Who do you want the next president to be?

[maple_leafs182]

If you had a vote which you don't, who would you vote for to be the next president of the U.S.

I'm just curious.

I think Jesse Ventura the former Governor of Minnesota would be an excellent president.

He is somewhere in between a republican and libertarian. I would say more of a libertarian.

They need someone who will stand of for all of the citizens liberties. Someone who will shrink government and rid of the corruption in D.C. Someone who will end the wars and the fed. Someone who will follow their constitution. They need real change, not Obama change.

[BubberMiley]

After Obama's second term, I figure it will finally be Hillary.

But Jesse the Body is a tr00ther, so that won't work (though that pricey LRT from the Mall of America to downtown Minneapolis was a nice accomplishment).

Edited April 16, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Shady]

I'm hoping for Mitt Romney. Although, I really like Paul Ryan. But he's a congressman who hasn't really been around long enough yet. He's still pretty young.

[August1991]

I'm hoping for Mitt Romney.

After the antics of Clinton, Bush Jnr, Sarah Palin and Obama, I too think that America may want Romney. It may come as early as 2012.

Has anyone noted that Obamacare is a version of Romney's Massachusetts health care regime (a regime that Romney already thinks is wrong; it happens often when politicians get involved in health care).

[maple_leafs182]

I don't think it will be a democrat or a republican.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you had a vote which you don't, who would you vote for to be the next president of the U.S.

I'm just curious.

You took my vote away? What about my rights?

I think Jesse Ventura the former Governor of Minnesota would be an excellent president.

Nope....very shaky temperament....hates critics.

He is somewhere in between a republican and libertarian. I would say more of a libertarian.

He is now relegated to the book circuit and cable TV...like Gov. Palin.

They need someone who will stand of for all of the citizens liberties. Someone who will shrink government and rid of the corruption in D.C. Someone who will end the wars and the fed. Someone who will follow their constitution. They need real change, not Obama change.

Can we tell you what you need, or would that be too arrogant?

Edited April 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Jack Weber]

If you had a vote which you don't, who would you vote for to be the next president of the U.S.

I'm just curious.

I think Jesse Ventura the former Governor of Minnesota would be an excellent president.

He is somewhere in between a republican and libertarian. I would say more of a libertarian.

They need someone who will stand of for all of the citizens liberties. Someone who will shrink government and rid of the corruption in D.C. Someone who will end the wars and the fed. Someone who will follow their constitution. They need real change, not Obama change.

Unfortunately,the system down there seems to be rigged as an either/or option.Both parties seem to be hi-jacked by ideological nutcases on both sides.I'm surprised no one is talking about the supreme court decision last January on campaign contribution limits,and the judgement of one Justice Roberts,who claimed that corperations are now considered as equal as a person and they should not be limited on what amount can be given to a campaign.It's an unbelieveable decision that will totally corrupt a system that is already warped by big money....

Edited April 17, 2010 by Jack Weber

[bush_cheney2004]

Unfortunately,the system down there seems to be rigged as an either/or option.Both parties seem to be hi-jacked by ideological nutcases on both sides.

Nothing wrong with that....the pendulum swings both ways.

I'm surprised no one is talking about the supreme court decision last January on campaign contribution limits,and the judgement of one Justice Roberts,who claimed that corperations are now considered as equal as a person and they should not be limited on what amount can be given to a campaign.It's an unbelieveable decision that will totally corrupt a system that is already warped by big money....

Best Supreme Court decision in years....right up there with guns for DC residents.

[punked]

Anthony Weiner oh if I had a dream candidate it would be that man. He isn't scared of anything or anyone and he is able to explain his progressive ideas in terms people understand. Great guy. Although probably wont happen 6 years is a long time so we will see.

[Jack Weber]

This is Keith Olbermann's coment on the case I was talking about.

By the time the next presidential election happens the choice will between Mr. Obama and the republicam candidate from corporation X.After that it will be between the Democrat candidate from corpoation A and the Republican cnadidate from corporation B...

[Shady]

By the time the next presidential election happens the choice will between Mr. Obama and the republicam candidate from corporation X.After that it will be between the Democrat candidate from corpoation A and the Republican cnadidate from corporation B...

Lets just stick to Presidential candidates shall we? Anything else will just divert this thread into something its not suppose to be.

[Shady]

After the antics of Clinton, Bush Jnr, Sarah Palin and Obama, I too think that America may want Romney. It may come as early as 2012.

Has anyone noted that Obamacare is a version of Romney's Massachusetts health care regime (a regime that Romney already thinks is wrong; it happens often when politicians get involved in health care).

There are some similarites between the two, however, there are also several significant differences. But I hope you're right about America wanting Romney. I think he's the most suited and best qualified for the job. Especially with the budget and economic issues that are facing the country.

[ToadBrother]

Nope....very shaky temperament....hates critics.

I never particular saw the attraction of Ventura. Some people called him a straight talker, I just thought he talked too much, and too loudly.

The only Republican I can think of that has a chance is Romney. As far as I'm concerned, it should have been Obama vs. Romney in 2008. That would have been an interesting election. McCain never really stood that much of a chance, and when he basically surrendered himself to the wingnut branch of the GOP by putting that idiot Palin on his ticket, he was a goner (not that Biden is any great example of intellect and savvy, but his vocalization-to-stupidity ratio is coniderably lower than Palin's).

But if the Tea Party ends up surviving long enough to substantially dominate the Republicans, they probably won't be point towards Romney. That's why the Tea Party is absolutely the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans at this juncture. I bet Obama prays every night for the Tea Party to get bigger and more outrageous.

[punked]

There are some similarites between the two, however, there are also several significant differences. But I hope you're right about America wanting Romney. I think he's the most suited and best qualified for the job. Especially with the budget and economic issues that are facing the country.

No one wants Romney. Anyone who spends 45 million of their own money on a losing campaign all of sudden loses their economic cred. Don't worry he wont win, the Republicans will nominate Huckabee before Romney.

[Shady]

But if the Tea Party ends up surviving long enough to substantially dominate the Republicans, they probably won't be point towards Romney.

I disagree completely. The Tea Party is all about economic and budgetary issues. That's Romney's strong suit.

[punked]

I disagree completely. The Tea Party is all about economic and budgetary issues. That's Romney's strong suit.

Except the tea party believes in the gold standard, they think you can have no taxes and services, and they want to end the Fed. None of those economic positions help Romney out one bit they are a ron paul crowd.

Edited April 17, 2010 by punked

[Jack Weber]

Lets just stick to Presidential candidates shall we? Anything else will just divert this thread into something its not suppose to be.

What's it matter if the only choice anyone will get will be the poison chosen by Big Corporate money?

The only candidates that will be available in the future are the ones who are more concerned with maintaining the corporate status quo as opposed to some sort of individual populism.

[Shady]

Except the tea party believes in the gold standard, they think you can have no taxes and services, and they want to end the Fed.

That just isn't true.

[Bonam]

Doesn't really matter. The role of the office of president has a lot more impact than the individual selected for it. All the same advisers and heads of departments and agencies and such giving you recommendations, and just about any president will take the course of action recommended to him by these experts on most issues at any given time. I guess there's a slight difference based on what party the president comes from, but almost every president is forced to be more centrist than his party.

[bush_cheney2004]

I never particular saw the attraction of Ventura. Some people called him a straight talker, I just thought he talked too much, and too loudly.

The reason Ventura ran for governor was to reduce his license tab fees. The state was taxing him for the full assessed property value of his Porsche, which he thought was unfair based on the car's weight and age. That's one of the first things he changed while in office.

[August1991]

No one wants Romney. Anyone who spends 45 million of their own money on a losing campaign all of sudden loses their economic cred. Don't worry he wont win, the Republicans will nominate Huckabee before Romney.

There have been too many showmen. Reagan, Clinton, Obama, even Bush Jnr.

America, and its demographics, are tired of show. They want see. Romney is practical.

I disagree completely. The Tea Party is all about economic and budgetary issues. That's Romney's strong suit.

The Tea Party is Romney's strong suit? Uh, no.

IMV, the Tea Party is all about Andy Jackson popularism. The Tea Party is the message that the Democrats (Carter/Clinton/Obama/Pelosi) have lost their base. The Democrats are "too progressive", they no longer represent the common people.

US Democrats will interpret this to mean that they have pushed too far and are too progressive for ordinary Americans. With time, they can try again.

Ordinary Americans will understand that progressive Democrats want to impose another 1920s Prohibition. Their Federal State-organized health care scheme is wrong and won't work.

-----

Someone should ask Obama about how the 18th Amendment is different from his health care reform.

If health care is so important, why didn't he seek a constitutional amendment?

Will his reform survive longer than 1920s Prohibition?

Edited April 17, 2010 by August1991

[Moonlight Graham]

I think if someone staples some balls onto Obama's pelvis that would be a pretty good choice.

I like Ventura, he's an honest guy which is refreshing in politics, and he talks a lot of sense. But he does have a temper.

Doesn't matter who we think will win, money and special interests will win as they always do.

[Michael Hardner]

The reason Ventura ran for governor was to reduce his license tab fees. The state was taxing him for the full assessed property value of his Porsche, which he thought was unfair based on the car's weight and age. That's one of the first things he changed while in office.

You gotta like a man who can PRIORITIZE.

[punked]

There have been too many showmen. Reagan, Clinton, Obama, even Bush Jnr.

America, and its demographics, are tired of show. They want see. Romney is practical.

The Tea Party is Romney's strong suit? Uh, no.

IMV, the Tea Party is all about Andy Jackson popularism. The Tea Party is the message that the Democrats (Carter/Clinton/Obama/Pelosi) have lost their base. The Democrats are "too progressive", they no longer represent the common people.

US Democrats will interpret this to mean that they have pushed too far and are too progressive for ordinary Americans. With time, they can try again.

Ordinary Americans will understand that progressive Democrats want to impose another 1920s Prohibition. Their Federal State-organized health care scheme is wrong and won't work.

-----

Someone should ask Obama about how the 18th Amendment is different from his health care reform.

If health care is so important, why didn't he seek a constitutional amendment?

Will his reform survive longer than 1920s Prohibition?

Again Prohibition was pushed through in the 1920s by a conservative congress and signed into law by a conservative president. It did have its cheerleaders on the progressive side but that doesn't change history. The law was changed by a progressive president with a progressive congress.

[BubberMiley]

And the cheerleaders for current prohibition continue to be almost exclusively from the right.