Turn on thread page Beta

Who would you like to see as the next president of the United States? watch

  • View Poll Results: Who would you like to see as the next president of the United States?
    Joe Biden
    0
    0%
    Dennis Kucinich
    1.09%
    Bill Richardson
    2.17%
    Hilary Clinton
    25.00%
    Sam Brownback
    0
    0%
    Jim Gilmore
    0
    0%
    Christopher Dodd
    0
    0%
    Rudy Giuliani
    10.87%
    Duncan Hunter
    0
    0%
    John McCain
    4.35%
    Mike Gravel
    0
    0%
    Barrack Obama
    29.35%
    Fred Thompson
    1.09%
    John Edwards
    5.43%
    Ron Paul
    15.22%
    Other
    5.43%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Which candidate would you like to see in the White House in 2009?

    Vote and discuss -
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Couldn't care less. It's unlikely that it will make a blind bit of difference to my life so I probably won't bother voting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Fred Thompson.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Hehheh... Ron Paul in the lead.

    C'mon the underdog.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm just going to assume that no-one has actually read about his moronic foreign policy ideas.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Clinton. I think she might actually be capable of preventing the US from engaging in any more provocative foreign wars before they get themselves in too deep.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Whoever loves Jesus the most.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hillary Clinton. Lets give Bill another go in the oval office, although i hear him and Hillary sleep in separate beds.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    I'm just going to assume that no-one has actually read about his moronic foreign policy ideas.
    No. But I think we'd all rather read about moronic foreign policy ideas than experience them being implemented.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not 100% sure.

    Either Clinton or Edwards for President. Democrats would be misguided to pick Obama as their presidential nomination, but stupid to ignore him for vice president. What he's got going for him is he doesn't sound like a politician because he hasn't been around long enough to sound like one, which, ironically, is the reason he won't be able to make it as a president at this point in time.

    But as a vice presidential candidate, he would be unbeatable for getting out the voters and for grabbing the news headlines. It should be about the more important issues but you have to be able to get people to listen first and Obama seems to be able to do that naturally. A four or eight year stint as a vice president would also give him the necessary experience to make a run for it himself in the future.

    Although, the sad thing is that I can't see either of them trumping McCain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    No. But I think we'd all rather read about moronic foreign policy ideas than experience them being implemented.
    If Paul wins the Presidency they would be though. Not that he will - if he somehow (in some unimaginable scenario, possibly involving every other cadidate dropping out) took the nomination, not a lot of Republicans are going to turn out and vote for him.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    I'm just going to assume that no-one has actually read about his moronic foreign policy ideas.
    Could you spell out what they are, and why you think they're moronic?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I know very little about the probably subtle differences between the candidates within both parties, but I'd vote for a less religious Republican - someone who would allow greater progress on stem cell research, and other issues that are normally sacred to the bible belt, as well as someone who might bring in more restrictive gun laws. On economics and foreign policy, I'd like someone who supports low taxes, low welfare state and a foreign policy that is bold in fighting terrorism and supporting democracy.

    Is there a candidate out there that fits these criteria?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound02)
    I know very little about the probably subtle differences between the candidates within both parties, but I'd vote for a less religious Republican - someone who would allow greater progress on stem cell research, and other issues that are normally sacred to the bible belt, as well as someone who might bring in more restrictive gun laws. On economics and foreign policy, I'd like someone who supports low taxes, low welfare state and a foreign policy that is bold in fighting terrorism and supporting democracy.

    Is there a candidate out there that fits these criteria?
    Giuliani apparently fits that description.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    I'm just going to assume that no-one has actually read about his moronic foreign policy ideas.
    I was under the illusion he didn't really have a foreign policy...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Barrack Obama.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    your ma
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Couldn't care less. It's unlikely that it will make a blind bit of difference to my life so I probably won't bother voting.
    ummm... you're joking right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I couldn't give a flying **** who is the president. All candidates are statist and value big government.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Could you spell out what they are, and why you think they're moronic?
    Fundamentally he's isolationist (or as he puts it "noninterventionist" - I'm yet to be able to make out a substantial difference). And I know that sounds all spiffy for those who opposed the Iraq war, for example - but an isolationist America presents numerous problems for the world.
    1. The world doesn't work that way anymore, you can't just cut yourself off and expect to be fine - strength and the ability and willingness to project it is needed to protect US interests across the world.
    2. Whilst the US has been criticised for its military interventions, it has also been there when called upon. The only two actual wars that the UN ever went to fight as the UN (Korea and Gulf War I) would both have been impossible without the US. As would intervention in the Balkans, as would taking out the Taliban from Afghanistan, as would preventing the Soviets moving through Europe.
    3. Having the US as a powerful ally is vital to the security of numerous States around the world which are in key locations - that also provide the US with allies in key regions - Japan, South Korea, Israel, to name but a few. Limit the US willingness abroad and suddenly South Korea and Japan don't have the US backing to prevent North Korea doing what it wants, Israel can't act as as effective a counter-weight to Iran and Syria in the Middle East, etc.

    Essentially, I think that while he may believe that US isolationism is best for the US, despite popular opinion, the world needs the US a lot more than it thinks it does. The reason that many people can afford to be unconcerned by North Korean and Iranian belligerence is because they know that the US is hovering and could respond with massive force should either of those States try anything. Remove that powerful presence and we're all in a lot of trouble.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.