Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by warrior_squirrel21, Feb 14, 2008.
I'm just throwin this out there with all the other political stuff, wantin to hear opinions.
well what do you mean, "the U.S. Office"?
If I could choose anyone? Myself of course. Out of all of the people who were in the primaries? Ron Paul. Out of the 3 people who are left? Obama.
My hopes is for Obama for sure.
Can't be too sure on that. My heart says Obama, but my brain says anyone but him. Just face it, Padme, Obama's too inexperienced to be the president. If he was to be the VP for Hillary, then I'll say he can be able leader within time. But as president now? Sorry to disappoint you there, but America could be screwed if that's the case. Like what Hillary has said beforehand so many times, there's no time for on-the-job training once someone becomes the president. It's either you succeed or you get screwed like Bush. If Hillary's up with McCain (which definitely will be the case for the Reps), then I'll say a 50-50 chance. If it's Obama vs him, my money's on Obama getting pwned. Irregardless of who wins though, that fellow will have a mess up his hands. Iraq war and the economical crisis are top of the list. I'll be waiting to see what the future president can do... :saurumon:
I sincerely believe that the US political system is corrupt. I am of the opinion that as long as lobby groups with little more than economic interests wage war on capitol hill and the White House, the US Presidential Office is a hostage of Money. The US needs a president who can break free of this, independant of the public opinion.
Next, I think it's important for a President to take part in dialogue, listening rather than ruling. I believe that is the true meaning of democracy; being able to talk with your opponents and find a constructive way out of mutual problems. It might be because I'm Dutch, but in all, this usually leads to excellent solutions. Of course, industry is fully allowed a lobby, but only if this is met by an equal force in the opposite direction. Listen and Learn, consensus. Power should not be equal to the money it is backed by, but rather by the number of people.
And, to be honest, no candidate has convinced me to have these as primary goals and issues. Of course, you can't be voted president with these alone, but no candidate fences with the claim that if an issue comes up, they'll invite the main characters and try to come to a solution by consensus. I'm quite sure you'll be dismissed as a flip-flop.
Out of the candidates that currently present themselves, I would vote for Clinton. There is a word in Dutch; Tussenpaus, which depicts a (roman-catholic) pope which is - mostly - chosen at a high age, to keep the Seat warm after an especially lengthy or controversial pontificate. I trully believe that what the US needs now most is a modest president, with a tad of experience, who can bring calmth and stability to the White House. Now, I won't say that Clinton has such plans, but Obama and McCain less so. McCain sounds like a war President, which is something we don't need now; Obama is the new kid on the block, and my experience is that those kind of leaders hardly ever bring calmth to the White House.
Furthermore, I would like to urge Clinton not to make herself electable for a consecutive term, making way for someone else to start with a clean sheet. But she won't of course, my hope on all of this would be in vein. Now, Kofi Annan, on the other hand... Old, experienced, modest, consensus "candidate", no stranger to tough decisions or holding a powerful position, black... perfect.
The US system is corrupt so the obvious choice is Kofi Annan? Is that sarcasm? Who co-chairs? Chirac?
My choice would be Zell Miller.
it may sound immature, but anyone but Clinton.
Hmmm... it was a bit provocative to name Annan in retrospect heh?
Jaques Chirac is a failure. And French in general dislike (to put it gently) the US. Not your first choice.
Ok, so someone in the either of the next 2 posts is going to mention how corrupt the UN is, an opinion shared amongst US citizens, but not far beyond. On the whole, however, I think that Annan had very little to do with this - and that Dick Cheney has been more damaging than any individual member of the UN.
Annan won the effing Nobel Peace Price, what's to say against him?
Of course, the same person will retort in either of the next two posts, but I'm going to leave it here.
Well, exactly which candidate would you have in mind to fill that bill, regardless of his background. Nelson Mandela? He's old, I suppose, though the highest office he ever held was the presidency of a medium-sized modestly prosperous country. I can't readily think of a president or prime minister of one of the large European to fit the bill; Thatcher, Major (is he still alive?), Blair, Kohl, Schröder, Chirac, Berlusconi, Aznar... None quite fit the bill, do they? Maybe there's a Scandinavian former prime minister who will, they've got a reputation of being consensus, but I don't keep track of them.
Maybe we have to resolve to This list for inspiration. Tenzin Gyatzo? Jimmy Carter?; he's got experience... And let's have a look at the bottom of that list
Why not, I'll back Jimmy Carter in an open election. He is American - and he served only one period, so of all these people, he actually qualifies by law.
Queen Elizabeth II.It's about time those Americans get back to their roots!
Remember the petition!
Please. The queen has power that can be put in the immortal words of Eurovision "Nil point". I'm sure you're aware of the Magna Carta
I beg your pardon sir?
He means that there's a crumbling fossil inhabiting the Throne in England - and that no one with more than 2 brain cells won't vote for her.
Knowing Met a bit, I suppose we can call this a compliment on his account towards the Merkin brethren
Basically Foi, the Queen has no power.
Indeed I've had my doubts on Obama, but with Clinton, she repeatedly voted for the war, she voted for all the funding etc time and time again. it's different if she was like a Kerry who did vote for the war but then realized 'okay made a mistake, I admit, I was wrong', then that I could understand and deal with. But she continuously voted yes yes yes, and plus she has succumbed to payoffs. Okay so have many ex-presidents and politicians but doesn't mean you should accept that. If Clinton becomes the official Democratic Candidate, then of course I will still want her to win, but for the moment, Obama does seem to be the one who is most concerned with dealing with poverty in America.
Although I have to say, my favourite actually had been Edwards, it's just sad that he's gone now but he didn't have all the funding that the other two have. Both Clinton and Obama have their flaws, and I wish one of them would come up with a real universal health plan for America. Cause Clinton is going on about 'Insurance for all', but that doesn't necessarily mean 'health care for all'.
TBH though, Clinton screwed in voting for the war. Everybody knows that. Problem is, I don't think any of the three (i.e. Obama, Clinton, McCain) can really lead US out of the current shit it's in right now. If Kerry beat Bush for the president seat last time round, things might be more optimistic. But hell no! The public just chose to give Bush one more chance and see what has happened now? If I am to vote, I'll vote for the person least likely to screw US rather than the person most able to lead US.
Do I hear a soft "Ralph Nader" in your voice, azuren?
At the end of the day, a Democrat is going to be better than a Republican. So whether it's Obama or Clinton, I'll support them. And yes they are going to inherit a lot of crap left over from Bush that will take a while to clean up. He managed to f*** up so much in just 8 years, and it will take longer I think to correct those mistakes. Well I say 'mistakes', they weren't mistakes at all, was all intentional, just the American public does not agree. Just wish people would remember, the President works for you, not vice versa. Should've 'fired' him years ago. if there had been enough of an uprising he could have been. But when people are living in poverty, worried about health care etc They are just going to keep their heads down and hope the sky doesn't fall on them, rather than sorting out the people who are keeping them in poverty.
Yeah I know...that's why we should just let her rule the Americans.How's that?
Separate names with a comma.