Badmovies.org Forum

I don't want this one to be a flame war, but at the same time, we are heading into what could be a very consequential Presidential election.  The Democrats are renominating President Obama, of course, but the Republican field is still pretty wide open.  Without a bunch of debate and argument, tell me who you like (either by voting anonymously, or voting, then posting the reason why).  This is for no other reason than my own curiosity.  Thanks for your participation!

Since it's my thread, I'll vote first.  I genuinely like Rick Perry and he has been a good governor for Texas, for the  most part, but the more I hear Herman Cain the more I like him.  He is eloquent, persuasive, and seems to have a clear idea what to do.  If he is still in the running when we get to the Texas primary, he's got my vote (for now, anyway!)

NONE, they should have the guys from Iron Maiden as the prez. they would liven things up a bit!

Aliens who take over Earth.  They couldn't do any worse than we have!

Nobody really, but since Bill and Opus were nominated, I am going with them.

I'll probably end up voting for Obama, but it's really an evil of two lessers vote. The last four years have been... uninspiring.

I don't like Rick Perry, but I dislike when politics get in the way of reason. If a candidate ever arose with a reasonable background in the sciences, I would probably vote for them. Then again, they'd probably be a horrible politician.

Indy: I've got a question for you about Perry. I'm surprised you would support him after what he's done to education funding in Texas. As an educator, what is his appeal to you? I personally could not support him whatever his stance on other issues might be just based on his devaluing of education in a state that so desperately needs reform in that area.

I personally kind of like Cain, but I'm still undecided.

There is no one in the current stable of candidates that instills confidence in me.

I would vote for Bill and Opus in a heartbeat.

Oh god, are they going through that charade again?  Remind me to not watch TV for the next 13 months.

No strong feelings but Romney for now.  I don't think I could justify a vote for Obama.

Ron Paul is interesting and I agree with a lot of his politics, philosophically.  But 1) he's unelectable and 2) I have a feeling that if he did somehow manage to get elected it could be a disaster.  I think Congress would run roughshod over him.

Obama...I guess. I think he's the lesser of the evils in this case.

Of all listed, I would prefer Ron Paul. He represents the antithesis of everything I hate about politics. I watched The Ides of March yesterday, which exemplifies everything I hate about politics. Rev is right though, he is practically unelectable. I wouldn't say unelectable outright, but the only way we could get elected would be if he had dedicated himself as a third-party candidate and the planets aligned just right. Remember, Ross Perot did quite well as a third-party candidate and doesn't carry near the political weight that Ron Paul does. Highly unlikely, however.

Our system is broken, however. The budget deficit is a bigger deal than anybody wants to admit. It can be solved, and it really wouldn't hurt as much as everybody thinks it would, but the two parties refuse to budge on what is to be cut because, ultimately, by giving up they give up power. The Reps are just as guilty of this deficit as the Dems are, but finger-pointing is all we've gotten from them, and it's all we're going to get.

So, ultimately, unless Ron Paul actually gets on the general ballot by some means, my vote will go where it always has, to the libertarian candidate. I don't compromise my ideals at the ballot box.

I think almost all of the candidates are dumbass cretins, but that's just me. I voted Obama, mainly because I liked a lot of things he SAID he wanted to do four years ago, but really didn't. Rethinking it, "NONE OF THEM" would have been a more true option for me (so ignore one Obama vote). I like some of the ideas Ron Paul has, but I wouldn't vote for anyone who's not for the seperation of church and state, this simply ignores what Thomas Jefferson said. Then again, I live in Europe so what I think doesn't really matter at all.

I gotta say Bill and Opus... But I'll stick witH Obama.  So far the Republican slate is just trying to court the nutty people vote WAY too much.  I got nothing againsta  good fiscal conservative, but sheesh...bring us jobs and leave the gay people alone.  I worry about kids eating and having doctor's access, not legislating social issues.
-Ed

Well, Obama is a hell of a speaker. Nobody can deny that. Even I get caught up sometimes when he starts talking, then I have to bring myself back and realize that he is definitely style over substance. The problem is the style portion of the equation is just too damn good.

As a fellow Texan,I have to agree with you on Perry. I've never voted for him and never will. I have yet to really settle on a particular candidate....as a Moderate I will vote for the one I choose and do not rule out someone just because of their party affiliations.

Education is a subject I find to be of great importance. Partisan politics are disgusting to me, but I do identify myself as a fiscal conservative. I look at the decision to spend much like how a business does. Is it an investment or an expense? Businesses can't throw money away. So, does the expenditure translate to making the country more competitive or stronger? If the answer is yes, then I'm in favor of it. Education and infrastructure are investments. They make us more competitive. They enrich the workforce, which will in turn enrich the GDP. That's the thing that bugs me the most. Neither side seems to really get this. The deficit can be fixed, but failures in education and infrastructure will absolutely destroy us in the longrun. But we as a nation have forgotten about being forward-thinking. The only thing anybody cares about are the next four years.

I'm a big supporter of Ron Paul. But who knows what'll happen there.

Well, you got a point there. I hate it when we go through this time because of every friggen political commercial is about pointing the finger at each other and praising themselves when they don't show the bad part of their lives. Me, I vote for no one.

Ron Paul. I doubt he will emerge victorious in his attempt to gain office, that's if the globalists and Bilderberg group don't have a hand in picking the Prez like some people believe. He seems to be a pretty genuine, straight-talking down to earth guy for a politician. I mean, let's face it, they're all crooked one way or another but I'll go with Ron Paul.

Thanks for all the responses!
And I will respond to what Derf and Flick commented about education:
Perry has been governor for 10 years here in Texas.  By and large, he has been good for the state overall, and he is especially good at job creation.  This last time around,  education funding was a huge issue, and the teacher's unions wouldn't compromise.  Three were things that could have been done that weren't, and the blame was on both sides.  Perry didn't handle it as well as he could have, but to lay all the blame on him is to ignore the facts.
I teach in a private school.  As I look at our public schools, I see a host of problems and a lot of corruption; things that Teacher's Unions have steadfastly opposed reforming because they would demand greater accountability from educators.  So I can at least understand why many conservatives, Perry included, get very frustrated in dealing with the educational system - especially when the NEA has become such a HUGE cash cow for the opposition.

Overall, however, Perry has been a positive force for Texas, in my opinion, and his greatest strengths lie in areas where the country could use some better leadership right now.  Again, all that being said, at the moment I am sure impressed with Herman Cain.  He seems genuine and refreshing in his approach.

Keep on voting, guys!

To be fair, if you don't have a lot of power in parliament, it makes things much harder to get done.  Not sure how it works exactly in the US but we had a hung parliament last election [it was essentially a draw] and with a minority government you get everyone scrapping to get points even over little things, since every vote counts.  It just seems like battle lines get drawn much harder in the sand and politicians refuse to work towards actually improving things because their careers are on such a knife-edge they can't be seen to show weakness [or make concessions]. 

That's what it seems like here in Down Under Land, but I get the impression its at least similar in the US.

  I think this is a big part of the problem right here. Career politicians. To them politics is a job and they want to hold onto that job as long as they can. Since they make a career out of politics they see their job as getting re-elected, not necessarily running the country( or state, town etc.) That's what they care about most. So until we get term limits for Congress,( LOL) I'm voting for this guy.

(http://www.mommywords.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mickey-for-prez.jpg)

I've never understood what one means when they say that a politician "created" jobs. The only way government can create jobs is by expanding the public sector, by expanding the size of government. I am immediately suspect when a politician talks about creating jobs. Just focus on education and infrastructure, and let the businesses create the jobs. It's like Obama, who sounds soooooo convincing and passionate when he says "pass this jobs bill now!" Yeah? What's in it? How does is "create" jobs, might I ask? And honestly, I'm almost in favor of people voting LESS. I respect the voting process, but very few others do. 90% of voters vote with their "feelings," how well they speak, and of course, what the mass media tells them they should feel about the candidate. If that wasn't the case, politics wouldn't such a dirty, negative-campaigning, image game.

If you don't know why you're voting, then DON'T VOTE!

They can indirectly create jobs by cutting taxes on business. 

Well, fine, then they should say that. It just kind of gets under my skin when politicians talk about creating jobs. It is no accident that they use those words. They want to feel like if we elect them THEY will CREATE jobs and solve all of our problems. In reality I'm pretty confident that "creating" jobs tends to translate to spending more money.

I'm all for cutting taxes, but the tax bill has to be reduced. I already know that the Democrats don't want to do that, but I also don't believe the Republicans really mean it when they say they want to. They talk about cutting taxes, which is great, but we can't pay for everything as it is. Cutting taxes MIGHT stimulate jobs, but there are deeper problems going on that merely cutting taxes won't solve, and may make the deficit worse. If the country is hemorrhaging money, then they have to stop the bleeding first, which the deadlocked bulls**t two-party system won't do. Fingerpointing is the only thing they're really, truly good at. All sympomatic of what the political system has become.

It's exactly why Ron Paul won't get elected. He doesn't do that.

I guess I just can't help that good old American optimism that, if the right guy gets elected, he just might set things to rights . . .

Presidents can still make a difference.  Sometimes that difference is positive, sometimes negative.  None of them are perfect, but some of them were truly good guys who did their best at a very difficult job.

BTW, I just got done watching the latest Republican debate.  Perry is just not an inspiring candidate, but Cain looked and sounded pretty sharp. Gingrich can say some truly impressive things, but he carries some personal baggage that makes me distrust him.  I'm leaning more and more towards Cain.

Huntsman seems smart and has a GREAT record and far less of the usual crazy in a republican.  Naturally he has no chance.

Well, that's how people get elected, by how the look and sound. That's how Obama got elected. He sounds amazing.

Well, according to The Rolling Stones Magazine, the GOP tried to rig the Electoral College in Pennsylvania, so they don't get my vote for being wusses. Sorry, but that's just childish. :lookingup:

It's funny and yet sad...Perry claims to have such a fine record on creating jobs yet unemployment is still high. One way he tried to create jobs was to shove the Trans Texas Corridor down our throats where they would greatly expand I-35. This would entail using the Eminent Domain our Stupid...Supreme...Court agreed was legal then the jobs of contructing it would go to a firm in Spain. How would seizing property and giving work to Spain help us?

I'll just vote for George Clooney. :tongueout:

I'd vote for Pat Paulson if he were still around. :wink:

I'm not saying that rigging elections is acceptable. It's downright reprehensible. It ain't nothin' new, however. They used to rig elections in the old days by having people vote multiple times. People would vote, go and change their appearance, and come back and vote again. Candidates for office sometimes even had thugs go around and force people to vote multiple times, or against their will.

In my opinion, any candidate who is caught rigging or attempting to rig an election should be banned from holding ANY office, I find it that reprehensible. However, modern rigging schemes are nothing compared to the old days.

This is one of the reasons I feel that the Electorial Collegs has outlived its usefullness. The president should be elected by direct popular vote...in my humble opinion.

DAMN RIGHT!!!!!!!!

That would mean that New York, Texas, and California would pretty much choose every President.  I'm a Texan, but I still don't like that idea.  I'm a big believer in Federalism, and the Electoral College was made to reflect that - to give smaller states at least something of a voice beyond their population. 

That being said, if we did not change the electoral system after the boondoggle in 2000, I don't think we ever will.

Also, to be perfectly honest, I do believe there is such a thing as too much democracy. We are, after all, a Republic.  If it were not prone to such vile manipulation by both sides, I would still favor a literacy test for voters.  I mean, do we really want someone who CAN'T EVEN READ to have a voice in choosing the leader of the free world?  The less stupid people go to the polls, the more intelligent the eventual choice becomes.

Not really thinking about it at the moment and so none are really appealing to me. 

I've had and idea about electoral reform that mirrors some of what you've said. I may have to PM you and see what you think.

Also, I agree about the electoral college, for exactly those reasons.

There is no perfect election process. It doesn't exist. We do what we can to accomodate the democratic process with this rather large population.

Jon Huntsman seems like a reasonable, intelligent person with a sense of humor.

The guy doesn't stand a chance.

Not many people who are able to vote are literate.... :lookingup:

Just curious - why do you say that?

I think Cain is able.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUxPHJ36u0w


Democrats: "WE ACCEPT IT!"
Republicans: "WE REJECT IT!"

Some things never change...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q25HjXPlkRE&feature=related

Not surprisingly, the Fleischer's original version is much more cutting edge and gritty.

Watching this 1932 short again it can be seen a slam against the proposed social policies of FDR, i.e. the carpeting over of the bad roads, the treatment of the condemned prisoner, the limo treatment for the incompetent street sweeper, etc. Note the beer mug at the end promising the end of prohibition!

I wonder if this came out before the general election between Hoover and Roosevelt in an attempt to sway Betty Boop fans to reelect Hoover.
Just kidding... :teddyr:

The jokes are very high-brow lately. Cain is "Abel?" Very good, sir. Very good.

Hmm, President Newt Gingrich. That has a good ring to it...  :lookingup:

Well,then....maybe they could give each state the exact same  number of electorial votes to prevent such a problem. Although I think there would be enough states to counter this. The state where my husband is from,Ohio,is actually the 4th most populace state. I'm pretty sure.

The debate between large and small states over political power was at the heart of our Constitutional convention.  The smaller populated states did not want a legislators apportioned by population, but wanted an equal voice.  The large states said it was ridiculous for a state with 50k people to  have the same voice as a state with 500k people.  So they split the difference and created a proportional House of Representatives, and a Senate where every state has two votes regardless of size.  And the electoral college is based on that same formula.  It's worked pretty well for 220 years, so I'm not ready to discard it yet.

Oh please. I know that the real reason you don't want to get rid of it is because the popular vote would have made Al Gore president 11 years ago. You can't fool me.

 :wink:

Not for nothing, but damn it, he should've had that. :cheers:

Everytime someone brings up voting, it reminds me of this:
Homer Simpson 'votes' for Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ

On a side note, I have registered Libertarian.  I'll never see a full on president from my party.  Likely the closest we'll get, in most people's eyes, is however far Ron Paul gets with his Republican Party thing.  He could still run as an Independant.  Eh.  I like a lot of his policies and those of the LP.

The classic line from HEART OF DARKNESS comes to mind:

"The Horror!! The Horror!!!"

 I think there all salesmen who will lie to get into office to promote their own agenda. Which is usually based on MONEY.
Gimme anarchy.
I dont care if it dont work. But at least I can understand destruction. I LOVE destruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT1muWE8RzA&ob=av2e

We all love destruction when it is visited on people we don't like.
When it hits close to home, though - that's another matter. :buggedout:

I'm registered as independent, mostly because there is no party-line I can toe. There's stuff I agree with and stuff I don't, and I reserve the right to make up my own mind.

But the only "benefit" I've seen from being an independent is a self-disenfranchisement from being able to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries. Hey, I've got candidates in both parties I'd like to see be the forerunners in every election. Can I vote for them? Nope, I'm "independent."

Hooray.

That's where you and I differ. I find destruction repellant no matter the motivation. I simply accept motivation when it is justified, but I never love it.

I've been looking into Ron Paul more, because he has so many supporters. Excluding his stance on war and drugs I don't find anything I like, at all, to be honest.

I've run into that for years....I consider myself an Independent as well. And a Moderate which has gotten me called "indecisive" or "fence-sitter" or "waffler"....but that's just not the case. Sometimes it's a tough haul to be one who has many facets to their political beliefs. I just can't be forced into a specific pigeon hole.

Consider me as well. Always split the deal down the middle is my way I view stuff. Don't have the Republicans in office, they f'ed  up the economy which caused people to be out of jobs which is killing the US. Also, the reason (as I see it) that the Republicans wants to keep the electoral colleges is that their state with the most Republicans is Texas, where as California is Democratic, so the majority of the votes (to them) is that California will always triumph Texas. I don't care if Indy or any other Republicans on the board wants to hang me (or give me negative karma) but I'm sticking by it and even if Andrew has to delete this post, I'm still sticking by my motivations, I may be blinded by hatred but I had to suffer the last Republican in office who f**ked up so many times that it painted the way I see things. True that there are chilled Republicans that speaks out their minds and I'm for them, the problem is that the ones controlling the US doesn't tell the truth and lies to get more money and goes to their mistresses/ wives to make their lives better at our suffering. thank you.

@tracy1963- Ohio is the 7Th most populace state, Florida is number 4 :smile:

The 7th....thanks! My data may be old....of course then again I am,too! :bouncegiggle:

Herman Cain seems more "real" than anyone I've seen running for office in a very long time in either party. Good luck to him!

the CNN debate was painfull. I agree with the reporter who said the big winner was Obama.

I never thought I'd miss John McCain.

HA! Finally lester weighs in on the thread. How you been, brother? I've been missing your acerbic input.

thanks man . remind me to look up acerbic

My general feeling is that America isn't taking the Greece situation and it's lesson seriously enough.

Yeah, that's a big "no s**t," unfortunately.