Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Who do you want for US president ?


Little Fish

Recommended Posts

REALLY?

And this one politician is going to move to a different desk in the same town and change all of the things you just listed? Does that seem reasonable to you?

He sure isnt going to advance them, like every other on that list. How anyone could vote for any of these known lieing criminals is beyond comprehention. Does complaining about big government, while voting for big government seem reasonable to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • preacherman76

    22

  • Space Commander Travis

    14

  • Little Fish

    10

  • Yamato

    8

He will litteraly solve our foreign policy problems all on his own. With no help.

By removing all contact with international organisations and withdrawing from military involvement anywhere? Was that a recipe for success in 1941?

And it really does seem as if Obama has become such the great Bogey that people would rather see some old right winger like Sanatorium or one of his friends in office instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By removing all contact with international organisations and withdrawing from military involvement anywhere? Was that a recipe for success in 1941

1941?? All in all it worked out just fine for America. How is policing the world going?

or should I wait to ask that when we are totaly broke?

And it really does seem as if Obama has become such the great Bogey that people would rather see some old right winger like Sanatorium or one of his friends in office instead.

0bama and Santorium are the same puppet, working for the same people. And it isnt for you or me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

REALLY?

And this one politician is going to move to a different desk in the same town and change all of the things you just listed? Does that seem reasonable to you?

read the post I was responding to. diechecker said he would vote FOR all those things, I'd like to know the reasons why anyone would want those things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

who would you like to see president, out of the 5 possibilities?

Honest%20Ron%20Paul.jpg

Obama, but please remember I am not an American....

If another Republican is elected is will set the US back ten years in the eyes of the rest of the world... Nobody outside the US has any longing to return to the Bush era, and that's what a return to Republican governance would be - possibly worse.... I know a lot of you don't like Obama but as far as most of the world is concerned he is the best thing that has ever happened to your country.

The word socialism is banded around a lot on these threads, can I just assure my American friends that what Obama is pursuing is not socialism... Medicare, is not socialism and socialism is certainly not communism.

It just so happens that communism/socialism are dirty words in America and as such can be thrown about by the opposition to scare people into believing anything... 'Socialism' particularly is used incorrectly so often on UM.

Over the pond we spend a lot of time looking at America and just wondering, 'what on Earth are they thinking?'

It's funny, the right in the UK also have this thing about believing that their country was a paradise when they were in power, and then it all got ruined by liberals and left-wingers... The right in the US seem to have the same mentality - and it is just so overly simplistic! I agree with a lot of the sentiment that nothing will probably change in America between Bush/Obama and the next one... Things on the ground stay the same.. What is true is that when you don't have an extremely right wing president the rest of the world's population actually give a toss what he says...

Bush was viewed pretty much universally in the UK as a literal moron, who only got the job through his daddy and then wasted the US's money on wars of revenge.... When Obama was elected people around the world were celebrating as it restored Americas image in their eyes... This has to be a positive.

Remember this?

No time in history has such celebration followed a US election, not even just in America but around the world... And that wasn't just celebrating Obama, it was celebrating getting rid of Bush and the Republican mentality.

But yeah, I guess people are just angry about the state of the economy... Although if I remember rightly - the problems before Obama was elected such as the huge debt run up by Bush might have more to do with that... Although - like the Tories ignore Thatcherism, Republicans ignore the Bush years.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.. I can't vote and Obama will win anyway.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who actualy paid attention to his administration since the confetty fell, we can all clearly see the Bush area never ended. 0bama has been bush on roids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1941?? All in all it worked out just fine for America.

So you mean being taken totally by surprise and losing thousands of men, not just at pearl harbor but in the Phillipines as well, not to mention the unpreparedness also leading to the fall of Hong Kong and Singapore, was actually a real vindication of isolationist policies. And the world was also really grateful for the U.S. standing back and looking the other way while hitler stomkped all over Europe as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who actualy paid attention to his administration since the confetty fell, we can all clearly see the Bush area never ended. 0bama has been bush on roids.

people are fond of accusing him warmongering (for instance), but the examples that they give of this are that he didn't abandon Iraq and Afghanisatan the day after he was sworn in. Would this have made the situation better in these misbegotten lands? Or is the attitude of the "get the boys home"ers simply that it doesn't matter about the U.S. taking responsibility for its actions, if these actions were the responsibility of the previous administration? But I thought the beauty of Mr. P was that he was above merely blaming everything on the other lot and washing your hands of it.

The U.S. invovlement in Libya is very small cheese indeed in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush was viewed pretty much universally in the UK as a literal moron, who only got the job through his daddy and then wasted the US's money on wars of revenge.... When Obama was elected people around the world were celebrating as it restored Americas image in their eyes... This has to be a positive.

...

No time in history has such celebration followed a US election, not even just in America but around the world... And that wasn't just celebrating Obama, it was celebrating getting rid of Bush and the Republican mentality.

I don't know whether it was specifically about Bush, or Republicans, or even if they had a concept of who or what those words referred to, but when I was in Tanzania the locals would quite enthusiastically engage me in conversation regarding the "new leader Obama!". Most of the conversation did revolve around the concept that Obama was indeed the new face of America, and...well, it wasn't really political as much as...personal, I suppose. Basically, the locals considered old America to be kind of a prick, while the new America at least (perhaps even "finally!") understood the concept of being polite and friendly.

The same thing happens here in Japan, although the conversation is definitely more politically oriented. The difference here is that the conservative party is considered to be the polite and considerate party, and the...liberals (I guess?) would be considered the brash, direct, unsubtle ones (kind of like the traditional view of Americans, actually).

In short...to the rest of the world, presentation does indeed count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama, but please remember I am not an American....

If another Republican is elected is will set the US back ten years in the eyes of the rest of the world... Nobody outside the US has any longing to return to the Bush era, and that's what a return to Republican governance would be - possibly worse.... I know a lot of you don't like Obama but as far as most of the world is concerned he is the best thing that has ever happened to your country.

The word socialism is banded around a lot on these threads, can I just assure my American friends that what Obama is pursuing is not socialism... Medicare, is not socialism and socialism is certainly not communism.

It just so happens that communism/socialism are dirty words in America and as such can be thrown about by the opposition to scare people into believing anything... 'Socialism' particularly is used incorrectly so often on UM.

Over the pond we spend a lot of time looking at America and just wondering, 'what on Earth are they thinking?'

It's funny, the right in the UK also have this thing about believing that their country was a paradise when they were in power, and then it all got ruined by liberals and left-wingers... The right in the US seem to have the same mentality - and it is just so overly simplistic! I agree with a lot of the sentiment that nothing will probably change in America between Bush/Obama and the next one... Things on the ground stay the same.. What is true is that when you don't have an extremely right wing president the rest of the world's population actually give a toss what he says...

Bush was viewed pretty much universally in the UK as a literal moron, who only got the job through his daddy and then wasted the US's money on wars of revenge.... When Obama was elected people around the world were celebrating as it restored Americas image in their eyes... This has to be a positive.

Remember this?

No time in history has such celebration followed a US election, not even just in America but around the world... And that wasn't just celebrating Obama, it was celebrating getting rid of Bush and the Republican mentality.

But yeah, I guess people are just angry about the state of the economy... Although if I remember rightly - the problems before Obama was elected such as the huge debt run up by Bush might have more to do with that... Although - like the Tories ignore Thatcherism, Republicans ignore the Bush years.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.. I can't vote and Obama will win anyway.

Obama is the best thing that has happened to our country, that's laugable. Obama has ran up the defecit way, way more than Bush - that is a fact. I will say that the economy can't always be blamed on the president, but excessive govt spending obviously raises taxes, hurting businesses, which hurts job growth, which hurts the people. It all trickles down from government. How America is viewed by the rest of the world is really irrelevant because if these policies continue our economy WILL collapse, no doubt about it. I don't understand how Europeans put their opinions up on a pedestal when every single country, except Germany (note : their economic policy), is in economic disaster. It seems that "the rest of the world" needs to do educate themselves as well. Most Americans want to avoid what Europe has fallen into.

And I don't understand this vast distinction you are making between Bush and Obama, does the difference in skin color have something to do with it perhaps? Bush and Obama are basically the same, Obama just spends more. Where was the UN when Obama gave the okay to drop more bombs on the middle east? Where's the UN's cries as Obama puts the fire under Iran and their alleged weapons of mass dest.? There was global outrage as well as domestic media outrage at Bush when he invaded Iraq (and I agree with that outrage). There's a huge double standard that exists between this administration and Bush's.

You contradict yourself several times in your post. You say there's no difference between Bush/Obama/Next Guy, and then you say the world rallied as the "Republican mentality" was thrown out? Please explain. And please understand that the base Dem and Rep establishment are EXACTLY the same. People like Ron Paul are labelled as "radicals" for a reason - because they stand up against The Establishment, which includes the vast majority of both parties. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

If you would take the time to educate yourself and do just a little bit of research, you would realize that Ron Paul would be the best choice for the U.S. and the world. He is anti-war and promotes global free-trade. Do you have any issues with that, besides him being old, white, wealthy, and "republican".

By the way.. That video you posted is from an American satirical show, South Park. That episode was poking fun at Americans' and the rest of the world's stupidity for the global rallying for his election.

Edited by Legaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know whether it was specifically about Bush, or Republicans, or even if they had a concept of who or what those words referred to, but when I was in Tanzania the locals would quite enthusiastically engage me in conversation regarding the "new leader Obama!". Most of the conversation did revolve around the concept that Obama was indeed the new face of America, and...well, it wasn't really political as much as...personal, I suppose. Basically, the locals considered old America to be kind of a prick, while the new America at least (perhaps even "finally!") understood the concept of being polite and friendly.

The same thing happens here in Japan, although the conversation is definitely more politically oriented. The difference here is that the conservative party is considered to be the polite and considerate party, and the...liberals (I guess?) would be considered the brash, direct, unsubtle ones (kind of like the traditional view of Americans, actually).

In short...to the rest of the world, presentation does indeed count.

There is a real value in how much a president raises or lowers our image in the world. While Reagan had a lot of policies I do not agree with, he really raised our image in the world so was a very successful president. With Clinton, even though he did some really questionable things, he really raised our image our image in the world as well. I do not think Obama has the same value as those two, but at least he is not lower our image further. I wonder why people cannot see that no matter what is going on, things are better when our image is up, and worse when our image is down. People always say, "who cares what so and so thinks of us?" We should all care. We are a large country that needs other countries to buy things from us, companies care about their image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama, but please remember I am not an American....

being from the UK and of the solialist persuation, you'll know who john pilger is, but you don't know who obama is.

he does not represent your preferred flavour of socialism, its national socialism that obama represents.

watch from the 10-20 minute mark (if you can't watch it all).

Obama will win anyway.
I don't think so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jeez, 32 minutes of John Pilger, friend of Saddams and Gadaffis and Assads around the world.

* And 50 Godwin points deducted for mention of "National Socialism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a real value in how much a president raises or lowers our image in the world. While Reagan had a lot of policies I do not agree with, he really raised our image in the world so was a very successful president. With Clinton, even though he did some really questionable things, he really raised our image our image in the world as well. I do not think Obama has the same value as those two, but at least he is not lower our image further. I wonder why people cannot see that no matter what is going on, things are better when our image is up, and worse when our image is down. People always say, "who cares what so and so thinks of us?" We should all care. We are a large country that needs other countries to buy things from us, companies care about their image.

In the end, I don't think anyone votes because of what other countries would think. We vote on what we think is in our own best interest, period. I highly doubt any other country is worried about what we think when they go to the polls and I don't blame them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you mean being taken totally by surprise and losing thousands of men, not just at pearl harbor but in the Phillipines as well, not to mention the unpreparedness also leading to the fall of Hong Kong and Singapore, was actually a real vindication of isolationist policies. And the world was also really grateful for the U.S. standing back and looking the other way while hitler stomkped all over Europe as well.

We were going to lose thousands of men either way. It was a world war. We were attacked, and we responded in a constitutional mannor. Before that we had no constitutional authority to to join in the fight.

If Europe didnt drain all the wealth of Germany after WW1 and reduced there economy to third world status, Hitler probably wouldnt have even been able to rise to power. We warned France and England to not force them into that treaty.

On top of that, we gave support to Hitler before he started his rampage. Another thing we should have stayed outta.

edit to add- The Rockefellers funded both sides of that war, so they could create the UN, a form of world government.

Edited by preacherman76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

people are fond of accusing him warmongering (for instance), but the examples that they give of this are that he didn't abandon Iraq and Afghanisatan the day after he was sworn in. Would this have made the situation better in these misbegotten lands? Or is the attitude of the "get the boys home"ers simply that it doesn't matter about the U.S. taking responsibility for its actions, if these actions were the responsibility of the previous administration? But I thought the beauty of Mr. P was that he was above merely blaming everything on the other lot and washing your hands of it.

The U.S. invovlement in Libya is very small cheese indeed in comparison.

Its not just that he didnt abandon Iraq and Afgan. Its that he lied and said he would get them out in the same year he was elected, and didnt. Then he bombed Yeman, Pakistan, and Lybia. Without a single declaration of war. Meaning every bomb dropped was and is criminal. Not only that, but any fool can see he is gonna bomb Iran and or Syria soon as he is re-elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, I don't think anyone votes because of what other countries would think. We vote on what we think is in our own best interest, period. I highly doubt any other country is worried about what we think when they go to the polls and I don't blame them.

Totaly agree. Why should the opinion of people in other countries matter in the least?? The only opinion I care about is from other countries are those who we are bombing, cause of the blow back.

Edited by preacherman76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were going to lose thousands of men either way. It was a world war. We were attacked, and we responded in a constitutional mannor. Before that we had no constitutional authority to to join in the fight.

By 1941, yes it was a world war. But if the US had been involved internationally during the 20's and 30's instead of sticking their head in the sand the war might have been prevented, or at least it's impact greatly lessened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By 1941, yes it was a world war. But if the US had been involved internationally during the 20's and 30's instead of sticking their head in the sand the war might have been prevented, or at least it's impact greatly lessened.

That's totally true. It's also true that our earlier intervention could have set the whole thing off earlier, resulting in Germany ruling the world. That's the problem with playing "what if", regardless of how reasonable our conjectures are, conjectures are all they are.

I find it endlessly bewildering how so many people believe our constant interference in other sovereign nations and our determining whom our enemies are based on whom our allies choose for enemies are good things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

really?

so you want more wars whilst gifting your hard earned money to corporations and banks, whilst the private corporation that is the federal reserve devalues your currency, creating spiraling sovereign debt, all the while the government takes your rights away, spies on you, your family and investigative journalists, raises your taxes and sends it abroad, uses it to fund private bankers that rape government coffers all around the world including your own government, you want more jobs sent abroad whilst government workers fondle and abuse your children, then you want to crack down on anyone who complains about things or put them in a military prison without any trial if they won't shut up, or for whatever reason the government secretly declares. my only question to you is why?

And you want Paul to cut medicare, medicaid, education, welfare, unemployment, defense, healthcare, allow only local laws for abortion, immigration, drug use. And you want Paul to stop protecting us from terrorists. And you are against international trade, and you are against intenational defensive treaties. And you are in favor of crippling taxes on top of all that?

Wow! You really got this one figured out.

I support the Afghan war, but not Iraq War II. I supported the war in Libya, and I'd support going into Syria or Iran, if the rational was good. We do those things because no one else can, or will, do what NEEDS to get done. Would you rather the Libyans were just all beaten down and had no say in their government? I bet you would, as you come across as one of those people who is "ME" centric. If it does not affect you, then you don't care. FACT: That is the belief system of a 3 year old.

He will litteraly solve our foreign policy problems all on his own. With no help. I could also see him solving our debt problem, by eliminating unconstitutional programs through executive order.

Paul has BY far the best chance to beat 0bama. None of the others will get independant, or disgruntled democrate votes.

We'll have to wait and see. But I believe his chances are zero, or about the same as Bigfoot showing up on the whitehouse lawn.

I've said many times, the things people are soooo afraid of when it comes to Paul are all things he wouldn't have a chance in hell of doing. Does anyone really think he'd get enough support to disband the Dept of Education? The IRS?? The FED???

There are things that he MIGHT be able to accomplish. An audit of the FED would be a realistic thought with a president willing to fight for it. Improving our relationship with the rest of the world would be also be possible with a president willing to buck the current system of neatly categorizing everyone else as either allies or bad guys.

Lastly, there are things he could definitely accomplish. Repealing earlier executive orders and massively reducing our deployment of troops all over the world (which would cause its own problem since we'd then have thousands and thousands of troops sitting on their thumbs here).

I tend to agree with virtually every stance Paul holds (all except returning to the gold standard), but even if I hated everything he had to say, I'd vote for him just for the novelty seeing a president remain true to his principles (if 162 years in congress hasn't changed his stances on the issues, I seriously doubt being elected president would).

Anyway, it doesn't matter - having enough Republicans smart enough to nominate him is unlikely. Having enough Americans in general smart enough to elect him is really unlikely. Assuming both things occurred, having "Iranian terrorists" assassinate him would be a near certainty.

Dude... you wrote 162 years in Congress....

I do agree that if elected, he'd get little of his Big Wishlist items done. No one would vote for his Bills in congress. And it is the congress that can enable law with an overide vote. The president has nothing that can overide congressional disagreement.

Also Ron Paul said more then a year ago, that he PLEDGED never to use Presidential Executive Orders to supercede Congress. He says they are UnConstitutional. So any Paul'Bot that tells you RP will use Executive Orders to fix things is not really portraying what RP is willing to do.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-03-25/executive-orders-are-unconstitutional-we-need-a-private-option-in-healthcare/

Totaly agree. Why should the opinion of people in other countries matter in the least?? The only opinion I care about is from other countries are those who we are bombing, cause of the blow back.

Naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude... you wrote 162 years in Congress....

Sometimes people exaggerate to make a joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

I do agree that if elected, he'd get little of his Big Wishlist items done. No one would vote for his Bills in congress. And it is the congress that can enable law with an overide vote. The president has nothing that can overide congressional disagreement.

Also Ron Paul said more then a year ago, that he PLEDGED never to use Presidential Executive Orders to supercede Congress. He says they are UnConstitutional. So any Paul'Bot that tells you RP will use Executive Orders to fix things is not really portraying what RP is willing to do.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-03-25/executive-orders-are-unconstitutional-we-need-a-private-option-in-healthcare/

So his vow not to use Executive Orders to make an end-run around congress prevents him from countermanding the Executive Orders previous presidents used to make an end-run around congress?

Naive.

My belief that Ron Paul would make every attempt to push for the same platform he's followed for his entire 143 years in office (Disclaimer: Ron Paul has not been in office for 143 years) is naive? Or is it my belief that if by some miracle his campaign cleared the hurdles of voter stupidity and electoral corruption to actually make him president, that he would get assassinated?

I suppose I could be naive. Could you express more clearly why you think so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's totally true. It's also true that our earlier intervention could have set the whole thing off earlier, resulting in Germany ruling the world. That's the problem with playing "what if", regardless of how reasonable our conjectures are, conjectures are all they are.

I find it endlessly bewildering how so many people believe our constant interference in other sovereign nations and our determining whom our enemies are based on whom our allies choose for enemies are good things.

American entering the war early resulting in a complete German victory? No. Just no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes people exaggerate to make a joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

:tu:

So his vow not to use Executive Orders to make an end-run around congress prevents him from countermanding the Executive Orders previous presidents used to make an end-run around congress?

No. I think he could still do that. After all, ending things he thinks are un-Constitutional would be the very definition of what he wants to do. But, he would not be, in good confidence, be able to go around Congress to take over the Fed, or pull out of the UN, or any number of other things.

My belief that Ron Paul would make every attempt to push for the same platform he's followed for his entire 143 years in office (Disclaimer: Ron Paul has not been in office for 143 years) is naive? Or is it my belief that if by some miracle his campaign cleared the hurdles of voter stupidity and electoral corruption to actually make him president, that he would get assassinated?

I suppose I could be naive. Could you express more clearly why you think so?

To be more clear, I was addressing Preacherman, and I think that this is Naive...

Why should the opinion of people in other countries matter in the least?? The only opinion I care about is from other countries are those who we are bombing, cause of the blow back.

Not this...

Totaly agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I think he could still do that. After all, ending things he thinks are un-Constitutional would be the very definition of what he wants to do. But, he would not be, in good confidence, be able to go around Congress to take over the Fed, or pull out of the UN, or any number of other things.

This was kinda my point. The things that make people cry to the heavens that Ron Paul is a maniac who can't be allowed to be president are all things the president wouldn't be able to accomplish on his own. This would just leave the things that would be in his power to change in the realm of what the vast majority of the country agrees with.

I guess I just don't get how with everyone else clearly following the same detrimental script whether their underwear has a donkey or an elephant on it, why wouldn't people want to vote for the one guy who seems (and whose track record confirms that he is) different when the only beefs against the guy are that he'd love to make changes he couldn't and a newsletter he was affiliated with contained racist material.

To be more clear, I was addressing Preacherman, and I think that this is Naive...

Not this...

Cool...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.