Presidential Poll
 

All right, since today is an election day... err, somewhere else... let's have a poll ourselves. Who would you elect President?

Colin Powell will be the next good US President, if his chances aren't ruined by Rebublican Party in-fighting. But 1st we'll have to get through 4 years of Democrats, cuz I don't think Bush will be re-elected (unless they "coincidentally" happen to find large caches of WMDs in Iraq shortly before the election). Oh and there's that whole appocalypse thing we'll need to survive too. :P

:lol: why do you think the US is still there....maybe there close to finally planting I mean finding those WMD, but it would have to be done in Sept. or Oct to make it stick before the election. :lol: :lol:

Colin Powell would never get the Republican nomination for president- he's not crooked enough!!

Thats true, but why do you care? Arent you a demoncrat, being a tree hugging hippy and all? :twisted:

We're still in Iraq because we haven't ensured the new gov't there will be extremely US friendly yet. Why do you think we're fighting against open elections? We still have to make sure that all the candidated for Iraq's new president/cabinet are all big supporters of the US. :roll:

I'm sticking with Dean. He's obviously not somebody's puppet if he's that passionate about winning the race. His puppetmaster would have written a much more humble speech. :lol:

There is the distinct possibility that he's a pupet and a retard. :P :lol:

I feel like I am at Costco, or Walmart durring the holidays and I have to pick between 100 really long lines...

They all suck! This is much worse than 4 years ago...

IMHO, I think Kerry or Edwards are much better choices than Al Gore was 4 years ago. Or maybe I'm just leaning to the left as I get older... :lol:

Yes, but Gore almost won, I'm not sure any of the Democrats really have a chance at this point. They are to fragmented with no obvious leader. It will be difficult to elect a Democrat when the party can't even bring an obvious contender to the ring. These guys are sparing partners at best.

I'd vote for Clark in a heartbeat if I thought he stood a chance. Dean is too... overhyped for my taste at the moment.

Kucinich or Kerry seems to be a little more along the same lines as me. Fiscally conservative but socially liberial.

I think that for now that's true, in a few months when it's finally time to nominate a single candidate all of these guys will have to join together in support the nominee to win the general election. They've at least been talking about it everywhere they go, that the number one issue is to oust GWB in the fall. To win in November they'll have to learn how to close ranks and get behind the nominee for real, not just in spirit. The republicans have been good at that for the last few years, democrats seem like they haven't quite completely learned yet.

The thing that has pricked up my ears the most about anyone running is Kerry's proposal for the goverment to establish (and actively fund) hydrogen power research.

I think that to say none of these guys has a chance is a little premature. If the election was tomorrow that might be true, but as the field narrows the other remaining candidate will hopefully gain support, that is if the democrats can learn to fall in line. (I agree with lab Monkey, the republicans are much better at that) Besides the dems don't officially nominate a candidate until August.

I don't hold a lot of stock in polls, but one poll over the weekend showed that if the election were held tomoorow, Bush would beat Kerry by a small margin. Another poll showed that Kerry would actually beat Bush by a small margin. So there is a possibility that enough people are concerned enough about the energy crisis, health care, and the economy to oust Bush.

So far we have John Edwards leading "suck it" by a nose...

I had to go vote for "suck it" just to even it up...

Hilary Clinton,,,but I voted for Edwards.

Mr. Sterling.
o nevermind, that was just a tv show. :roll:

This thread sucks.

Anyone that thinks the President actually makes a difference is naive. This country is governed by special intrest groups and rich white men that work from the shadows to protect their own rich white asses. The President doesn't really have enough power to make a difference anymore, because you have to be such a "team player" (aka puppet) just to get a nomination from your party. So pick *any* one of the them, it matters not. It will take *serious* changes in our election process (i.e. abolishing the 2 party system, and pooling *all* campaign finances for *all* candidates) before we have a President with some balls that can make a difference (like FDR, or Lincoln, or Kennedy, etc). For now we're stuck with the Presidential equivalent of Britney Spears, a person manufactured by Corporate America to help them make more money.

Damn I'm jaded today.

True wisdom in that post

Yeah you are. What you said is incorrect; the President and Congress do have a ton of power, that's why lobbyists/special interest groups spend so much money and time trying to influence them. What it sounded like you were trying to say is that anyone who gets to that level is corrupted already by the time they get there, which I would agree usually appears to be the case these days. The two party system isn't helping matters either. The problem with taking all campaign finances and dividing them up equally among everyone running is that then you'll have 10 gazillion crackpots signing up to run, who aren't serious and just want to see the country and have some fun on someone else's dollar.

The problem with taking all campaign finances and dividing them up equally among everyone running is that then you'll have 10 gazillion crackpots signing up to run, who aren't serious and just want to see the country and have some fun on someone else's dollar.[/quote]

i would run 8) my slogan "I will fix everything that is broke with the peoples united help" :lol: as if you could unite the people :lol:

My point was that's it's impossible to get a President that can actually make a difference. You simply can't get elected in this country unless you're willing to support the status quo, because tons of seriously rich corperations and people have already purchased the gov't and continue to use their money to stop change.

Significant campaign finance reform is simply one way to help correct the situation. Of course, you can't just let anyone run on a evenly split campaign bank, due to the emmence waste of money ('course I'd consider the current campaign expenitured emmence wastes as well).

Try this: Require all candidates to have a "party". Your party must have 50,000 (or some logical arbitary number large enough to prevent crack-pots) members. Once you've got enough members, your party can run, and will recieve their fair share of the campaign finance pool.

Or, more simply, limit the total amount anyone can spend on a campaign to say $1 million, and don't bother with dividing it all up.

My point is, most all of the potential Democrat nominiees are just as good as any of the others... but the Dems will have to pick one to rally behind in order to beat Bush. I'd rather live in a nation where they all have a shot at winning. I wouldn't have a problem with a President elected by only 30% of the popular vote, if that's still the majority. The CA governor recall election may have been full of yahoo's running, but at least there was a choice! The presidential election only allows me to pick from 2 yahoos.

You are quite jaded, and I do agree with you to a great extent. But whose fault is it? Lobbyists can't directly buy your vote. We, that is the American people, are so gullible. We tend to vote for the guy with the flashiest ads and the most photogenic smile. (Look at CA's new governator.) Lobbyists can buy that. I know I am naive and idealistic :roll: , but if we looked at voting records and refused to reelect people who are clearly more concerned with their next campaign war chest, we might change things. I do however have little faith that this will happen any time soon.

We also have had numerous opportunities to elect third party candidates. I know that they are usually not-mainstream (but isn't that the point). However, if we really want to buck the two party system, we need to vote for third party candidates. Too often I have heard people say, "I am not going to vote for him/her because she won't win." Well obviously not if you don't vote for them. We are so concerned about being on the winning team even if it means nothing changes. Even if third party candidates aren't elected, they may force the two parties to change their ways to avoid losing votes. Lobbyists don't even want to buy a loser.

Though I don't believe the answer to all the problems with our political system lies in the democratic pool this election season, there are some less greusome choices. Ex: While in the senate, Kerry voted for increasing CAFE standards which auto manufacturers and labor unions don't like. He made that decision knowing he was risking labor support which is important source of money and endorsements. Edwards has also vowed not to take money from PACs. At least these two seem to be less bought and payed for than some other candidates and the incumbent. :P

Excuse my naive, liberal ramblings. :oops:

I'm not sure what the answer is. I doubt the first option would hold up to legal challenges... requiring all campaign donations to be pooled means by definition that someone couldn't raise money on their own; so anyone not selected to be part of the pool is for all intents and purposes excluded from running for a national office. Requiring someone to be from a "party" to get a share of the pool means arbitrary definitions like you said, and I'd venture to guess that arbitrary restrictions like that on someone's right to run for political office would be ruled un-constitutional.

The second option might be a step in the right direction but could probably be weaseled around by someone with enough money, or who had "friends" with enough money... like a "friend" in each state who just happened to set up a state-wide calling campaign to tell people how much they liked that particular candidate.

Uhm, I am not sure of the specifics but I think that this kind of already exists. There is a certain amount of federal money for campaigns- remember that little box you can check when you file your returns. I believe to qualify for it, a party must get a certain percentage of the vote in a previous election. Pretty devious, huh? :twisted: Can't get money to get the votes until you get the votes. I am not sure of the particulars. I just remember last presidential election, the Green party's goal was to get 5% of the vote so they could qualify for the money.

Just food for thought.

The reason that we don't vote for 3rd party candidates isn't to "be on the winning team", it's to pick the lesser of two evils.

Let's say Bush, Gore and my Uncle Bob are running. I *know* Uncle Bob is the best candidate, but since he's unknown to 99.95 of the nation, he won't win. Let's also say I *hate* Gore... so now I'm forced to vote for Bush just to keep Gore out of office. This is indeed what happened to Gore in 2000... since most of the 3rd party candidates were fairly liberal, I bet a lot of those people in Florida that voted 3rd party are kicking themselves.

I completely understand that line of thinking. Trust me. It has waved my vote away from third party candidates before as well, and I regret it. But at some point we have to start taking responsibility as voters for not having a third party. If you have two candidates that stink, as I believe was the case was in 2000, why not cast a protest vote. A third party that receives a noticable amount of votes will be a bigger catalyst for change than picking the lesser of two evils regardless of your party affiliation.

You sure? Ross Perot didn't change anything, and he got lots of votes.

What we really need is two votes each. You can either vote for two candidates, or against two candidates, or one of each, etc.

That way, a staunch support can vote twice for their candidate, or an uber-anti type person can double vote against their enemy. Or I can vote third party w/o completely giving up my opposition to a particular person.

You have a point with the Perot thing. But remember, Perot was a one time thing. If parties thought that it might happen year after year, it could change. But how well is the status quo working for anyone? If something's broke shouldn't we try to fix it? I guess I am just tire of republicans and democrats alike complaining without changing the way they vote. Which is why I endorse voting third party when both candidates stink. It is an easy realistic action, though minute, one can take that doesn't feed into maintaining the sytem. I say put up or shut up.

I must say I like your two votes each scheme. Though, I prefer to think in the realm of reality. :)

I have no impressions that my ideas in this (and most other) threads could be implemented. The only way to really change our gov't is to either a) have a massive bloody revolution and overthrow the status quo, or b) educate the shit out of our children so we can get rid of the mindless fucking retards that live and thrive in this country in a generation or two.

Bottom line: The US is messed up because the people that live here let it get that way, and for the most part, as a nation of retards that would rather watch reality TV than participate in reality, we're too stupid to realize or care that our nation has gone to shit.

This thread still sucks. I'm gonna go drive fast somewhere now.

Yeah, every time I see there's a post in this thread, I get pissed off that I'm gonna have to read more whining about the election. Which makes my replies that much more vitriol. :x

Damn you guys are bitter and disillusioned.

Im moving to Mexico and living on a beach out of a mobile home just to avoid this post and posts like it... GOD BLESS CORRUPTION!!