Who do you want to see as President of the United States in 2012?

[ThePreserver]

If you aren't an American, who would you want to see as the President that is running? If you are an American, are you participating in the primaries? Who do you support? Also, are you registered to vote, and will you be voting?

[DeletePlease]

I don't know much about American politics but from what I've seen/heard so far, Ron Paul seems to be the most genuine and, for the most part, he seems to be headed in the right direction. But again, I don't know much about these candidates so I could just be full of horse-shit.

[Thatperson]

Is David Duke not running? Ideally I would support him, but if not then possibly Ron Paul.

[ninja9578]

Well, only choosing from those people, Obama is the lesser of the evils. Would prefer someone else though. I don't see why you guys like Ron Paul, do you not understand that deregulation of banks is why our economy and Europe's economies collapsed? The deregulations allowed them to give people large loans that the banks knew they couldn't afford, then skyrocket the interest so that they couldn't pay it off, and create the housing bubble.

[Xei]

Do you not understand that all of those shitty banks you're talking about still exist because of your genius plan, and our governments now have cataclysmic levels of sovereign debt? Anyway, I'll just say thank God Palin didn't run. But no American politicians particularly inspire me, and most of the right-wingers seem to be nuts.

[ninja9578]

Do you not understand that all of those shitty banks you're talking about still exist because of your genius plan, and our governments now have cataclysmic levels of sovereign debt? I'd address that, but I can't find my genius plan. What are you referring to? Are you saying that you agree with Ron Paul that the banks should be deregulated?

[Xei]

'Being shit-scared of bankruptcy' works quite well as a 'regulator' for most businesses. Supporting colossal failures with taxpayer money is the problem, and now they think we'll do it again.

[ninja9578]

How was that my plan? I'm on the left wing. Part of the catalyst for the current protests across the country was the left wing's anger against the bailout. And not really, deregulation makes them a lot of money, because they are allowed to take advantage of their borrowers. The value of the top 1% explodes while the bottom 99% get poorer. Class gaps destabilize economies, the bankers think short term, how can they make as much money as fast as they can. If the bank is starting to go south, the board members can hide the problems long enough for them to sell their stock and retire. They are very good at that, Goldman Sachs helped Greece hide more than half of it's debt when the Euro was being formed.

[Ne-yo]

Anyway, I'll just say thank God Palin didn't run. But no American politicians particularly inspire me, and most of the right-wingers seem to be nuts. Definitely this. I'll have to stick with Barack.

[Xei]

How was that my plan? I'm on the left wing. Part of the catalyst for the current protests across the country was the left wing's anger against the bailout. It's at times like this that I think you're just totally clueless... The state virtually nationalising failing banks is not right-wing and protests about it are not left-wing. Is right-wing a synonym for 'bad' in your dictionary..?

[ninja9578]

It's at times like this that I think you're just totally clueless... The state virtually nationalising failing banks is not right-wing and protests about it are not left-wing. Is right-wing a synonym for 'bad' in your dictionary..? No, right wing means deregulation, pro big business, big military, privatized everything... left is for regulated economic machinery, pro small business, small military, government options for necessities (health care, fire department, schools...). Do they mean something different in England? I didn't say the right wing supported the bailout either, I don't watch Fox, so I'm not sure how they felt about it. I know the dems usually are the bailout people, but their base never supports them. Find a liberal who's not in the congress who actually supports the bailout, it'll be harder than you think. Most of the protesters are liberal (left wing means liberal in the US.) I was just saying that Ron Paul supports further deregulation and we all know that's part of what caused housing bubble to form, and then burst, bringing the economy with it.

[Alric]

That isn't true, Ron Paul wants to stop bailing out banks and thinks you should be able to sue the hell out of any bank that cheat or harms you. The move of pulling away the banks safety net, and holding them responsible for their actions will quickly eliminate all the risky practices banks do on a daily biases, because the bad ones will go bankrupt and die, and then only the good ones will be left. Though the worst offender of any bank is the federal reserve. When the federal reserves pulls out the crap that it is constantly doing to manipulate the economy it trickles down and effects all other banks. He wants to hold the federal reserve responsible for its actions and eventually phase them out. You forget that the housing bubble would have never formed if it wasn't for the fed lowering the interest rates down to insanely low levels. The federal reserve pumped tons of cash into the system, because they thought we needed more credit and that in turn made banks give out loans like crazy. You make it sound like Ron Paul wants to let banks do whatever they want, and he doesn't. His main thing is holding the fed responsible for what it is doing. Right now small banks are regulated to death so no one can get into the business, while large banks can basically do whatever the hell they want with no consequence. That is the same with almost all business area's. His main goal is to cut pointless regulations that stops small business from growing, while making sure large businesses are held accountable for their actions. He does want to lessen regulation over all for most things, because we have so much wasteful and harmful regulation that really harms the economy. However he also wants to help clean up the legal system, and hold businesses accountable for everything they do. Ron Paul actually has a better understanding of the situation than anyone else in our government, and he knows everything isn't just black and white all the time, which is why when he talks he goes into details and describe all the small issues on the topic. He isn't popular because what he says can't be summed up into short sound bites, but he is the only one that goes into any details on what exactly he wants to do and should get respect for that. Also I find it kind of funny that you say left is for small business and small military, since everything else in that sentence was for huge government. Everyone knows huge governments always come with a large military and large government always crushes small businesses. They are not compatible at all. Which is why we have democrats in office and military spending has increased even more than when Bush was in office. Lets be honest with ourselves though. Ron Paul is the only person running who is for smaller government, and fixing the economy. Everyone else, including obama wants to keep increasing the size of government even as our debt balloons out of control. I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul was the only one out of them, that even knew what inflation is, and if he doesn't get elected I suspect some time in the next five years we will be faced with massive hyperinflation that will destroy our currency, which has already been beaten up pretty badly. The dollar is only worth like 5% of what it was originally when we went off the gold standard. Of course no one wants to talk about how our currency lost 95% of its value. Well expect Ron Paul who has been talking about this for 30 years.

[ThePreserver]

Are you saying that you agree with Ron Paul that the banks should be deregulated? (See below for "Too Long, Didn't Read" version) I know this was directed to Xei, but they aren't REGULATED at all, are you kidding me? They are like lap dogs to the Fed who will supply them with endless wealth as long as they "follow the rules" set by a paragovernmental organization that has absolutely NO regulation. If the banks had no ties to the government and they failed, they would go out of business, not make 10 billion dollars like Goldman Sachs, or 14 billion like Morgan Stanley. Sure, they can be FDIC insured, but that is consumer protection. What banks do now is self-protection. And on the topic of "what caused the housing bubble" it was actually the Federal Reserve. In the wake of the Dot Com bubble, they artificially reduced interest rates and pushed investment for the private sector, but instead of sending the money into failing industries, it was attracted THROUGH Fed-tied banks into the housing market. With an influx of money (that shouldn't have been there in the first place) there was more to loan, at least at first. However, once the Fed tried to correct interest rates afterwards, investors realized the housing market was too volatile. They were misled by the Fed, causing the collapse. Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich gave speeches about this in 2002 and 2003, long before anyone else "predicted" it. They said if the actions were not corrected, the housing market would collapse. 5 years later, what happened? Housing market collapse. Oh yeah we like him because he's the only candidate who is anti-war. Obama started two more "military actions" (wars) that were never declared war by Congress. Therefore, they are unconstitutional. (Libya and Yemen, and real soon we may see Syria unless things are straightened out.) OOOH! I forgot. Last week Obama assassinated two American citizens in Yemen without due process because they were declared "enemies of the state." All the President has to do is say "You're bad" and then he can order your assassination. Ron Paul was one of the only people to speak out against it. Let's see... he has more military support (financially) than all other GOP candidates combined (and more than Obama), he wants to remove our troops from the 148 countries that we're in, he wants us to stop supporting Israel (which has only given us enemies, not friends.), and he thinks the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional (it is). There's plenty more, but I think that's enough reason to support him. TL;DR VERSION Ron Paul has been talking about the same things for 30 years. So far, he's predicted each financial crisis in that time a few years before they happened. He's NOT "Right-Wing" He's a libertarian. I'm not sure if Europeans have a Libertarian Party, but he's a Libertarian running as a Republican, because with our two party system, you can't succeed unless you join the rank-and-file Left and Right. Interesting note: I did not vote for Ron Paul in this poll, either. I also support Gary Johnson, and he's very under-represented. Everywhere.

[Descensus]

As for the poll, I voted RP. Either him or an empty chair would be alright.

[Original Poster]

It's probably been mentioned but choosing between Obama and the GOP is no election to me.

[Ne-yo]

Hey that rhymed!

[tommo]

Obama's okay. Ron Paul is also okay. But making abortion illegal again just ruins him entirely. Creates so much problems it outweighs all the good he could possibly do. And you have to remember that the only reason Obama has been sucking mostly is because the Republicans are fucking him over on every good thing he tried to do. Which is why your healthcare still sucks dick. Same thing's been happening here too for quite a long time. But now we have the Greens with balance of power so it's going to be a lot better for a few years. It would be good, not sure how your system works, but if Ron Paul could get a similar balance of power. Or at least more of a say in things. Then he might only be able to get some reasonable things through, instead of his religious dogma.

[ThePreserver]

Obama's okay. Ron Paul is also okay. But making abortion illegal again just ruins him entirely. Paul won't be touching the issue of abortion during his presidency. He says it's a state's issue (and few, if any states, will overturn Roe V. Wade on their own time. Pro-Choice outweighs Pro-Life in most states.) Obama mostly sucks to me because he is letting our men and women in uniform die every day when he promised we would come home in the first year of his presidency. I cannot support a warmonger.

[Alric]

You are far off base Tommo. Ron Paul has never pushed any religious dogma. He is personally against abortion, but he has no plans on making it illegal. He is on records many times saying its a state issue, and that the federal government has no place to dictating rules on abortion one way or the other. If the only reason you wont support him is because of abortion issues, I suggest you just drop that issue because he isn't going to deal with it at all as president. What he wants to work on or reducing the out of control government, and fixing our economic problems. He has never even brought the issue of abortion up, he just answers every question that is asked of him. If you watch him some times, he never dodges issues but always answers them. So you shouldn't hold a personal opinion he has that he says he isn't going to act on or even deal with against him. Because it simply isn't going to effect anything he does while in office. And really, even if your a hard core pro choice person and your going to hate on everyone who is against abortion even if they don't believe government should regulate it, you should still give him a break. He was an Obstetrician and his job was dealing with and taking care of babies in the womb and delivering them every day for years on end. I am sure everyone can understand why a person that close to the issue might hold the opinions that he does, regardless of religion.

[cmind]

You are far off base Tommo. Ron Paul has never pushed any religious dogma. He is personally against abortion, but he has no plans on making it illegal. He is on records many times saying its a state issue, and that the federal government has no place to dictating rules on abortion one way or the other. If the only reason you wont support him is because of abortion issues, I suggest you just drop that issue because he isn't going to deal with it at all as president. What he wants to work on or reducing the out of control government, and fixing our economic problems. He has never even brought the issue of abortion up, he just answers every question that is asked of him. If you watch him some times, he never dodges issues but always answers them. So you shouldn't hold a personal opinion he has that he says he isn't going to act on or even deal with against him. Because it simply isn't going to effect anything he does while in office. And really, even if your a hard core pro choice person and your going to hate on everyone who is against abortion even if they don't believe government should regulate it, you should still give him a break. He was an Obstetrician and his job was dealing with and taking care of babies in the womb and delivering them every day for years on end. I am sure everyone can understand why a person that close to the issue might hold the opinions that he does, regardless of religion. Don't waste your breath. We all know the real reason tommo won't support Ron Paul is because he's getting free money from the government and he doesn't want "his" checks to stop coming. The abortion thing is a red herring.

[Original Poster]

Obama's okay. Ron Paul is also okay. But making abortion illegal again just ruins him entirely. Creates so much problems it outweighs all the good he could possibly do. And you have to remember that the only reason Obama has been sucking mostly is because the Republicans are fucking him over on every good thing he tried to do. Which is why your healthcare still sucks dick. Same thing's been happening here too for quite a long time. But now we have the Greens with balance of power so it's going to be a lot better for a few years. It would be good, not sure how your system works, but if Ron Paul could get a similar balance of power. Or at least more of a say in things. Then he might only be able to get some reasonable things through, instead of his religious dogma. Obama is not okay. Not even close to okay. He couldn't even keep veteran's benefits equal to inflation which at least Bush did. The only promise he followed through with is Don't Ask Don't Tell which was transparently a last minute campaign move. He criticizes liberals within government as being too needy. He rejected attempts to safeguard consumers from false advertising and insidious contracts. He reminds me of Reagan except he keeps pretending he plans to make the top 1% pay their fair share. Pretending.

[Thatperson]

The mantra of 'Anyone can be president' Is spouted off in america more than anywhere else in the world, but at least in the democratic western world, it's porbbaly the least genuine statement. I mean in europe an average person has at least the chance of parlimentary seat, last time i checked the UK had 326 political parties compared to how many for the US? American politics would be much mroe interesting if it were more open. Anyway none of the above really have my support, I've heard good things about Ron Paul but I haven't researched him enough to make a judgement.

[ThePreserver]

The best advice I can give anyone, go to youtube, listen to speeches given by Ron Paul to Congress, or hearings on the Finances Committee (specifically with Bernanke). Or listen to him on foreign policy; he stands out among the GOP by saying that we shouldn't NEED bases in 148 countries around the world, because it's not our business. (Also it's bankrupting us.) But Gary Johnson is my home slice. He's pretty much my favorite candidate, but since Ron Paul is my other favorite and has a much higher chance of success, I'll be voting for him.

[Supernova]

Me? Nader. Or H. Clinton. I'm honestly afraid of what any of the conservative candidates could do, especially if republicans retake congress in the next election. Americans seem to have forgotten what the word "representative" means.

[tommo]

Paul won't be touching the issue of abortion during his presidency. He says it's a state's issue (and few, if any states, will overturn Roe V. Wade on their own time. Pro-Choice outweighs Pro-Life in most states.) Fair enough. Obama mostly sucks to me because he is letting our men and women in uniform die every day when he promised we would come home in the first year of his presidency. I cannot support a warmonger. This is probably the worst thing he's done. I'm not sure why it's taking so long. But I suppose it has to be that way to an extent. And he didn't start the war anyway. He's just got to help find a good way to end it. You are far off base Tommo. Ron Paul has never pushed any religious dogma. He is personally against abortion, but he has no plans on making it illegal. He is on records many times saying its a state issue, and that the federal government has no place to dictating rules on abortion one way or the other. If the only reason you wont support him is because of abortion issues, I suggest you just drop that issue because he isn't going to deal with it at all as president. What he wants to work on or reducing the out of control government, and fixing our economic problems. He has never even brought the issue of abortion up, he just answers every question that is asked of him. If you watch him some times, he never dodges issues but always answers them. But you know what they say about politicians. Just look at Obama, going back on quite a few things he said. Still, I spose you have to take their word for what they will promise to do and not do. And I agree he does look more trustworthy than most politicians. So you shouldn't hold a personal opinion he has that he says he isn't going to act on or even deal with against him. Because it simply isn't going to effect anything he does while in office. And really, even if your a hard core pro choice person and your going to hate on everyone who is against abortion even if they don't believe government should regulate it, you should still give him a break. He was an Obstetrician and his job was dealing with and taking care of babies in the womb and delivering them every day for years on end. I am sure everyone can understand why a person that close to the issue might hold the opinions that he does, regardless of religion. There's no chance that religion didn't play some part in it. Otherwise he would understand the science. But still. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he will not interfere with laws regarding abortion. Obama is not okay. Not even close to okay. He couldn't even keep veteran's benefits equal to inflation which at least Bush did. The only promise he followed through with is Don't Ask Don't Tell which was transparently a last minute campaign move. He criticizes liberals within government as being too needy. He rejected attempts to safeguard consumers from false advertising and insidious contracts. He reminds me of Reagan except he keeps pretending he plans to make the top 1% pay their fair share. Pretending. ONLY promise? I just mentioned Universal Healthcare up there. The only reason it's shit is because of the republican's scare tactics. I think someone recently told me that he removed the abstinence only BS. He also stopped the DEA from raiding Cannabis dispensaries when the dispensaries are operating according to their state laws. There's probably a few other things. I'm not too up on Americans politics atm though. And you have to remember, he's working with an already fucked budget. And he can't do anything too drastic otherwise the redneck republicans will stir up a lowest common denominator fear campaign to generate hate for him.