My Presidential Pick

[TAlderson]

After watching the presidential race for a while, I've learned two things:

1) The sight of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney makes me want to kill myself.

2) John McCain is the only decent candidate in the race.

Obama and Edwards also got some consideration from me, but my main picking reason is this:

The president is the most important diplomat (at least superficially) of the US. Neither Obama nor Edwards have the experience to do this job as well as McCain could. Plus, while both Obama and Edwards are very charismatic, neither's speeches do much to address any policy issues. I know it's the politicians' job to bullshit, but from what I've heard from McCain both now and in the past, he seems to have more of a plan about most everything than Obama and Edwards. Finally, I trust him more than any other politician (which, admittedly, is not saying too terribly much) to make informed decisions.

So, to recap, I in no way think McCain is a perfect person or candidate. But he's a lot better than anyone else in the field.

Ron Paul fanatics, tear me apart.

-Tyler

[brandondrury]

Ron Paul fanatics, tear me apart.

I'm not a fanatic, but I did donate money to Ron Paul. I could argue a little bit. I could say that everyone but Ron Paul is either a socialist or a droid (John McCain being on the droid side). I could say that Ron Paul is the only candidate with a clear cut policy on much of anything and is the only candidate that can back up his beliefs with historical data.

However, you could always say "What do a president's philosophies have to do with him getting anything done?". The answer: Very little!

So while I think it's important to vote for candidates that share my views, I still realize that I live in an ineffective popularity contest. I realize that my fellow citizens have grown to develop views that aren't consistent with the constitution. I realize that my fellow citizens really think that free health care is free and they won't be paying 70% in income tax like The Netherlands. Even though the economy isn't THAT bad, I'm just waiting for my fellow citizens to vote in another Hitler. If the economy gets bad and our society continues to become more dependent on the national government to fix it's problems, this is the natural result.

If Ron Paul doesn't win the primaries, I'll withdraw my brain and just vote 3rd party down the line again.

Brandon

[TAlderson]

Yeah, I mentioned Paul because he seems to have most of the people who can form coherent arguments on his side. I just don't see him being our highest elected official. Call it a gut feeling. I just can't get behind him, even if he says things that seem to make sense. Know what I mean?

-Tyler

[md.taylor67]

I wished we could return to a constitutional government but this is a different time...
We can not be simple isolationalist we are part of the world whether we like it or not!
Ron Paul hasn't really thought out the results of his policies- or maybe he has but he tried with logic and reason some qualities that are not prevalent in most of the world...

[TAlderson]

I think you've hit on his main problem. In a perfect or even good world, his policies are great. But right now, we've got a lot of problems, and I don't see many of them having the effect that they "should."

-Tyler

[.tom]

john mccain was 1 of the keating 5 -a group of governing officials involved in the "s&l scandal" the collapse of most of the savings and loan institutions in the United States in the late 1980s for which thousands of americans lost their life savings -tho mccain was never prosecuted.

ron paul is out of touch with christian fascism -which only recently began ruling this country, overruling all previous constitutional governing in amerikkka. freedom is obsolete. voting is moot. governing faces may change, the system is christian fascist and will not change without tremendous bloodshed.

[md.taylor67]

McCain was the only "Republican" of the 5...

[brandondrury]

In regard to Ron Paul:

Call it a gut feeling. I just can't get behind him, even if he says things that seem to make sense. Know what I mean?

If we are talking about your own personal beliefs and not your analysis of what others happen to believe (who in the hell has enough knowledge to make that decision without bias), what else do we have other than what a political candidate says?

What other criteria are you going to use? His hair color? His charisma with the younger generation? Will Ron Paul be a bad president because he doesn't play saxaphone with sunglasses on during the Arsenio Hall show? (Clinton did this and they say it was a major reason he was "hip" with the younger voters).

We can not be simple isolationalist we are part of the world whether we like it or not!

Can you explain why?

I think you've hit on his main problem. In a perfect or even good world, his policies are great. But right now, we've got a lot of problems, and I don't see many of them having the effect that they "should."

I think the opposite. I think, now that times are looking more bleak in America than they have since the Civil War, that his policies, if actually carried out, are the only savior. The incremental drift towards socialism is what has gotten us into this mess.

I am an isolationist. At least I'm in favor of 95% isolationism. Read Stephen Ambrose's "Rise To Globalism". Maybe he's an idiot. I don't think so. I think that playing world police has caused us (and the people we've "helped") more harm than good. Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War did nothing but consume enormous amounts of resources (lives, money, natural resources, etc) that could have been better spent elsewhere. When America has taken an active role in improving it's security through foreign policy, it has came out less secure every time. This argument holds true even when you leave out the terrorism argument which has dominated our illogic for the past decade.

People want to claim that isolationism lead to the rise of Hitler. This isn't exactly true. Not enforcing the Treaty of Versailles is what lead to the atrocities of the Nazis. There is a big difference between being an isolationist and ignoring treaties, in my opinion.

However, America hasn't won a single war since it's adopted the World Police idea. (We can debate the first gulf war, but I think the "end" of that war wasn't much different than the end of WW1 which has been called the "20 year armistice" between WW1 and WW2. We still aren't done in the gulf and maybe we won't ever be. The war profiteers have found the perfect balance between profit and America's tolerance for bullshit. They are making sure not to "escalate" the war any further than America will tolerate. The socialists (democrats) are in on it as much as the droids (republicans minus Ron Paul).

Lastly, the last time we were sucked into a war when we had an isolationis attitude, we actually won. When there is a compelling enough reason for congress to declare war, there has historically been a compelling enough reason for thousands of people to volunteer to fight and sacrifice to win.

ron paul is out of touch with christian fascism -which only recently began ruling this country, overruling all previous constitutional governing in amerikkka. freedom is obsolete. voting is moot. governing faces may change, the system is christian fascist and will not change without tremendous bloodshed.

I'm with you, dude. I'd love to think that it's not too late, but I think American society is so far up it's own ass that people won't realize the shit they have allowed to occur until they've created a monster. The shift of power from citizen to state is transparent. Hitler was considered a god right up until the war went to shit for the Nazis. I think we'll suffer a similar fate. I just hope that I don't have to see it. My future kids are completely fucked!

Brandon

[md.taylor67]

Bro' the difficulty I find is with statements like these, "I am an isolationist. At least I'm in favor of 95% isolationism." I would need a clear definition to begin with... "simple isolationalist" to me would mean isolation, no political entanglements no financial entanglements.
Now if we retain United States's freedom of action and not seek literally to “isolate” the United States from either the world's culture or commerce I could see that as ok. I would like to see increased protectionism in international commerce.

[.tom]

we are the 1's.... we are the children... lalalalalalala.... hey. china is completely isolationist. seems to work for them. amerikkka used to be completely isolationist, it worked for us but now you say it is not the way to go. i disagree. itsa country for a reason -to preserve a isolated way of life.... nuthin wrong with that. used to be that states were isolationist. used to be republicans fought with their lives to preserve that. nuthin wrong widdit at all. it's called liberty. peeps used to fight to the death for it yet you and others think its not the way.... i disagree.