|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which candidate do you think would be the worst president? |
| Barack Obama |
|
12% |
[ 6 ] |
| Mitt Romney |
|
4% |
[ 2 ] |
| Newt Gingrich |
|
22% |
[ 11 ] |
| Rick Santorum |
|
41% |
[ 20 ] |
| Ron Paul |
|
18% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 48 |
|
| Author |
Message |
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:47 am Post subject: Which candidate do you think would be the worst president? |
 |
|
Which one do you think would be the absolute worst?
My vote goes to Santorum. Overall, I think both Obama and Paul would be good, not great, for the country. Romney would take us in the wrong direction but is moderate enough to not do anything really harmful. Gingrich and Santorum are the really frightening ones; the difference, it seems to me, is that Gingrich is reasonably intelligent but borderline evil, while Santorum is just a fool. He's not an intelligent man; even less so than Bush, I think. I think if he could, he would literally make the US an Evangelical Christian theocracy.
Discuss your second choice, rank them all, and flame me and one another until the thread gets locked below. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul is the only one the makes sense. Romney would be more of the same. I cannot imagine the other two being president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:29 am Post subject: Re: Which candidate do you think would be the worst presiden |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
Which one do you think would be the absolute worst?
My vote goes to Santorum. Overall, I think both Obama and Paul would be good, not great, for the country. Romney would take us in the wrong direction but is moderate enough to not do anything really harmful. Gingrich and Santorum are the really frightening ones; the difference, it seems to me, is that Gingrich is reasonably intelligent but borderline evil, while Santorum is just a fool. He's not an intelligent man; even less so than Bush, I think. I think if he could, he would literally make the US an Evangelical Christian theocracy.
Discuss your second choice, rank them all, and flame me and one another until the thread gets locked below. |
That's about right, except Gingrich horrifies me more than Santorum. Santorum would bomb Iran out of the gate, but other than that, Gingrich is worse.
Santorum doesn't have the power to make the US a Christian theocracy, and if he tried he'd split the GOP, which is an alliance between socialcons, defcons, and the rich, with smatterings of libertarians who flow in and out of the party. The rich would veto Santorum's push for a theocracy, and many of the defcons would stay home his second term (I admit there's strongest overlap between socialcons and defcons).
Obama's first term will be his worst. I wouldn't say he'll be a good President, but maybe he'll be repetent and perform adequately. Its important to me that the 3rd party candidate (Gary Johnson) take enough votes along with the GOP challenger that Obama wins with a plurality of the popular vote. Otherwise, I think he'll get too strong a mandate. Because I refuse to vote GOP in the House this year to mitigate Obama's influence, and I don't think GOP House dominance has helped our country at all.
Paul offers the only hope of a non-imperial Presidency. Apparently, the right-wing is calling Obama a Kenyan anti-colonialist. First, I fail to see how such a thing would be bad if it were true, and second, its certainly untrue. Obama has pushed Executive Power to its limits, and has affirmed its expansion even when he declines to exercise the most reaching of precedents, such as with the NDAA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Santorum, Santorum, Santorum. The man just oozes slime and although I'm always cynical about a politicians claims to holding extreme faith, I do wonder about Santorum and what he'd do. I just haven't seen anything from him that suggests good judgment.
Newt is a complete screwball and has issues and would probably go down in flames Tricky Dick style, which might actually be good. Gingrich would have 1 great idea sandwiched around 4 awful ones.
Romney is no fool but would just continue the sliding malaise. It would basically be an Obama 2nd term with a Republican paint job. Politics as usual.
The only one who wouldn't be a failure? Ron Paul. No war in Iran, end of the Patriot Act, finally some sanity in the drug war, finally some fiscal sanity. Problem is someone would probably have him whacked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gringrich. His own party hates him. Some Republicans have basically said they wouldn't vote for him over Obama. Given how they all feel about Obama, and how many of them have worked closely with him, he must just be terrible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Santorum's an idiot, but I think he would be easily outmaneuvered by more intelligent individuals on both sides of the aisle. Gingrich is a brilliant politician who really just wants to tear the whole thing down. Given executive powers he would proceed to dismantle the United States government in every way he could. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Santorum's an idiot, but I think he would be easily outmaneuvered by more intelligent individuals on both sides of the aisle. Gingrich is a brilliant politician who really just wants to tear the whole thing down. Given executive powers he would proceed to dismantle the United States government in every way he could. |
It seems you've been listening to what Gingrich says, rather than watching what he does...
He'll need a lot of government to make the Moon the 51st State.
He's endorsed the expansion of the Federal government in a lot of ways, such as voting to create the Department of Education and going on a nation-wide tour with Al Sharpton promoting Federal solutions to education problems in 2009.
Most interestingly, Gingrich wrote the forward to this book:
| Newt Gingrich wrote: |
The time has come for the next great step forward in American politics. It is not a matter of Democrats versus Republicans, or of left and right...but something more significant...a clear distinction between rear-guard politicians who wish to preserve or restore an unworkable past and those who are ready to transition to what we call a �Third Wave� information-age society�
A new civilization is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it. This new civilization brings with it new family styles, changed ways...a new economy, new political conflicts, and...altered consciousness... Humanity faces a quantum leap forward. This is the meaning of the Third Wave�
Our argument is based on what we call the �revolutionary premise�... The revolutionary premise liberates our intellect and will.
Nationalism is...First Wave. The globalization of business and finance required by advancing Third Wave economies routinely punctures the national �sovereignty� the nationalists hold so dear...
As economies are transformed by the Third Wave, they are compelled to surrender part of their sovereignty... Poets and intellectuals of Third Wave states sing the virtues of a �borderless� world and �planetary consciousness.�
The Third Wave...demassifies culture, values, and morality... There are more diverse religious belief systems.
The Constitution of the United States needs to be reconsidered and altered...to create a whole new structure of government... Building a Third Wave civilization on the wreckage of Second Wave institutions involves the design of new, more appropriate political structures... The system that served us so well must, in its turn, die and be replaced. |
(emphasis mine)
So no, Northway, I don't think he has any intention of tearing down the Federal government. Instead, he seems to want to supplant it with a much larger and all-encompassing one.
And despite how much I disagree with his positions here, I hate Santorum's social conservatism even more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Santorum and Gingrich would easily be the worst.
I am not a big fan of Romney either.
If we had to have a Republican President, Ron Paul would easily be the best, that is if he actually does what he says he will.
At the momment, I am leaning Obama but I reserve the right to change my mind.
I read an interesting article on the entertainment site "Wonderwall." It said thar Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are good friends and they actually call each other socially. Scarry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sublunari
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
A vote for any Republican except Ron Paul is a vote for a third term of the same gang of people who wrecked the country under George W. Bush; and because I'm not a Paulbot it's difficult to see how Ron Paul could achieve anything in his agenda with the entire government and half the electorate united against him.
I'll probably be voting for Obama this November. My leftwing friends are unhappy about how he's walked all over the constitution, but presidents and governments have been doing that since the ink was still wet. Although it was a mistake for him to think that he could bridge the partisan divide when the other side is made up of a bunch of shameless crooks, his second term will leave the country off better than he first found it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sublunari wrote: |
| Although it was a mistake for him to think that he could bridge the partisan divide when the other side is made up of a bunch of shameless crooks, his second term will leave the country off better than he first found it. |
This is the sort of wishful thinking that got us into this mess. Obama's side is also made up of shameless crooks who every bit as bad as the Rep side. There is no reason whatsoever to believe Obama will leave the country better off than he found it; in fact, all indications point to the opposite.
I'm mostly just tired of people cutting Obama slack using the same excuse that its the Reps' fault for tying him up. Nonsense. Obama and the Dems had a majority at first. There is no excuse. Hope and Change was a complete and utter sham, and that's all there is to it. I will vote Ron Paul or third party, and then likely vote with my feet if Obama stays (or another establishment scoundrel takes his place). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Santorum's an idiot, but I think he would be easily outmaneuvered by more intelligent individuals on both sides of the aisle. Gingrich is a brilliant politician who really just wants to tear the whole thing down. Given executive powers he would proceed to dismantle the United States government in every way he could. |
It seems you've been listening to what Gingrich says, rather than watching what he does...
He'll need a lot of government to make the Moon the 51st State.
He's endorsed the expansion of the Federal government in a lot of ways, such as voting to create the Department of Education and going on a nation-wide tour with Al Sharpton promoting Federal solutions to education problems in 2009.
Most interestingly, Gingrich wrote the forward to this book:
| Newt Gingrich wrote: |
The time has come for the next great step forward in American politics. It is not a matter of Democrats versus Republicans, or of left and right...but something more significant...a clear distinction between rear-guard politicians who wish to preserve or restore an unworkable past and those who are ready to transition to what we call a �Third Wave� information-age society�
A new civilization is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it. This new civilization brings with it new family styles, changed ways...a new economy, new political conflicts, and...altered consciousness... Humanity faces a quantum leap forward. This is the meaning of the Third Wave�
Our argument is based on what we call the �revolutionary premise�... The revolutionary premise liberates our intellect and will.
Nationalism is...First Wave. The globalization of business and finance required by advancing Third Wave economies routinely punctures the national �sovereignty� the nationalists hold so dear...
As economies are transformed by the Third Wave, they are compelled to surrender part of their sovereignty... Poets and intellectuals of Third Wave states sing the virtues of a �borderless� world and �planetary consciousness.�
The Third Wave...demassifies culture, values, and morality... There are more diverse religious belief systems.
The Constitution of the United States needs to be reconsidered and altered...to create a whole new structure of government... Building a Third Wave civilization on the wreckage of Second Wave institutions involves the design of new, more appropriate political structures... The system that served us so well must, in its turn, die and be replaced. |
(emphasis mine)
So no, Northway, I don't think he has any intention of tearing down the Federal government. Instead, he seems to want to supplant it with a much larger and all-encompassing one.
And despite how much I disagree with his positions here, I hate Santorum's social conservatism even more. |
I didn't mean to say that he wouldn't replace it with anything. My point, perhaps unclear, was that he has no respect for the way our government is currently constructed and has basically spent his entire career working to destroy the institutions that America is built around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Santorum. The man just isn't that bright. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| sublunari wrote: |
| Although it was a mistake for him to think that he could bridge the partisan divide when the other side is made up of a bunch of shameless crooks, his second term will leave the country off better than he first found it. |
This is the sort of wishful thinking that got us into this mess. Obama's side is also made up of shameless crooks who every bit as bad as the Rep side. There is no reason whatsoever to believe Obama will leave the country better off than he found it; in fact, all indications point to the opposite. |
I'm not a very big fan of Obama either, but he's not nearly as bad as most Republicans, especially Bush. And what makes you say there is every indication he will leave the country worse than when he took office? He hasn't done much, but things are slightly better now than they were in 2008. Maybe nothing has really changed, but he certainly hasn't made anything worse.
| Quote: |
| I'm mostly just tired of people cutting Obama slack using the same excuse that its the Reps' fault for tying him up. Nonsense. Obama and the Dems had a majority at first. There is no excuse. Hope and Change was a complete and utter sham, and that's all there is to it. I will vote Ron Paul or third party, and then likely vote with my feet if Obama stays (or another establishment scoundrel takes his place). |
If having a Democratic majority gives him no excuse, why couldn't they pass the healthcare reform they wanted? Having a slight majority doesn't give you total power in the US government; that's not how Congress works. If the Republicans hadn't been so focused on making sure Obama failed, he and Congress would probably have been able to accomplish significantly more in terms of health care reform, spending cuts, and job creation. The problem is not the President but the Congress that refuses to compromise (both sides). Blaming everything on a president is faulty logic; the legislature has all the power. The President is more responsible for things like foreign relations, and Obama has been excellent in this sense (with a few exceptions such as interfering in Libya). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| sublunari wrote: |
| Although it was a mistake for him to think that he could bridge the partisan divide when the other side is made up of a bunch of shameless crooks, his second term will leave the country off better than he first found it. |
This is the sort of wishful thinking that got us into this mess. Obama's side is also made up of shameless crooks who every bit as bad as the Rep side. There is no reason whatsoever to believe Obama will leave the country better off than he found it; in fact, all indications point to the opposite. |
I'm not a very big fan of Obama either, but he's not nearly as bad as most Republicans, especially Bush. |
Yeah, he is. Do you need me to go down the list?
| Quote: |
| And what makes you say there is every indication he will leave the country worse than when he took office? He hasn't done much, but things are slightly better now than they were in 2008. |
In what way? We're in more wars now, in greater debt, with a worse economy, and less personal freedoms. Whether you want to shift to the blame to Bush or not (seems to be the typical excuse), in what possible way are things "better" now?
| Quote: |
| Maybe nothing has really changed, but he certainly hasn't made anything worse. |
Of course things are worse now. We're probably the worst off as country as we've been since the depths of the Great Depression. You might make the argument that things would be worse now had Bush still been power for yet another 4 years, but speculation aside, Obama has continued all of Bush's ruinous policies to the tee. He has proven himself to be a sell-out, with only empty words and rhetoric to offer in the place of any solutions. He may not be some sort of psychopathic megalomaniac or whatever, but he's still a terrible excuse for a president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Romney, Paul and Gingrich are terrible candidates but if by some strange event they ened up in the white house, They could govern!! You might not like their policies but they could work with parties to see that the ship of state sailed on. Santorum, nothing. He is a lightweight and made a carer of making enemies. Obama has proven that he can handle the presidency. He has an excellent temperment for the position and that is very important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
