gore (Maybe I was wrong about him)
Hagel (Yep)
Dodd (long shot) interchangeable with Wes Clark
Biden
Paul (hey he would not be realistic enough to be dangerous)
Kucinich (See my Paul statement)
Edwards
Hillary (desperation move)
Obama (I need to know more)

Ah, crap. Thanks a bunch, Logical. I'd have to consider Richardson if I were faced with the worst possible GOP candidate.

Fishpicker
08-19-2007, 02:08 AM
Just for that, I positive repped your post with a comment that didn't amount to anything one way or the other.

I'll rip harder on you next time I leave you positive rep.

At least you have more personal integrity than this fishpuker.

???

ClevelandBronco
08-19-2007, 02:17 AM
???
G'night, kid.

ChiefaRoo
08-19-2007, 03:22 AM
1) Thompson - If he is what he says he is
2) Romney - The guy is a leader but is a bit to staged for my taste and I don't believe in my heart he would be strong on some of my key issues
3) Giuliani - Meh. He should be the Gov. of NY


That's it. I wouldn't vote for any of the other R's and certainly none of the D's. If someone else won the R nom. other than one of these guys (which I don't think would happen) I wouldn't vote for the first time since I became eligable.

patteeu
08-19-2007, 07:32 AM
you... just don't get it. i would argue this with you if I thought you might catch on. but, you wont. what do RP & DK have in common?

It sounds to me like you're a two issue voter. Pacifism(DK) or neo-isolationism(RP) in foreign policy and an end to the war on drugs. On most other issues, RP and DK are worlds apart.

patteeu
08-19-2007, 07:34 AM
Richardson (I like him)
Powell (but he won't run)
Gore (Maybe I was wrong about him)
Hagel (Yep)
Dodd (long shot) interchangeable with Wes Clark
Biden
Paul (hey he would not be realistic enough to be dangerous)
Kucinich (See my Paul statement)
Edwards
Hillary (desperation move)
Obama (I need to know more)

Yep, you haven't changed. You're still conservative as all get out. :p

ChiefaRoo
08-19-2007, 05:59 PM
Richardson (I like him)
Powell (but he won't run)
Gore (Maybe I was wrong about him)
Hagel (Yep)
Dodd (long shot) interchangeable with Wes Clark
Biden
Paul (hey he would not be realistic enough to be dangerous)
Kucinich (See my Paul statement)
Edwards
Hillary (desperation move)
Obama (I need to know more)


Jeeezus Logical

1) Richardson is a fumble dick. He's had major failures in Washington and in NM and has had his arse handed to him in International negotiations. He's a nice guy but he's 2nd tier.

2) You're right Powell won't run.

3) Gore? You have got to be kidding me. The man is an obese joke wandering the world with a slide show full of shite. He's turned into a carnival barker.

The only part of your list that makes sense is your lack of interest in Hillary the Socialist.

Fishpicker
08-19-2007, 06:38 PM
It sounds to me like you're a two issue voter. Pacifism(DK) or neo-isolationism(RP) in foreign policy and an end to the war on drugs. On most other issues, RP and DK are worlds apart.

I don't support pacifism or neo-isolationaism, those are your labels and they really don't apply to the respective candidates. I would vote for RP or DK (last resort if he is in the running) because they are opposed to NAFTA & the NAU.

quite a few candidates are active in the CFR

Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

...thats an automatic deal breaker for me.

recxjake
08-19-2007, 06:41 PM
Rudy
Huckabee
Fred
McCain
Hunter
Tancredo
Paul
Romney

Mi_chief_fan
08-19-2007, 07:17 PM
I'd vote for a Ron Paul/Mike Huckabee ticket, and i'd strongly consider Obama, but would have to see his running mate.

How about a Ron Paul/Barack Obama ticket?

Baby Lee
08-19-2007, 07:26 PM
Using the choices jAZ provided.

Rudy - I've already outlined my reasons

Powell - crossover appeal, levelheaded, got his arm twisted on Iraq, but I still feel he'd have got it right if he had been THE guy.

Biden - experience, levelheadedness on issues [if not soundbytes]

Paul - A lot I can get behind, but he'll never fly and progressives will have a cat

Obama - Says things well, but man how can you be losing ground to Hillary, unknown at this point if his words will match his deeds if in office.

Newt - Again the left will have a cat, and if I didn't respect his anaylsis of issues so much he'd be down with Hillary on the division factor.

Richardson - competent and likeable, but nothing really stands out.

Thompson - gives good image and weight behind the position, but his coyness and sense of not being the hardest worker moves him down

Romney - looks the part, but changing his views so much is a big drawback, liked [and certainly respected] his prior social moderation much more.

Gore - everything will be a government solution, and the environment issue is gonna clamp us down and have us shaming and nannystating everyone like nobody's business, but he is a wonk and that move him up. Analyzes things with the same creativity and depth as Newt, with very different conclusions.

McCain - nice enough guy, and sober on defense, but he's a social nanny-stater, campaign reform was godawful and his views on entertainment content is distasteful

Huckabee - Gosh he seems nice, but he's the perfect storm of fiscal progressivism and social conservatism that is the entire opposite of me.

Clark - empty suit, but harmless

Kucinich - moon unit, but a sincere moon unit. Preferable to a slave to the polls

Edwards - resentment is not the platform I want the country run on

Tancredo - I got nuthin'

Hunter - see Tancredo

Hillary - subliminating her true views to electability and triangulation, plus another round of Bush/Clinton side sniping is my worst outcome

Gravel - just not all there.

Dodd - non-entity

Brownback - All for Jesus.

Baby Lee
08-19-2007, 07:41 PM
Yep, I like Ron Paul. Like many of my countrymen, I am sick of the partisan bullshit.
Paul may be a lot of things, but an end to partisan BS is NOT one of them.
'It takes a village' -v- 'Anyone can make it if they try' is the central nervous system of that divide. You start dismantling the nanny state, placing all faith in the market, and revising the tax scheme and a lot of folks are gonna forget right quick how relieved they were to bring the troops home.

Taco John
08-19-2007, 07:57 PM
How about a Ron Paul/Barack Obama ticket?



It would never happen. Ron Paul is going to run a very principled campaign, just as he would run a very principled government. He's going to use that principled approach as a contrast to his opponents and to appeal to voters who are tired of the loose way that government has been running (especially for the last two decades).

Ron Paul's VP is most likely going to be someone who nobody expects. He's not going to consult polls to see who is going to give him a popularity spike. Instead, he's going to look for someone who shares his principles and will be a political ally in accomplishing his vision of restoring The Republic.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2007, 08:31 PM
" You start dismantling the nanny state, placing all faith in the market, and revising the tax scheme and a lot of folks are gonna forget right quick how relieved they were to bring the troops home.
ROFL

a1na2
08-19-2007, 09:03 PM
Gore (a girl can dream, can't she?)



If you were a female you could dream, but in this case it would still be a nightmare.

Mi_chief_fan
08-19-2007, 09:04 PM
It would never happen. Ron Paul is going to run a very principled campaign, just as he would run a very principled government. He's going to use that principled approach as a contrast to his opponents and to appeal to voters who are tired of the loose way that government has been running (especially for the last two decades).

Ron Paul's VP is most likely going to be someone who nobody expects. He's not going to consult polls to see who is going to give him a popularity spike. Instead, he's going to look for someone who shares his principles and will be a political ally in accomplishing his vision of restoring The Republic.

I know, it was my TIC attempt at sarcasm. Say, i've got an idea for a thread...............

a1na2
08-19-2007, 09:05 PM
There seem to be a few here that are queer for Ron Paul.

Mi_chief_fan
08-19-2007, 09:07 PM
There seem to be a few here that are queer for Ron Paul.

Maybe he's been to Brownback Mountain?

Bowser
08-19-2007, 09:49 PM
There seem to be a few here that are queer for Ron Paul.

Well, if anybody would know....

HolmeZz
08-19-2007, 09:51 PM
There seem to be a few here that are queer for Ron Paul.

You know how I know you're gay? Cuz you have gaydar.

Ultra Peanut
08-19-2007, 10:08 PM
http://i17.tinypic.com/639ss21.jpg

After him:

Michelle Obama
Al Gore
Ron Paul
Bill Richardson
Ehhhhhhhhhhh

Ultra Peanut
08-19-2007, 10:17 PM
I'd vote for a Ron Paul/Mike Huckabee ticket, and i'd strongly consider Obama, but would have to see his running mate.

How about a Ron Paul/Barack Obama ticket?Actually, Huckabee would be a pretty awesome VP for anybody. A cool guy, in a position that renders his somewhat retarded political views meaningless.

Nightwish
08-19-2007, 10:24 PM
Actually, Huckabee would be a pretty awesome VP for anybody. A cool guy, in a position that renders his somewhat retarded political views meaningless.I loved what Huckabee said on the Daily Show a few days ago when Jon asked him about his views on evolution. He responded that after watching Congress, he has come to believe in devolution - where evolution holds that we started from monkeys and evolved into man, his observations of Congress have led him to believe that we started out as men and are devolving into monkeys!

ROFL

jAZ
08-19-2007, 10:32 PM
Powell - crossover appeal, levelheaded, got his arm twisted on Iraq, but I still feel he'd have got it right if he had been THE guy.
Agree 110%.

It's one of the great failures of history. Had he run in 2000 like everyone wanted and most expected... we should have been choosing between Gore and Powell. 2 men who wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

How different history would have been.

:sulk:

Garcia Bronco
08-20-2007, 12:12 AM
Ron Paul

Romney

Clinton

Ebolapox
08-20-2007, 12:35 AM
http://i17.tinypic.com/639ss21.jpg

After him:

Michelle Obama
Al Gore
Ron Paul
Bill Richardson
Ehhhhhhhhhhh

he looks like bill cosby.

patteeu
08-20-2007, 07:17 AM
I don't support pacifism or neo-isolationaism, those are your labels and they really don't apply to the respective candidates. I would vote for RP or DK (last resort if he is in the running) because they are opposed to NAFTA & the NAU.

You can call their pacifism and neo-isolationism whatever you want, but their policy preferences remain the same.

patteeu
08-20-2007, 07:23 AM
Agree 110%.

It's one of the great failures of history. Had he run in 2000 like everyone wanted and most expected... we should have been choosing between Gore and Powell. 2 men who wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

How different history would have been.

:sulk:

Neither of those guys would have invaded Afghanistan either.

oldandslow
08-20-2007, 10:08 AM
Dems I hope win...

1. Obama
2. Richardson
3. Gore

dems I do not want...

1. Hillary
2. Edwards

Rep I could live with

1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Huckabee
4. Ron Paul

Rep I pray do NOT win...

1. Rudy
2. Thompson
3. Brownback
4. Hunter

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 10:59 AM
You can call their pacifism and neo-isolationism whatever you want, but their policy preferences remain the same.
In your opinion only. And it IS pure opinion as it is not based on ANY facts.
For one, Paul supported Afghanistan and and supports a strong military. He's red white and blue. He's far from a pacifist.

It's nothing but nc lies and smear to try to position these guys as the extremists pacifists which they are not. This is also the view of most Americans too. Of course it's projection because it's the nc pov that are the real "extremists" the opposite end of the spectrum from a pacifist which is a militarist. Not to mention how their pov has resulted in America being isolated anyway, in the world due to their actions.

America has NEVER been an isolationist country. Aren't you dizzy by now pat?

"Neo-isolationist" vs neo-facists!


Lol!

patteeu
08-20-2007, 11:03 AM
In your opinion only. And it IS pure opinion as it is not based on ANY facts.
For one, Paul supported Afghanistan and and supports a strong military. He's red white and blue. He's far from a pacifist.

It's nothing but nc lies and smear to try to position these guys as the extremists pacifists which they are not. This is also the view of most Americans too. Of course it's projection because it's the nc pov that are the real "extremists" the opposite end of the spectrum from a pacifist which is a militarist. Not to mention how their pov has resulted in America being isolated anyway, in the world due to their actions.

"Neo-isolationist vs a neo-facists"


Lol!

I wasn't calling Ron Paul a pacifist. He's the neo-isolationist. It's Kucinich who's the pacifist. But I can understand that it might be easy to confuse the two. PBJ

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 11:04 AM
I wasn't calling Ron Paul a pacifist. He's the neo-isolationist. It's Kucinich who's the pacifist. But I can understand that it might be easy to confuse the two.
Since America's NEVER been an isolationist country then my post still applies minus the pacifist point.

It's a LIE.

banyon
08-20-2007, 11:06 AM
Since America's NEVER been an isolationist country then my post still applies minus the pacifist point.

It's a LIE.

Is this serious, or is it sarcasm?

Or is it Memorex?

patteeu
08-20-2007, 11:09 AM
Since America's NEVER been an isolationist country then my post still applies minus the pacifist point.

It's a LIE.

I thought it was "pure opinion." :shrug:

I have no doubt that you and Ron Paul are patriotic. I also have no doubt that the two of you are foreign policy extremists and that if your preferences became US policy it would be dangerous for our country. That's my opinion.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 11:12 AM
Isolationist is like mid 19th Century Japan—a hermit country.

Pat and I disagree as to what it means if you followed our arguments but you've been not around as much.

America did not get politically involved in remaking nations, nor did we have interventionist foreign policy. The imperial mindset began around the turn of the century. America did trade with the world, have diplomatic relations and allowed foreign immigration. There was no such thing at one time as rogue nations, or passing official judgment on another nations morality or theology. We traded with Czarist Russion and the big bad Ottoman Empire. That's not being isolated.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 11:14 AM
I thought it was "pure opinion." :shrug:

I have no doubt that you and Ron Paul are patriotic. I also have no doubt that the two of you are foreign policy extremists and that if your preferences became US policy it would be dangerous for our country. That's my opinion.
ROFL That's what the world thinks about America under the Bush NC ideology as well as most Americans! It's amazing how foreign leaders and foreigners want to know who this 21st Century Washington is.

banyon
08-20-2007, 11:21 AM
Isolationist is like mid 19th Century Japan—a hermit country.

Pat and I disagree as to what it means if you followed our arguments but you've been not around as much.

America did not get politically involved in remaking nations, nor did we have interventionist foreign policy. The imperial mindset began around the turn of the century. America did trade with the world, have diplomatic relations and allowed foreign immigration. There was no such thing at one time as rogue nations, or passing official judgment on another nations morality or theology. We traded with Czarist Russion and the big bad Ottoman Empire. That's not being isolated.

And when Jefferson refused to trade with anyone? Or when the Republicans refused to join the League of Nations? Or 1789-1898?
I think any historian worth a damn would say that if you were putting countries in that time span into categories of "isolationist" and "non-isolationist" we would belong in the former category. We weren't interested in Africa like most of the Euro powers, We didn't involve ourselves in alliances with other world powers, we didn't get involved in the Far East, and only traded to the extent necessary to keep our economy afloat. I guess if you say that compared to the extremely isolationist Japanese, we were less isolationist, that's correct, but compared to the vast majority of other countries, we would be viewed as more isolationist, so putting us in the other category wouldn't make sense.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 11:24 AM
Paul is not against trade though. There's a key difference.

"Any historian worth a damn?" Worth a damn to who?
Totally subjective. History is not math.

Do you know who originally coined the word "isolationism."
Look it up...is a real eye-opener. Just a battle of words.

Cochise
08-20-2007, 11:26 AM
I don't have an order right now. There's just a group of people who I will consider and those I won't.

Will consider:
Thompson - Like what he's said so far. I need to hear more, but if you held a gun to my head I might slot him as the favorite for my primary ballot.
Tancredo - Liked him in the debates, wish he were more a part of all this.
Brownback - Decent all around, but his being unsure of where to side on immigration would make me leery.
Hunter, Huckabee - Like them generally, but don't know a lot. Nothing to especially draw me in.

May consider on an 'if' basis:
Romney - Not sure why, but feel kind of 'blah' about him right now. Debates well, seems sharp, but not somebody I would be excited about at this time. Need to look into the 'inauthentic' knock on him and see if there's any substance to it. Haven't investigated him much.
Newt - I think he's a losing candidate, nobody is pining for the days of Newt. He might be a prime candidate for some kind of advisory position, but I don't think he has any weight as a candidate.
Rudy - I think he'd make a good president in the end, but he kind of gives me that 'ehh... don't know if I like that' on a few issues.

Forget it:
Democratic candidates
Paul - Iraq policy would be a costly mistake in the long term. Don't see the allure.
McCain - It'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for one of the amnesty pimps.

Baby Lee
08-20-2007, 11:36 AM
I loved what Huckabee said on the Daily Show a few days ago when Jon asked him about his views on evolution. He skirted the issue by making a joke about an easy target.

ROFL
FYP


So Ms. Clinton what are your views on gay marriage?
Good question, I think Ryan Seacrest and Simon Cowell should just make out already.


Hahahahahaha!!!!

BIG_DADDY
08-20-2007, 11:39 AM
Ron Paul will get my vote regardless of nomination. I think he would actually execute the war on terror while keeping us out of goofy, no-win ventures where our troops are playing bullet sponges without good cause. When Ron Paul goes to war, it will be to actually win the war, not twiddle around in order to make a bunch of military contractors rich.

Plus, he'd scrap the income tax and actually work on shrinking the government. He's the full package.

You have refused to even address the real cause. I was never for the war in Iraq and certainly want to keep my sibling out of there so I'm motivated to want to leave. That being said we have spent a fortune trying to control that source and the news is worthless. I would love to talk to some of the Generals to get their feedback before just throwin my hands in the air and giving up.

banyon
08-20-2007, 11:41 AM
Paul is not against trade though. There's a key difference.

"Any historian worth a damn?" Worth a damn to who?
Totally subjective. History is not math.

Do you know who originally coined the word "isolationism."
Look it up...is a real eye-opener. Just a battle of words.

For as insubstantial as this response is, you may as well have just posted a smiley. I gave some pretty concrete examples and you just say it's subjective and opinion based? I'm not disputing your claim that RP is not an isolationist. I'm disputing your statement that America has never been an isolationist country. That claim is untenable.

Nightwish
08-20-2007, 04:07 PM
FYP
Well, that's true, he did skirt the issue, and I would have liked to hear him actually defend his non-belief in evolution. I have heard that he doesn't believe in it, but I haven't heard anything clearer than that. Does he disbelieve in it, or does he just not believe in it (as in, the jury is still out, not enough information, etc.)? Nevertheless, his diversion was funny, and pretty on target!

Nightwish
08-20-2007, 04:13 PM
ROFL That's what the world thinks about America under the Bush NC ideology as well as most Americans! It's amazing how foreign leaders and foreigners want to know who this 21st Century Washington is.
Yeah, I don't know where pat gets off trying to pass off anybody else as foreign policy extremists. Starting a preemptive war, especially when the "imminent danger" is nowhere near imminent, is the very definition of foreign policy extremism. And it has been very harmful to this country, he was at least right about that. Then again, pat's a proud little neocon, polished swastikas, jack boots and all!

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 04:39 PM
For as insubstantial as this response is, you may as well have just posted a smiley. I gave some pretty concrete examples and you just say it's subjective and opinion based? I'm not disputing your claim that RP is not an isolationist. I'm disputing your statement that America has never been an isolationist country. That claim is untenable.
Nasty today aren't we?

I wanted to be pithy as I did not feel like reposting things.

So as insubstantial as your response also is, it DOES depend on what the term means to you. Since it is a controversial term, and reckless and oversimplified one I might add, to anyone who objects to the use of American force. It is an epithet. So it DOES exist the realm of opinion.

America was NEVER an isolationist country along the lines of being a hermit country like Japan completely sealed away from the world, it's ideas and trends of its time. It was separated by two large oceans so geographically it is so but not otherwise. Even under the Articles of Confederation Jefferson was serving as our ambassador to France. Even during Jefferson's administration the Louisiania Purchase was made with France. Had that not have happened we just may have been at war with France with Napoleon. Washington was considered pro-British because he approved the controversial Jay Treaty, which likely avoided another war with Britain. There were those who shared enthusiasm for the French Revolution. Even pre Civil War woman were interested in European fashions and sought to buy them. That's hardly being "isolationist."

Even Thomas Paine wrote in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, pamphlet: “As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. ..."

The correct term, is non-interventionism aka being reluctant to use military force on behalf of other nations or as the world's policeman. That idea started to change beginning with McKinley.

Mr. Laz
08-20-2007, 04:44 PM
Gore - D
Obama - D
Edwards - D
McCain - R
Richardson - D
Clark - D
Hillary - D (almost strickly because it gets Bill back in the White house)
Paul - R

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 04:47 PM
Hillary - D (almost strickly because it gets Bill back in the White house)


Why is he going to whisper sweet nothings into her ear?

banyon
08-20-2007, 05:04 PM
Nasty today aren't we?

I wanted to be pithy as I did not feel like I have nothing to adding things.

So as insubstantial as your response also is, it DOES depend on what the term means to you. Since it is a controversial term, and reckless and oversimplified one I might add, to anyone who objects to the use of American force. It is an epithet. So it DOES exist the realm of opinion.

America was NEVER an isolationist country along the lines of being a hermit country like Japan completely sealed away from the world, it's ideas and trends of its time. It was separated by two large oceans so geographically it is so but not otherwise. Even under the Articles of Confederation Jefferson was serving as our ambassador to France. Even during Jefferson's administration the Louisiania Purchase was made with France. Had that not have happened we just may have been at war with France with Napoleon. Washington was considered pro-British because he approved the controversial Jay Treaty, which likely avoided another war with Britain. There were those who shared enthusiasm for the French Revolution. Even pre Civil War woman were interested in European fashions and sought to buy them. That's hardly being "isolationist."

Even Thomas Paine wrote in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, pamphlet: “As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. ..."

The correct term, is non-interventionism aka being reluctant to use military force on behalf of other nations or as the world's policeman. That idea started to change beginning with McKinley.

I agree that non-interventionist is an accurate term and that it changed with McKinley. Sorry bout my tone. It's Monday ya know. :)

Nightwish
08-20-2007, 05:08 PM
The correct term, is non-interventionism aka being reluctant to use military force on behalf of other nations or as the world's policeman.
I can't believe that you, a teacher, got that sooooooo wrong! The comma should go after "non-interventionism!"

:p

patteeu
08-20-2007, 05:24 PM
Yeah, I don't know where pat gets off trying to pass off anybody else as foreign policy extremists. Starting a preemptive war, especially when the "imminent danger" is nowhere near imminent, is the very definition of foreign policy extremism. And it has been very harmful to this country, he was at least right about that. Then again, pat's a proud little neocon, polished swastikas, jack boots and all!

I agree that the Bush/Cheney foreign policy that I applaud is pretty extreme. I think Ron Paul's is equally extreme, if not moreso, in a completely different direction.

patteeu
08-20-2007, 05:25 PM
Why is he going to whisper sweet nothings into her ear?

Laz doesn't believe a woman is capable of running the country unless she has a man running the show behind the scenes, apparently. :shrug:

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 05:55 PM
I can't believe that you, a teacher, got that sooooooo wrong! The comma should go after "non-interventionism!"

:p
FTR, I know I make notorious typos. Sometimes when I re-read some posts later I can't figure out what I meant to say as opposed to how I wrote it. I skim read and post fast while I have part of my attention on other things. Sigh! I'm a crap typist...always have been. Thank god I only teach part time and most of it is visual.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 06:15 PM
16. Hillary - D - Worst of both worlds. War and Socialism.

Excellent point!

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 06:17 PM
Laz doesn't believe a woman is capable of running the country unless she has a man running the show behind the scenes, apparently. :shrug:
Well then I shoulda wrote "sweet somethings into her ear." :)

Mr. Laz
08-20-2007, 07:45 PM
Laz doesn't believe a woman is capable of running the country unless she has a man running the show behind the scenes, apparently. :shrug:
yea ... why doesn't it surprise me that you come to this conclusion about my statement.

Mr. Laz
08-20-2007, 07:47 PM
Well then I shoulda wrote "sweet somethings into her ear." :)
actually i don't much care for Hillary ..... she seems "off"

i don't trust her and i don't really want her in office.


on the other hand, i think Bill Clinton was a solid president and having him there to advise her would be a plus.



how about Barrack Obama/Bill Clinton ticket :p

mlyonsd
08-20-2007, 07:51 PM
Since it is so laughable to watch the candidates pander to their bases I don't know why this question is even relevent.

I will say this though. As far as the democrats go Biden and Clinton by far are acting more like the real deal than the rest of the dem field. They make Obama look like a rookie.

For the republicans.....none of them jump out as somebody that can actually win. As far as their messages go Romney comes off as the biggest ass kisser, Rudy is just pandering to the crowd, and Thompson is just plain lazy.

stevieray
08-20-2007, 08:02 PM
and Thompson is just plain lazy.

not so, he isn't playing the usual popularity game...he's sticking to tradition and announcing later in the year, as most candidates over history have...he feels confident he has plenty of time to get his message out...

he might be the dark horse of this race...

mlyonsd
08-20-2007, 08:09 PM
not so, he isn't playing the usual popularity game...he's sticking to tradition and announcing later in the year, as most candidates over history have...he feels confident he has plenty of time to get his message out...

he might be the dark horse of this race...

Since I'm not following the campaigns very closely you might be right. But I still am leaving an open mind until both parties pick their candidates.

The shit going on now is actually fun and funny at the same time to watch.

stevieray
08-20-2007, 08:57 PM
But I still am leaving an open mind until both parties pick their candidates.

The shit going on now is actually fun and funny at the same time to watch.

agreed...

....I like how Rodham/Clintom got first name treatment..."Hi mom!"

SNR
08-21-2007, 01:47 AM
Brownback - Decent all around, but his being unsure of where to side on immigration would make me leery.
Why are you even considering this weirdo? Brownback brings a totally different meaning to the term, "nanny state". Instead of the government watching over our assets, it will actually be watching over our families. He wants to "re-create the American family"? What a loon. I'd vote for Mike Gravel before I vote for Brownback.

CHIEF4EVER
08-21-2007, 03:58 PM
Since America's NEVER been an isolationist country then my post still applies minus the pacifist point.

It's a LIE.
Gotta disagree with ya here kiddo. We entered WW1 in 1917, after the sinking of the Lusitania. Prior to that, we were ISOLATIONIST. We entered WW2 in Dec 1941 and only after the Japanese bombed us. Prior to that, we were ISOLATIONIST. We provided Lend-Lease to the Brits, and only after some major league arm twisting and backdoor politicking on the part of FDR.

Baby Lee
08-21-2007, 04:04 PM
Gotta disagree with ya here kiddo. We entered WW1 in 1917, after the sinking of the Lusitania. Prior to that, we were ISOLATIONIST. We entered WW2 in Dec 1941 and only after the Japanese bombed us. Prior to that, we were ISOLATIONIST. We provided Lend-Lease to the Brits, and only after some major league arm twisting and backdoor politicking on the part of FDR.
Women sought European fashions you nitwit.

CHIEF4EVER
08-21-2007, 04:31 PM
Women sought European fashions you nitwit.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 04:38 PM
Gotta disagree with ya here kiddo. We entered WW1 in 1917, after the sinking of the Lusitania. Prior to that, we were ISOLATIONIST. We entered WW2 in Dec 1941 and only after the Japanese bombed us. Prior to that, we were ISOLATIONIST. We provided Lend-Lease to the Brits, and only after some major league arm twisting and backdoor politicking on the part of FDR.
Gotta disagree here with ya as well. My problem is with the term "isolationist".
America's never really been isolationist, a word which conveys a hermit country. We were non-interventionist in that we were more reluctant to use military force to defend other nations. It was coined by the left originally. The issue is for me is more what the word means. Post #72
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4151320&highlight=isolationist#post4151320

As for the Lusitania,that was "a British ship flying a British flag" and carrying over four million rifle cartridges and 1,250 cases of shrapnel shells for use against German soldiers even if it had American passengers.

"A ship carrying contraband should not rely on passengers to protect her from attack," wrote Wilson’s own Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan. "

Further passengers were warned by the Germans, in full page newspaper ads in the New York Times and elsewhere, that boarding a British ship heading into the war zone would place them at risk. They were never told it had contraband munitions in its hold.

Wilson lied us into this war, another stupid unecessary one, even if you're right that it was some sort of turning point for America. I say that point began to turn earlier under McKinley with the sinking of the Maine leading us into the Spanish-American War. More than one war has been started under some pretext since then, such as these including the Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq. Its not uncommon.

Adept Havelock
08-21-2007, 04:41 PM
Why are you even considering this weirdo? Brownback brings a totally different meaning to the term, "nanny state". Instead of the government watching over our assets, it will actually be watching over our families. He wants to "re-create the American family"? What a loon. I'd vote for Mike Gravel before I vote for Brownback.


A nanny-state "Social" Conservative. Welcome to bizarro-world. :shake:

CHIEF4EVER
08-21-2007, 04:45 PM
Gotta disagree here with ya as well. My problem is with the term "isolationist".
America's never really been isolationist the word which conveys a hermit country. We were non-interventionist in that we were more reluctant to use military force to defend other nations. The issue is for me is more what the word means. Post #72
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4151320&highlight=isolationist#post4151320

As for the Lusitania,that was "a British ship flying a British flag" and carrying over four million rifle cartridges and 1,250 cases of shrapnel shells for use against German soldiers even if it had American passengers.

"A ship carrying contraband should not rely on passengers to protect her from attack," wrote Wilson’s own Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan. "

Further passengers were warned by the Germans, in full page newspaper ads in the New York Times and elsewhere, that boarding a British ship heading into the war zone would place them at risk. They were never told it had contraband munitions in its hold.

Wilson lied us into this war, another stupid unecessary one, even if you're right that it was some sort of turning point for America. I say that point began to turn earlier under McKinley with the sinking of the Maine leading us into the Spanish-American War. More than one war has been started under some pretext such as these including the Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq. Its not uncommon.
The Lusitania tipped the scales and gave Wilson the excuse he needed to go to Congress. Prior to that, UNRESTRICTED submarine warfare raised tensions between the US and Austria-Hungary/Germany. Think about it. The war started in 1914. It took us until 1917 to actually declare war. The war ended in 1918. We were ISOLATIONIST up to that point. Just because a President pushes involvement in a conflict, that does not qualify a nation as Interventionist or Isolationist. The prior actions of said nation defines it.

Adept Havelock
08-21-2007, 04:48 PM
The Lusitania tipped the scales and gave Wilson the excuse he needed to go to Congress. Prior to that, UNRESTRICTED submarine warfare raised tensions between the US and Austria-Hungary/Germany. Think about it. The war started in 1914. It took us until 1917 to actually declare war.

Sure, the Lusitania played a big part. However, I think this sealed the deal:

.

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 04:49 PM
The Lusitania tipped the scales and gave Wilson the excuse he needed to go to Congress. Prior to that, UNRESTRICTED submarine warfare raised tensions between the US and Austria-Hungary/Germany. Think about it. The war started in 1914. It took us until 1917 to actually declare war. The war ended in 1918. We were ISOLATIONIST up to that point. Just because a President pushes involvement in a conflict, that does not qualify a nation as Interventionist or Isolationist. The prior action of said nation define it.
I wasn't saying a president pushing a war made it isolationist versus non interventionist. I was saying he used a pretext...and I might add wanted us in for a long time before. What I was saying is the word is a minowner designed to paint a picture of a hermit country which America was not. It was unlikely to be involved militarily. The other thing I was saying is that the shift in attitude and opinions on behalf of our govt began earlier.