Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Who's on your short list?
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > The Monkey Hole > The Newgate Calendar
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
traineraz
Of the current crop of presidential candidates, whom do you like or dislike, and why?

The Republicans:

Rudely Guiliani
Mitt Romney, L.D.S.
Mike Applebee's
Zzzzz Thompson
Doktoor Stainedglove . . . I mean, RuPaul . . . er, Ron Paul
Other

The Democrats

Billary Clinton
Barack Oprahma
Pretty Boy Edwards
Joe Bidin' his time
Dennis "They are among us" Kuchinich
Other.
Provenance
I'm just please that we have so many fine choices.
Sleeper
Ron Paul is the only even vaguely palatable choice on that list IMHO.
Tibro
It's a shame that there isn't a better quality control system then American voters to weed them out.
traineraz
Oops. I made a typo in the title.

"Shit" is spelled wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
Absomphe
QUOTE(traineraz @ Dec 10 2007, 11:41 AM) *

Of the current crop of presidential candidates, whom do you like or dislike, and why?


Gus Hall.

And don't try to tell me he's not running in 2008 because he died decades ago, that's just pure capitalist propaganda. harhar.gif
Donnie Darko
I dislike Barack Oprahma less than I dislike all the others.
Kirk
Look, if all you leftists screw this up again I'm going to whig out.
Just bite the bullet, pull together, vote for one or the other, (that makes one of two), if you don't do that, the other one will win, again.
I like Obama too, I'd like to tell everyone I'd vote for him. Voting is not so much a gesture (to tell people what you're about), it's a power stroke, you miss, you're dead, don't waste it showing off.
Wake up, it's no game.
traineraz
I can only receive three radio stations in my apartment; I believe I'm near a transmitter.

The entire FM dial is taken up by a Christian station and a country station. (I don't mean they're the only ones that come in; I mean they take up the ENTIRE dial.)

The only clear station on AM is conservative talk radio.

So, each morning I start the day with the nagging whine of Laura Ingraham in my ear.

Today, she had a fellow from National Review on. They've decided to endorse Catcher's Mitt Romney, L.D.S.
89five.o
Ron Paul is the only candidate that I can vote for and not feel like I'm compromising or choosing the lesser of two evils.
Hemingway's Hangover
Ron Paul has stated publicly and repeatedly that he wants to eliminate the FDA: anyone who votes for him will get exactly what they deserve.

"Damn gub-mint scion-tists, tellin' us there is too much cyanide in our food! I know what's right for my fambly, not some FDA egghead! Dun't you know the corporations will monitor themselves?"
frusty.gif

I'll vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination, but I'll most likely be holding my nose when I do it.
89five.o
Plus I'm all for quitting this egging on a war with Iran that the Democrats seem to be doing and sending our troops home where they belong. I'm tired of this lame Vietnam X 2
speedle
Good article on why barack husein obama is important in this months Atlantic magazine.

Goodbye to All That

Almost makes me wish he would get the nomination. But then I want Hillary to get it so we could finally have a female president. But then I wake up and remember I'm a Republican and they all suck.
Donnie Darko
I don't care what race or gender the nominee is, but if all one cares about is electability, then Barack Obama is the better choice. He doesn't come off as abrasive as Hilary, and they HATE Hilary in the South, and if you don't win any of those Southern states, you're fucked. I hate to say it but I think Obama's blackness will actually be a good thing for him, as he doesn't seem "black" in the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson sense, and so you'll have a lot of older white people like Joe Biden who like him because he doesn't act "black" (whatever that means)…. that and Oprah has a lot of clout with white women over 50.

The other thing about Obama is he isn't nearly as divisive as Hilary. There is no middle ground with Hilary appeal, you either like her or you hate her. Obama seems to have the ability to get undecided people to at least consider him as viable, and that IMO is what will win the moderate vote.

The other thing is that Obama seems like he believes what he is saying (whether he does believe what he is saying is another matter). I don't get that from Hilary most of the time. Most of the time it just seems like she's following the "how to get elected" handbook.

He's no knight in shining armor, there's multiple things that piss me off about him, but he's better than all of the other dogs running this time. All the other dogs are the type where I'd like to throw their bone out into traffic.
Donnie Darko
Here is an excellent editorial by a Republican about Obama:
David Brooks
Sleeper
QUOTE(Hemingway's Hangover @ Dec 13 2007, 03:11 PM) *

Ron Paul has stated publicly and repeatedly that he wants to eliminate the FDA


The FDA is a joke.
traineraz
So is Ron Paul. What's your point?

I'd much rather FIX the FDA than say, "Oh, let's just let everybody pick and choose which drugs they like, with no quality control oversight or testing for efficacy or safety."
Donnie Darko
Nah. Government bad. Must destroy government. Government make man pay tax, tax is evil, public education bad, clean water bad, roads without holes bad, food safety bad, united labor bad. Laissez Faire rollback to America circa 1910 good. Business make everything safe and good, just like they always do.

Ugh.
traineraz
Me beat chest and vote Ron Paul.

Him have magic flying machine!

IPB Image
Donnie Darko
Yeah, what we desperately need is another Texas politician in the White House, maybe he'll be different from all the other shitty presidents from Texas we've had.

If one is interested in the whole guilt-by-association thing, a prominent supporter of Ron Paul is Texas talk show host Alex Jones, who is the loudest advocate of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
speedle
Well, all I have to do is look at the pickup trucks that have Ron Paul stickers on them to know better.

As for Obama, while I respect David Brooks' opinion for the most part, reading his essay I couldn't help but be reminded of the sentiments of some of the supporters of Jimmy Carter in 76, i.e. his calm, thoughful approach and pragmatic demeanor (he's a nuculure scientest, dag nab it!) would save us from the devil of partisanship and the Soviet Bloc.
eric
Fortunately, it is the idiots who support Ron Paul that will prevent the mainstream voters from ever taking him seriously. He is kind of like Ross Perot, only nuttier.

Kirk
He's also the kind of idiot that often prevents a mainstream candidate
from being voted in that is actualy a mainstream majority choice.
Sleeper
QUOTE(traineraz @ Dec 18 2007, 09:10 AM) *



I'd much rather FIX the FDA than say, "Oh, let's just let everybody pick and choose which drugs they like, with no quality control oversight or testing for efficacy or safety."



Come on man, where's your sense of adventure? It'd be like the good ol' days of patent medicines where you never know what surprise you're getting. And a little ox-gall here and a little frog sperm probably never really hurt anyone.

Maybe I'd be more concerned if I actually used pharmaceuticals. The Chinese would probably start putting the GHB in the Lipitor or something and then I'd be missing out on all the fun. biggrin.gif
Neptunati
Ron Paul Mother fuckers!
Neptunati
QUOTE(Hemingway's Hangover @ Dec 13 2007, 06:11 PM) *

Ron Paul has stated publicly and repeatedly that he wants to eliminate the FDA: anyone who votes for him will get exactly what they deserve.

"Damn gub-mint scion-tists, tellin' us there is too much cyanide in our food! I know what's right for my fambly, not some FDA egghead! Dun't you know the corporations will monitor themselves?"
frusty.gif

I'll vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination, but I'll most likely be holding my nose when I do it.



QUOTE(traineraz @ Dec 18 2007, 12:10 PM) *

So is Ron Paul. What's your point?

I'd much rather FIX the FDA than say, "Oh, let's just let everybody pick and choose which drugs they like, with no quality control oversight or testing for efficacy or safety."


He wants the states to figure out this shit. I'm sure they would keep the fda guide lines.

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Dec 18 2007, 02:24 PM) *

Nah. Government bad. Must destroy government. Government make man pay tax, tax is evil, public education bad, clean water bad, roads without holes bad, food safety bad, united labor bad. Laissez Faire rollback to America circa 1910 good. Business make everything safe and good, just like they always do.

Ugh.


1910 Sweet then I could buy a great Absinthe in my neighborhood, and some ….

QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Dec 18 2007, 05:10 PM) *

Yeah, what we desperately need is another Texas politician in the White House, maybe he'll be different from all the other shitty presidents from Texas we've had.

If one is interested in the whole guilt-by-association thing, a prominent supporter of Ron Paul is Texas talk show host Alex Jones, who is the loudest advocate of 9/11 conspiracy theories.


First off you should stick with reviewing Absinthe because politics isn't your forte. Ron Paul is the only chance this country has at getting out of the grips of the thief elitists. This man wants to get rid of income tax! He could move us from this capitalist republic that we are to a real democracy. Secondly Alex Jones is ten times the patriot than any of us. That man is fighting for the privacy and personal rights for me and you and everyone you know!

QUOTE(eric @ Dec 18 2007, 09:42 PM) *

Fortunately, it is the idiots who support Ron Paul that will prevent the mainstream voters from ever taking him seriously. He is kind of like Ross Perot, only nuttier.


You are a douche bag. By stating what you said I think you probably will secretly vote for Ron Paul and then go tell all your pals at the water cooler that you voted for Obama. If any of you have a brain you will vote for PAUL. Lets change this country. Hang the lobbyists, Fire the government, Fuck the FED making money out of thin air.
eric
If you play this thread backwards it says "Paul is dead".
Jaded Prole
Hah!

Don't you know that Ron Paul was involved in the planning stages of 9/11 and hopes to roll back all the evils of the modern world starting with the notion that the earth is not the center of the universe?









He's a crackpot and so are you.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Neptunati @ Dec 23 2007, 03:48 AM) *

Hang the lobbyists,


Which ones? The ones who represent makers of medicines that might save your life, or the ones who lobby for defense contracts?

QUOTE
Fire the government,


Which ones? In case you hadn't noticed, Ron Paul IS the government.

QUOTE
He wants the states to figure out this shit. I'm sure they would keep the fda guide lines.


And what if they don't? What if they don't keep public schools, and create separate schools for blacks and hispanics? What if they kick out all immigrants?

QUOTE
This man wants to get rid of income tax!


Nothing would make the current economic elite happier.

QUOTE
He could move us from this capitalist republic that we are to a real democracy.


If you had read and comprehended the works of Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, you'd realize that we are not a capitalist republic. We are a corpocracy. Ron Paul has even said so, which is one of the only things I agree with him on. Some corporations are good and benefit their communities, some exploit and are greedy. But there is almost none of the socially conscious egalitarian capitalism he envisioned in this country.

I get the impression you live in a Comic Book world. You don't seem to have any appreciation for nuance and even-handedness. For you, these issues are reduced down to a guy in a white hat vs. a guy in a black hat. And a guy who is by default defending jihadists by saying he "knows" the government did 9/11 is "is ten times the patriot than any of us." Planet Neptutani certainly is an odd place…
eric
You misspelled Planet Neptunutty.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Neptunati @ Dec 23 2007, 08:48 AM) *

He could move us from this capitalist republic that we are to a real democracy.


What do you understand by 'real democracy'?

Too often people bandy the term 'democracy' about as if it somehow represents freedom.

Democracy, even at its best, does not represent governing according to the wishes of the people. It represents, at best, governing in accordance with the wishes of a majority of the people (no matter how slim that majority may be) and imposing, by use of force, the will of the majority onto any dissenting minorities.

Don't be fooled into thinking that democracy represents freedom.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Dec 27 2007, 06:40 AM) *


Don't be fooled into thinking


Don't worry, he won't be.
Jaded Prole
Groupthink is always easier and having lots of friends that agree with you is assurance that you're right! (yes, or left.)
Provenance
You're right!
absinthist
Righteous.
grey boy
QUOTE(Provenance @ Dec 27 2007, 02:58 PM) *

You're right!

Lefty.
Jaded Prole
More groupthink on the right but the left is not immune. Too much of it all around.
Absomphe
Resistance is futile.
speedle
Sadly, there's a certain lady in Pakistan that's on nobody's short list anymore. That really pissed me off. Of course, that has nothing to do with nothing. Carry on.
Donnie Darko
Pakistan is a disaster. This is not what you want to see happen in a nuclear armed country. Bhutto was corrupt but comparitively speaking she was a beacon of light over there. The upside to this is that it will hopefully provoke a backlash against Islamic fundamentalists (I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume it was Jihadists that were behind the assassination).
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Dec 28 2007, 02:53 PM) *

Pakistan is a disaster. This is not what you want to see happen in a nuclear armed country. Bhutto was corrupt but comparitively speaking she was a beacon of light over there. The upside to this is that it will hopefully provoke a backlash against Islamic fundamentalists (I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume it was Jihadists that were behind the assassination).


Calling her a beacon of light is a bit strong. Her return to Pakistan was part of political plan brokered by the United States in an attempt to prop up Musharraf (quite ironic really). The motivation behind it all was the hope that she would be Prime Minister by way of election with Musharraf still there as President. The result of that would be to put a democratic facade on a regime where the real power still lay with Musharraf. Claim a 'victory for democracy' while still keeping the nasty military dictator in power.

I agree, it probably was Jihadists who were behind it (it sure as hell wasn't Musharraf, as some Bhutto supporters are claiming), but I really doubt if any backlash against Islamic Fundamentalism will result, on the contrary this will probably strengthen their (already very strong) position in Pakistan. Musharraf is losing his grip and things are crumbling around his ears, Benazir Bhutto is gone, there is a big power vacuum in Pakistan which will in time be filled. Islamic Fundamentalists are well positioned, well organised, and have a lot of popular support in Pakistan. Who do you think is best placed to fill the power vacuum?

Benazir Bhutto was a divisive figure in Pakistan and was hated as much as loved, she was not seen in Pakistan as the 'people's champion'. Also with Benazir Bhutto gone, her party, the PPP, is an empty shell. It was a party built around the cult of a personality, and now that personality is gone.

Nobody deserves what she, and the 20 or more other people who died with her, got.

A very sad business really, sad for all except al-Qaida and their allies.
Jaded Prole
I think the professional class in Pakistan is more powerful then the extremists. What Musharaff and Bhutto represent to a lot of Pakistanis are very unpopular policies dictated by the US. Nevertheless, Pakistan is a nuclear powder keg ind the situation is quite unstable. The US is in a very difficult position as our interference could make things far worse yet we can't simply ignore it. If only the present US regime was capable of nuanced diplomacy, but alas . . .
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Dec 28 2007, 11:55 AM) *


Calling her a beacon of light is a bit strong. Her return to Pakistan was part of political plan brokered by the United States in an attempt to prop up Musharraf (quite ironic really). The motivation behind it all was the hope that she would be Prime Minister by way of election with Musharraf still there as President. The result of that would be to put a democratic facade on a regime where the real power still lay with Musharraf. Claim a 'victory for democracy' while still keeping the nasty military dictator in power.


That's an interesting notion of a plot, but I don't see much evidence for it. Bhutto and Musharraf weren't pals, and having Musharraf stay in power is not in the interests of US leadership given that the longer he stays in power the more he embarrasses us and our ill-considered alliance with him. Any Bhutto victory would have represented a challenge to Musharraf's influence. It would have still been a military dictatorship but a lesser one with a functioning parliament and judiciary, which isn't ideal but certainly better than the current situation.

Bhutto was corrupt, self-serving and certainly a personality cult leader as you say, but she also was progressive and represented a move towards western values at a time when a portion of Pakistan is increasingly violently anti-progressive, which is why she got killed. Any reasonable person would choose her over the alternative. I don't think that's indicative of any plan to have a phony "victory for democracy" while still keeping a nasty military dictatorship.
Kirk
Sounds like our "elections".
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Dec 28 2007, 10:20 PM) *

That's an interesting notion of a plot, but I don't see much evidence for it. Bhutto and Musharraf weren't pals, and having Musharraf stay in power is not in the interests of US leadership given that the longer he stays in power the more he embarrasses us and our ill-considered alliance with him. Any Bhutto victory would have represented a challenge to Musharraf's influence. It would have still been a military dictatorship but a lesser one with a functioning parliament and judiciary, which isn't ideal but certainly better than the current situation.


They certainly weren't pals, but when a partnership would suit their interests, politicians will get into bed with all sorts of people, pals or not.

Bhutto and Musharraf had power-sharing talks as far back as July, and the USA was shuttling around between the pair of them as far back as 2006 trying to broker a deal. She would be permitted back into the country to stand for election and in return she would serve as Prime Minister with Musharraf as President. He did a deal with Bhutto and the PPP in order to extend his Presidency.

If he didn't want Bhutto to win then why let her back into the country and why overturn a constitutional ban (that he put in place) that would prevent anyone serving more than 2 terms as Prime Minister? If a Bhutto victory would represent a challenge to his influence then why on Earth would he pave the way for her victory by making constitutional changes and waiving corruption charges against her? Why would he do all this if a Bhutto victory would undermine his position? He might be a nasty bastard, but he's not stupid.

Musharraf was in the shit, the USA gets understandably worried, Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Boucher (and others) jets around having talks with Musharraf and Bhutto, talks start going on between Bhutto, Musharraf and the USA, Musharraf then drops the criminal charges against Bhutto and makes constitutional changes that would allow Bhutto to stand for election, then Bhutto goes to Pakistan and on the campaign trail.

Commenting on Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte's trip to Islamabad in September, Bruce Ridel (former CIA officer and employee of the National Security Council) said "He basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by him, but he needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face"

Like him or not, Musharraf is one of the USA's key allies in what they see as the 'War on Terrorism'. The US leadership does want him in power, he is 'their man' and he controls the military in Pakistan, there is no real alternative to him as far as the USA is concerned. Bhutto might be good as a populist 'democratic front', but she doesn't control the real power in Pakistan which is the military. Islamists hold important positions within the Pakistani military, and the ISI, Musharraf kept a lid on them in a way that Bhutto could not.

Musharraf was in the shit and the USA saw Bhutto as a means of propping him up. The whole thing was intended to get Bhutto elected as Prime Minister under Musharraf as President in order to put a "democratic facade on the government". It was about giving a phony 'victory for democracy' in order to prop up Musharraf. The whole thing was a deal between Bhutto and Musharraf and it was instigated and brokered by the USA.
hobgoblin
Where is Don Walsh when you need him? His views on such matters would be interesting. The forum lost some valuable insight when he left.
Donnie Darko
Agreed. Even if I might vehemently disagree with his interpretation of events, he still knew more about what the events were than just about anyone.

I wasn't aware of this power sharing deal you refer to between Butto and Musharraf, though I suppose it's plausible given the events you mentioned. If this was all intended to maintain Musharraf's power though, Musharraf's failure to provide adequate security for Butto and his restrictions on her rallies and coverage of them seem to contraindicate the idea that Musharraf and Butto and the US all had this power-sharing trifecta worked out. Wouldn't it make sense to do the utmost to keep the person that is going to prop up your democratic facade alive?

In any case there is no question that having Musharraf in power in any capacity is a bad idea. This all reeks of Iran, where we supported a dictator and ended up empowering the radicals because of it. Obviously Musharraf is not as notorious or as brutal as the Shah, but if he is overthrown I wouldn't be surprised if Pakistan instituted a Mullah/Ayatollah-type Theocracy ala Iran, and then we'll have a bigger problem.

It's a real shame when you look at what Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's founder, had envisioned for the country. The country stood a real chance of becoming a modernizing force in the Muslim world. It's unfortunate these Pakistani tribal rednecks have become so influential in what could have been a model Middle-eastern country. Of course the LAST group of people you want trying to help this situation diplomatically is the hapless Bush admin. I don't see things getting better before they get much worse over there. My Pakistani friends here on Visas aren't going to be going home willingly any time soon.
Kirk
Surely you don't think anyone could keep anyone alive, do you?
It's shocking how powerless we all are, even collectively.
speedle
True enough. I cannot believe what a complete piece of shit the world has become. It's fine when you live out here in relative emptyness like I do, you don't see or really feel any of the enourmous amount of evil that goes on in the world. Until you watch the news or read the paper. Then it really hits you. I am suprised at how much this situation is really bothering me, stuff is really getting out of control in the world.
Kirk
Actually, most people aren't evil. In fact everyone is surprisingly like you and me, maybe even not as stupid.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.