Since there is a limit on poll options, I put in the 8 most likely people to be able to win the primaries, four democrates and four republicans, you can select other candidate for your party and tell us in your post. Lets try to keep this thread civil people. Please also let me know why you want to nominate this person for the presidental bid. I hope this thread doesn't catch on fire from any flames...
We already had this poll for Republicans, it's a few pages back. I believe the two clear favorites were Ron Paul and Guiliani, and I believe Thompson was in third.
I didn't notice it, oh well.. this one includes democrates as well and maybe we can see if DP can guess who the next president will be
Personally I'm a democrate, but I believe that everyone has their own choices so I added both parties in. This should give a broad view of where people stand. I personally do not like Ron Paul, he seems like another person just saying whatever it takes to get elected, plus he is a republican... ewww! Just kidding, well sorta.. guess its the big city person in me who always aims for the democrates. Or, could it be the fact that the republican led congress and administration led this country into debt, war, energy crisis, etc.
I know where you're coming from, to a point. I was registered as no party affiliation and leaned Democrat simply because I disliked Bush more in '00 and '04. I didn't think either Gore or Kerry was a particularly good candidate, just the so commonly referred to "lesser of two evils". Typically, I leaned liberal on civil/personal issues, and didn't know much/care much about fiscal issues. Since that time though, I've come to lean on the Republican side of things on fiscal issues: I see that government is woefully inefficient and social programs usually work poorly in our country. Overall I came to be in agreement with Dr. Paul's stance of a very limited government where personal responsibility reigns supreme instead of a nanny state where government takes care of you from birth to death. I think Democrats are a bit better as far as civil rights go, but no candidate comes as close to an adherence to limited governmental powers, following the Constitution and being limited by it and its checks and balances (I'm looking at you, legislative branch), as much as Ron Paul does. I personally believe that Ron is wrong on some issues, and there are definite areas where I differ in belief from him, but overall I think his main doctrine of following the Constitution and shrinking the government is the most crucial step in our history in the following years, and that's why he gets my vote.
It scares me when someone talks about smaller goverment, to me it sounds like they want less people to be in control, its basicly how hitler consolidated power in nazi germany, they eradicated parts of the goverment if you recall, sort of in the same way Ron Paul wants to. America will sadly be the next major thing in history, good or bad.
Nice, godwinned thread in 7 posts. There is a distinct difference between consolidation of power from many people to few people, and making government smaller by eliminating powers and departments. In the first one, like Nazi Germany, Hitler was taking powers that formally belonged to other people, and making them his own. I can't recall the Act, but one of the first things passed following the Reichstag fire was a law that basically removed the German version of Congress from making laws, and instead gave the power to the executive branch. What Ron Paul is proposing is the slow dissolving of ineffective and questionably constitutional government branches, such as the IRS, the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve, and others. He doesn't want the powers to go to the presidency, he is trying to give the states more rights. If anything, what he wants from a smaller federal government is to give power to MORE people, via state control over more issues. To compare what Ron Paul wants to do to our government to Nazism is ridiculous. Nazism was about consolidation of power to one branch and ultimately one man, Ron Paul is trying to grant power to more people, and in a more directed manner, by granting more power to states, who can do the same job more effectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree I believe this is what your speaking about in terms to the act. I'll just this ping pong posting with the simple message.. I do not believe or trust Ron Paul. http://www.tomroeser.com/blogs/blogview.asp?blogID=24188 - Atleast I'm not alone!
So you compare him to Nazis, I explain how that is patently false, and clearly false just from the manner in which he wants to change the government, and you don't even respond to the argument aside from saying you don't trust him. What the hell is this, guerilla debating? I noticed another post said you felt he was saying what he needed to say to get elected, like every other politician. If that's the case, what makes you give that trust that you admittedly should not have for any candidate, to Mr. Obama?
Maybe you should re-read my posts, your just claiming something I never said, the term I used was "sort of", but its ok, its typical of RP supporters.
The analogy you were attempting to make was clear; what other intention did comparing Ron Paul's goal of smaller government to Nazism have, if not to defame his message?