Thrawn's Revenge

Off Topic => The Lounge => Topic started by: Isamu on February 24, 2008, 06:04:27 PM

Title: presidential elections
Post by: Isamu on February 24, 2008, 06:04:27 PM
who will you vote for and why? if other who and why?
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Slornie on February 24, 2008, 06:35:51 PM
If i were a US citizen, which im not, i would probably vote for Obama - He seems to be the candidate whose beliefs and values most closely relate to my own.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Scarecrow63 on February 24, 2008, 06:37:20 PM
Umm... Romney is no longer running for the candidacy, looks like McCain is gonna win it, you should probably make sure you know who has a chance for running for president before you make a poll about it.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Slornie on February 24, 2008, 06:39:02 PM
Alright, ima going to edit the poll, remove Romney, and add Ralph Nader (who has just announced (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7261670.stm) he is running for Presidency)

EDIT:  I also added McCain.  There's no point adding Huckabee as there's no chance he'll win the Republican nomination :P
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Corey on February 24, 2008, 06:57:50 PM
Canadian and under 18, so I can't vote. If I could I'd vote for Obama, because unlike every Republican he promotes Environmental things and isn't going to invade Iran on his first day. I prefer him to Hillary because of Economic and Environmental stuff as well.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Scarecrow63 on February 24, 2008, 07:00:45 PM
He doesn't want to waste his time in Iran, he wants to invade Pakistan instead
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Enceladus on February 24, 2008, 07:25:18 PM
Also Canadian and a minor. I would also vote for Obama for basically the same reasons as Arb. Also I always feel like Clinton will try to eat me. :o
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Isamu on February 24, 2008, 08:24:13 PM
yea i know romney is not running but still. i couldn't think of anyone else at the time. and nader is running?
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Dane Kiet on February 24, 2008, 09:51:15 PM
Let me put it this way......
I live in the US.
I think the US government has too much power.
Name the one candidate that CAN reduce the power of not only the President, but also Congress?
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Enceladus on February 24, 2008, 10:00:22 PM
Lemme guess....Jesus, Osama bin Laden, Jean Chretien or Arthur Meighen.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Meyer on February 24, 2008, 11:15:37 PM
I'm also part of the "can't vote"-croup as I'm not american but I'll say Obama too.He seems the best candidate to replace bush as a president.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Isamu on February 25, 2008, 12:47:17 AM
Let me put it this way......
I live in the US.
I think the US government has too much power.
Name the one candidate that CAN reduce the power of not only the President, but also Congress?
i'd rather be in a country with too much power than one with not enough
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Meyer on February 25, 2008, 08:12:40 AM
too much power corrupts. it brings doom. it brings the end of countries.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Isamu on February 25, 2008, 09:29:00 AM
I did not think about that
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: vadereclipse on February 25, 2008, 01:20:19 PM
i'll say obama as well. although also non-american/minor, i dislike how clinton is trying to use bill clinton as a campaign-aid, and don't get me started on republicans. anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, anti-stem cell research etcetc, no. plus, mccain sounds awful. i looked him up on wikipedia, and apparrently, he told a texas senator to "f**k off" for criticising one of his policies. do you really want a man like him in power of the USA?
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Slornie on February 25, 2008, 02:08:50 PM
apparrently, he told a texas senator to "f**k off" for criticising one of his policies. do you really want a man like him in power of the USA?
Well, to be honest, if it were up to me, i would want someone who's honest and speaks his/her mind rather than someone who says one thing and means another, or just says what they think people want to hear.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: vadereclipse on February 25, 2008, 02:32:00 PM
apparrently, he told a texas senator to "f**k off" for criticising one of his policies. do you really want a man like him in power of the USA?
Well, to be honest, if it were up to me, i would want someone who's honest and speaks his/her mind rather than someone who says one thing and means another, or just says what they think people want to hear.

nonetheless, a republican is the last thing america needs. i mean, name me a good republican president.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Meyer on February 25, 2008, 02:50:40 PM
apparrently, he told a texas senator to "f**k off" for criticising one of his policies. do you really want a man like him in power of the USA?
Well, to be honest, if it were up to me, i would want someone who's honest and speaks his/her mind rather than someone who says one thing and means another, or just says what they think people want to hear.

Honest politician? Good luck on finding that.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Slornie on February 25, 2008, 03:01:37 PM
Im allowed to be optimistic, arent i? ;)
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Corey on February 25, 2008, 03:12:55 PM
apparrently, he told a texas senator to "f**k off" for criticising one of his policies. do you really want a man like him in power of the USA?
Well, to be honest, if it were up to me, i would want someone who's honest and speaks his/her mind rather than someone who says one thing and means another, or just says what they think people want to hear.

Shawinigan handshake FTW!
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Dane Kiet on February 25, 2008, 03:35:37 PM
Lemme guess....Jesus, Osama bin Laden, Jean Chretien or Arthur Meighen.
Actually I was thinking of Cincinnatus......
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Scarecrow63 on February 25, 2008, 04:05:42 PM
McCain considered by most to be one of the only actual 'good people' politicians (by good people i mean his history/likeability/personality).  But i'd pick Nader just cause i'm tired of real politicians.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Isamu on February 25, 2008, 08:08:02 PM
apparrently, he told a texas senator to "f**k off" for criticising one of his policies. do you really want a man like him in power of the USA?
Well, to be honest, if it were up to me, i would want someone who's honest and speaks his/her mind rather than someone who says one thing and means another, or just says what they think people want to hear.

nonetheless, a republican is the last thing america needs. i mean, name me a good republican president.
the only thing i requre out of a president is past military expierience, the knowlege of the usa economy, and the ability to fight a war well. everything you would expect out of a president branches out from there. like the really key stuff such as tax breaks.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Meyer on February 25, 2008, 11:55:31 PM
Why would president need to know how to fight a war? That might cause some suspision on the world if your president was some war crazy loonie.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: GrndAdmrlPellaeon on February 26, 2008, 12:14:44 AM
I agree with you we don't need a Republican and we don't need a Democrat. If their were a Democrat who could get the job done I would vote for him/her. Party doesn't matter, its like a glorified extracurricular club. Right now there is no one running on either side that I would vote for, and I hope that you will understand that saying that we don't need a Republican/Democrat is not an intelligent statement.

Right now we need someone who understands the economy, doesn't want to put taxes on paying taxes, someone who can fight a war and not make us look like sissies.


Also Meyer, because one of his main jobs as president is commander-in-chief, the commander of the military as whole. But I do understand that you don't know because you don't live here. This is why Obama and Clinton couldn't run the US, because they are PUSSIES!
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Meyer on February 26, 2008, 12:36:57 AM
I do understand that the president is the commander of the military as whole. You see we have it the same way. Halonen is the supreme commander of our military forces. But I doubt she knows how to fight wars. and that wasn't the reason she was elected. And what I've seen Bush to do he isn't so good commander himself. In Iraq there is casualties piling up on daily bases while you make near zero progress.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Scarecrow63 on February 26, 2008, 04:17:39 PM
I do understand that the president is the commander of the military as whole. You see we have it the same way. Halonen is the supreme commander of our military forces. But I doubt she knows how to fight wars. and that wasn't the reason she was elected. And what I've seen Bush to do he isn't so good commander himself. In Iraq there is casualties piling up on daily bases while you make near zero progress.

near zero progress? Casualties and enemy conflicts have been on the decline for a few months now......
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: vadereclipse on February 26, 2008, 04:52:53 PM
I do understand that the president is the commander of the military as whole. You see we have it the same way. Halonen is the supreme commander of our military forces. But I doubt she knows how to fight wars. and that wasn't the reason she was elected. And what I've seen Bush to do he isn't so good commander himself. In Iraq there is casualties piling up on daily bases while you make near zero progress.

near zero progress? Casualties and enemy conflicts have been on the decline for a few months now......

how can you call it progress when nothing good has really come out of iraq. soldiers ahve died, al'quaeda have moved into iraq, and the war is endless. not progress, actually. plus, taxes and economy are damaged through an war.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Dane Kiet on February 26, 2008, 05:11:27 PM
While I think the president needs to be a good leader, He (or she if we ever elect a woman) does not need to know how to fight a war from a STRATEGIC stand point. He/she would need to know how to fight from a LOGISTIC stand point.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Slornie on February 26, 2008, 05:26:23 PM
While I think the president needs to be a good leader, He (or she if we ever elect a woman) does not need to know how to fight a war from a STRATEGIC stand point. He/she would need to know how to fight from a LOGISTIC stand point.
I didnt think the President needed to be able to fight from either perspective - Doesnt the Pentagon have a load of military commanders, advisors, strategists, and associated personnel to do that?
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Dane Kiet on February 26, 2008, 05:36:45 PM
Maybe I should rephrase that. What I intended to say was is that the president needs to know how to properly balance resources between military and civilian areas of government... Like cash.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Isamu on February 26, 2008, 05:56:12 PM
what i meant was that a president should know what he/she is doing when it comes to war so they are not talked into doing something stupid by a military advisor who will not be taking responsibility for what the president orders. say clinton is elected and her military advisor convinces her to nuke iraq. who takes the blame for giving the order? clinton does.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Enceladus on February 26, 2008, 06:15:31 PM
Well there is this system called a military dictatorship that allows the decision maker to be blamed....not that anything can be done about it.
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Scarecrow63 on February 26, 2008, 07:06:54 PM
what i meant was that a president should know what he/she is doing when it comes to war so they are not talked into doing something stupid by a military advisor who will not be taking responsibility for what the president orders. say clinton is elected and her military advisor convinces her to nuke iraq. who takes the blame for giving the order? clinton does.

No one is stupid enough to do that because some guy says to.  You forget that politicians never take the advice of those in the military any more
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Dane Kiet on February 26, 2008, 07:08:34 PM
Which is one of the problems......
Title: Re: presidential elections
Post by: Isamu on February 26, 2008, 08:48:44 PM
what i meant was that a president should know what he/she is doing when it comes to war so they are not talked into doing something stupid by a military advisor who will not be taking responsibility for what the president orders. say clinton is elected and her military advisor convinces her to nuke iraq. who takes the blame for giving the order? clinton does.

No one is stupid enough to do that because some guy says to.  You forget that politicians never take the advice of those in the military any more

that was just an example