Poll: Who would you like to see as president?

[wewontdie11]

I mainly meant either of them would be better because it's very unlikely that they would start another illegal war in a middle eastern country, and drag their ***** (aka English PM) into it as well.

If they both manage to not kick off hostilities in another country and actually do a bit more about pollution/global warming, they will already be 10x better than Bush in my books.

"Illegal" war? That, at least, is patently false--and we didn't kick off hostilities, terrorists have been bombing US since the seventies! As Aragorn would say: "Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not."

We did decide to invade *Iraq* (a decision that sort of seemed to make sense at the time, but even then the general agreement among more informed persons was that we'd be better off going after Iran or Syria--or possibly even Saudi Arabia, all of whom are much more openly antagonistic.

What we needed to do was smash and get out, not linger around trying to fix their forked up political system by replacing it with "democracy".

And global warming is a joke. Not that it isn't happening--the evidence is pretty strong that global temperatures are rising. What is *not* strong (in fact, it hardly exists at all) is evidence that points to a.) a looming catastrophe or b.) that we're causing it and can somehow stop it.

There was a semi-recent article (which I now cannot find, dammit!) where a rather baffled NASA climatologist (I think, my memory isn't perfect, of course) said that the new climate data they're collecting is baffling--they're just not getting the kind of results they were expecting. The result of their findings: climate is a lot more robust than anyone had previously imagined.

I'll listen to the so-called economic and climate experts when they show that they're actually capable of predicting anything and not before. I'm not keeping my hopes up. Scientists with a political agenda cease to be scientists for any meaningful definition of the term.

Yes the terror attacks on the US were tragic and all but it's even more tragic if you think that that is a reason to invade a country that on a national scale had nothing to do with 9/11 or any other terror attacks for that matter. Some of the bombers may have been from Iraq, I could not say, but that is no excuse to go and invade a bloody country.

And invading Iraq was illegal. The issue was raised in the UN where Kofi Annan, the chair of the UN himself, said the war was illegal and breeched UN charter.

I also am not a great believer in the whole global warming phenomenon, and how sensationalised it has been by the media, but there is no denying that the amount of waste that damages the environment that the US and China produces is getting out of hand and needs regulation. It's mainly Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol that sticks in my mind, where most major world powers signed and pledged to lower their carbon emissions by target amounts by set dates, to try and aid the potential threat of "global warming" or to just generally help the environment etc., but because of his ignorant beliefs on the matter Bush refused to. Helping the environment will not be cheap but it would be ultimately worth it global warming or not.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Yes the terror attacks on the US were tragic and all but it's even more tragic if you think that that is a reason to invade a country that on a national scale had nothing to do with 9/11 or any other terror attacks for that matter. Some of the bombers may have been from Iraq, I could not say, but that is no excuse to go and invade a bloody country.

And invading Iraq was illegal. The issue was raised in the UN where Kofi Annan, the chair of the UN himself, said the war was illegal and breeched UN charter.

I also am not a great believer in the whole global warming phenomenon, and how sensationalised it has been by the media, but there is no denying that the amount of waste that damages the environment that the US and China produces is getting out of hand and needs regulation. It's mainly Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol that sticks in my mind, where most major world powers signed and pledged to lower their carbon emissions by target amounts by set dates, to try and aid the potential threat of "global warming" or to just generally help the environment etc., but because of his ignorant beliefs on the matter Bush refused to. Helping the environment will not be cheap but it would be ultimately worth it global warming or not.

The U.N. is not a sovereign body and does not make laws, ergo no action can be declared "illegal" by the U.N. It is, at best, a treaty organization (like NATO only disgustingly corrupt because it pretends that vicious dictatorships are civilized nations), in which case going to war in Iraq *may* have constituted a *treaty violation*.

Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked, not because some of the individual terrorists came from those countries (most of them came from Saudi Arabia, IIRC), but because Afghanistan was sheltering the author of those attacks (in effect declaring its political allegiance) and Iraq had declared hostilities and possibly the means to back them up.

In my personal opinion, it is enough for a head of government to declare "This country is evil! All right-thinking people must bomb the Capitalist pigs!" to invite military retaliation. They've declared hostilities. However there may be reasons why it's not worth the bother to attack them: some American soldiers will certainly die, and if they don't have the means to carry out their threats then it's probably not worth it.

9/11 showed rather dramatically that the terrorists *did* have the means to carry out their threats, hence the immediate *need* for military retaliation. Only violence can keep violent people at bay.

There is no reason to protect the environment for its own sake. Industrial waste is a result of production that is terrifically beneficial for humans--it doesn't make sense to curb (or halt) industrial production in the name of helping humans. I notice you live in Britain--have you ever visited the U.S.? I've lived in many locations across the country. Due to forestry, there are now *more* acres of trees than there were 100 years ago. I've worked for a number of industrial concerns. The hazards to human beings are largely imaginary.

IIRC Bush decided to bail on the Kyoto protocols because they did *not* place restrictions on the output of "developing nations"--China being classed in this category. So the result would have been to place crippling restrictions on American industry while leaving Chinese industry largely untouched. Who would have benefited and who would be harmed by such a scheme?

As for regulation, I am against it in principle just as I am against all "protective" law because the effect of such legislation is to punish *everyone* as criminals *before they do anything*. There are already laws in place that let injured individuals seek redress for harm or violations of their rights. The long history of Western jurisprudence more than adequately demonstrates that this is sufficient. We don't need laws that wreck human lives to protect tadpoles. They aren't human and have no rights.

 

[Shadow-Knight]

John Stewart for president!

 

[Foodthing]

After about 5 minutes of careful consideration, neither. Obama is a good speaker, yeah. But my know-nothing-at-all take on it is that he is constantly shouting "Change! CHANGE!" without any real means of backing it up.
The 700Billion bailout? Jesus christ, any decent goverment would have the stupid wasteful bastards drawn and quartered already.

Reading on his official website, it seems he has just taken the "nicest sounding" solutions (realistic or not) and presented it in a half-assed way. The first warning signal that goes off, is an apparent inability to realise that money is finite.

Weee! Money here, money there! It will all be better! No poking on the issue of where the money actually comes from, not seeing to realise that the economy ain't that great at this time. Changety-changety-change. Right.

Mccain, Well. Iraq. While i agree with several of his ideas, and generally approve of his plans (I'm sure it means SO much) one of the things that take him down a large amount of pegs is related to Iraq. More specifically, saying that he wouldn't let USA "Lose" the war in Iraq. uhu. I realise that Saddam needed to go. Dictator, supporting al-quaida and a long list on whatnots, not to mention his successors (sons) who didn't seem to turn out very good. The problem actually started when it became a war, not just a bid to help a suffering nation. See, the actual military folded early, but now it's the bloody PEOPLE that are opposing the US soldiers. For the love of me (in the lack of a better person to pick) it's 'Nam all over again.
The biggest issue? Palin. If she get's in any position of more power, we're all up in the styx.

On the whole, it feels like goverments are getting more corrupt, prices are going up, and everything is apparently going to hell. Let's anarchy for a few years, and take it from there. The world in it's current state is starting to feel more and more like a dying beast that is held togheter with tape and old gum.

 

[wewontdie11]

The U.N. is not a sovereign body and does not make laws, ergo no action can be declared "illegal" by the U.N. It is, at best, a treaty organization (like NATO only disgustingly corrupt because it pretends that vicious dictatorships are civilized nations), in which case going to war in Iraq *may* have constituted a *treaty violation*.

Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked, not because some of the individual terrorists came from those countries (most of them came from Saudi Arabia, IIRC), but because Afghanistan was sheltering the author of those attacks (in effect declaring its political allegiance) and Iraq had declared hostilities and possibly the means to back them up.

In my personal opinion, it is enough for a head of government to declare "This country is evil! All right-thinking people must bomb the Capitalist pigs!" to invite military retaliation. They've declared hostilities. However there may be reasons why it's not worth the bother to attack them: some American soldiers will certainly die, and if they don't have the means to carry out their threats then it's probably not worth it.

9/11 showed rather dramatically that the terrorists *did* have the means to carry out their threats, hence the immediate *need* for military retaliation. Only violence can keep violent people at bay.

There is no reason to protect the environment for its own sake. Industrial waste is a result of production that is terrifically beneficial for humans--it doesn't make sense to curb (or halt) industrial production in the name of helping humans. I notice you live in Britain--have you ever visited the U.S.? I've lived in many locations across the country. Due to forestry, there are now *more* acres of trees than there were 100 years ago. I've worked for a number of industrial concerns. The hazards to human beings are largely imaginary.

IIRC Bush decided to bail on the Kyoto protocols because they did *not* place restrictions on the output of "developing nations"--China being classed in this category. So the result would have been to place crippling restrictions on American industry while leaving Chinese industry largely untouched. Who would have benefited and who would be harmed by such a scheme?

As for regulation, I am against it in principle just as I am against all "protective" law because the effect of such legislation is to punish *everyone* as criminals *before they do anything*. There are already laws in place that let injured individuals seek redress for harm or violations of their rights. The long history of Western jurisprudence more than adequately demonstrates that this is sufficient. We don't need laws that wreck human lives to protect tadpoles. They aren't human and have no rights.

Huh? Of course the UN is capable of making international law. That was one of the points of it's conception, to set intentional regulations that were legally binding under the various treaties that were constructed by it. There is even an organisation within the UN devoted to international law, called the International Law Committee (original name I know).

Your logic is somewhat strange as you imply that any countries with political or cultural differences should just go at it, and duke it out with totally unnecessary loss of life on both sides at the drop of a hat. It is that kind of warmongering attitude that is why there is so much death and violence in the world. It surely would have been easier to deal with threats such as that in a more diplomatic way, such as trade embargoes or expulsion from international organisations. There is no reason to invade a whole nation because a small group of secular extremists that have at best a very tenuous link to statements or actions of a national leader. What you described was basically America wanting to flex it's military muscle over a smaller nation. Kim Jong Ill, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and probably a hell of a lot more national leaders have declared there less than modest feelings for the western world and if you went around invading every country that thought they had beef with you there would never be any peace anywhere on earth. As far as I'm concerned Iraq isn't and never was a great international threat.

I understand the war in Afghanistan was in an attempt to root out the Taliban and Bin Laden, and in a certain respect I agree with that war as it had some hard evidence behind it and was much more justified than barging into a country just because of essentially empty threats. Korea has recently proved that they do actually have weapons of mass destruction by testing them in full view of the world no less, whereas the evidence supporting the claims of WMDs in Iraq was incredibly flimsy. I don't see any US soldiers in Korea at the minute, and they were also named in Bush's so called "Axis of Evil". The whole fiasco with the weapons inspectors turned up nothing and it was still bandied about by the American government as a reason for the invasion. Iraq didn't have any actual means of backing up any serious threats they could have made.

Your view on the environment truly saddens me. Correct me if I'm wrong but what you are basically saying is "Wait to see what happens, if it all goes tits up we'll deal with it then." Surely prevention of a problem is better than cure. The cost is undoubtedly great but so are the risks, and I'm sure most people would much rather be safe at a cost than sorry at a tenfold greater one. Not to come over too hippy-ish but I'm not just referring to the threat to humanity either, simply the environment in general. The polar ice caps are reportedly melting, and I'd rather keep them in tact for as long as possible. If that means spending a little extra cash so be it as far as I'm concerned.

But anyhow this is getting a mile off topic now, back to who should be president!

 

[Spartan Bannana]

Obama, because I have no qualm with Mccain, but with Sarah Palin, who we all know would be prez if Mccain is elected

 

[gremily]

I'm voting for Mario the plumber. Listen to his adds on T.V.

"IT'S UH ME"

So inspirational.

 

[nepheleim]

I wanna see Snoopy as president. Though, as Mr. Schulz is no longer with us, that dream will forever be deferred.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

Ideally, I think our next President should be either Bruce Willis or Undead Reagan.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

John Stewart for president!

Please no.

 

[Walden]

Who would I like to see as president? Jerry White, presidential candidate of the Socialist Equality Party. But since a Socialist candidate doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected in America (at least while people still equate socialism with the ultimate evil) I'm voting for Obama. At least he won't be as bad as McCain. In this case, I must choose the lesser of two weevils.

 

[LiquidSteel]

I like more of Obama's politics than McCain's (I'm from the UK however, so I have no vote, but I'm entitled to my opinion), and I think he would be a better president, however McCain does have a few (maybe just one or two) good points, but the one put off is Sarah 'Puncherintheface' Palin, who is so consumed in getting her own way that she has started using taxpayers money to fly her kids around America with her, and also told a school that the job of the Vice President is to make changes in Congress (or Senate. Same thing?)

 

[ianuam]

As a european, Obama. Doesn't seem too religious, he's the least right wing, doesn't have an explosive temper and other countries seem to like him. Sure he's inexperienced, but that's nothing a good quality team of diplomats can't fix.

McCain's not that awful, it's just.. well Palin and the rest of the Republican party just don't appeal to me. Government wise, Democrats have a better history (recent) that a certain texan.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Huh? Of course the UN is capable of making international law.

International law is a contradiction in terms, since laws are created by nations.

Your logic is somewhat strange as you imply that any countries with political or cultural differences should just go at it, and duke it out with totally unnecessary loss of life on both sides at the drop of a hat.

Not at all. I'm saying that we shouldn't pretend that nations that have done nothing but oppress their own people and issue threats are civilized and can be negotiated with. You can't negotiate with a murderer.

A free(er) country's willingness to fight *if necessary* is the greatest deterrent to would-be aggressors, who don't want a fight. They just want to get something--handouts, concessions, attention, appeasement, without having to fight. Free countries don't ever *want* war, they have nothing to *gain* from it and potentially a great deal to lose. Only statist countries go to war looking for loot.

Maybe it is "warmongering" to refuse to let a would-be dictator move in and set up shop. If so, I'm going to continue that policy. The *size* of the threat doesn't matter. If our government decides it's only going to act when, say, more than a million citizens are under attack, it has already dropped the principle of self-defense. It is enough for *one* citizen to be attacked under the aegis of a foreign government.

Korea has recently proved that they do actually have weapons of mass destruction by testing them in full view of the world no less, whereas the evidence supporting the claims of WMDs in Iraq was incredibly flimsy. I don't see any US soldiers in Korea at the minute, and they were also named in Bush's so called "Axis of Evil".

*North* Korea (or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea if you want to be a twit) and yes, I'm in complete agreement with you. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea are all much more "clear and present dangers" than Iraq. Like I said, the war has been badly mismanaged and Bush's "compassionate conservatism" appears to only mean compassion toward people who kill American citizens. There was reason to go to war with Iraq, but it wasn't the best next step by FAR after Afghanistan. If we'd attacked, say, Iran, it probably wouldn't have been necessary to attack Iraq and it would certainly have been easier.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what you are basically saying is "Wait to see what happens, if it all goes tits up we'll deal with it then." Surely prevention of a problem is better than cure.

Let's do a thought experiment: it would be theoretically possible to completely eliminate even the *possibility* of crime by locking all human beings in iron boxes. Surely prevention is better than letting crimes happen and cleaning them up afterward, right? Right?

The cost of prevention is not even mostly monetary, it is the invisible toll extracted when men are bound in involuntary servitude, and miserable drudgery, never able to progress and never knowing when the hammer might fall.

As Christian Bale said in Equilibrium when told that there would be a terrible price for his actions: "I pay it gladly."

No one ever said freedom was cheap, but since it is ultimately the only thing that makes a human mode of life possible, I'd say it's well worth it.

It's not so off-topic as you might think: talking about presidential candidates means talking about political policy, and you can't choose between policies without invoking principles of political philosophy.