Worst Presidential Candidates

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What about nailing all those bitches?

 

I think this video presents a strong argument against snuffbox's anti-JFK revisionism:

 

http://www.adultswim.com/video/index.html?...11d261779af007d

 

[Nightwing 0]

James "the Adonis" Polk.

[snuffbox 0]

Nobody is denying his popularity or his way with the ladies. Neither of those things are presidential leadership, though. The revisionism, by the way, began with the likes of William Manchester, not with snuffbox.

[SuperJerk 0]

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

LOLOLOLOL

[SuperJerk 0]

CPAC's straw poll picks Romney as the GOP frontrunner.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/cpac/index.html

 

So, if this CPAC conference is any indication, the motto for Republican Party for the next 4 years will be "we weren't conservative enough."

 

On behalf of the Democratic Party, I'd like to say:

Yes, that's exactly right. Keep believing that, and we'll be no match for you.

[DerangedHermit 0]

CPAC's straw poll picks Romney as the GOP frontrunner.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/cpac/index.html

 

So, if this CPAC conference is any indication, the motto for Republican Party for the next 4 years will be "we weren't conservative enough."

 

On behalf of the Democratic Party, I'd like to say:

Yes, that's exactly right. Keep believing that, and we'll be no match for you.

 

Second is Kenneth the tour guide, third is Ron Paul and fourth is a dog with lipstick.

 

Ouch, they're SCREWED.

[snuffbox 0]

And only one in favor of a smaller government.

[Guest Czech please!]

From watching Bill Maher last night, I've realized that Gavin Newsom is basically Alternate Universe Mitt Romney, or vice versa. Both have that creepy bland central-casting handsomeness, both come from major coastal cities, and both are beholden to creepy cults (Mormonism for one guy, Catholicism for the other), but are night and day beyond their common superficialities. I'd be happy if I didn't have to see much more of either one.

[Big Green 0]

2004 was a referendum on Bush. He had a 51% approval rating, and won 51% of the vote.

 

You could move some demographics around, but ultimately the final election totals probably would have come out the same almost no matter who you put up against Bush.

 

Bush's approval rating prior to the election was 49%, he was vulnerable if you could find a good candidate. I honestly think that Howard Dean was the best of the 2004 candidates, if only because of his public speaking skills and his staunch opposition to the war. Kerry could never pick on a side on well..........anything. Dean was by far the most electable candidate (against Bush) of the 2004 cohort and judging by how he managed to rejuvenate the party in 2006, I'd say that he would've run a fairly competitive campaign against Bush.

 

All the Democrats had to do to win was swing ANY state and hold what Gore won in 2000. The Democrats swung New Hampshire but lost New Mexico and Iowa.

[ZGangsta 0]

From watching Bill Maher last night, I've realized that Gavin Newsom is basically Alternate Universe Mitt Romney, or vice versa. Both have that creepy bland central-casting handsomeness, both come from major coastal cities, and both are beholden to creepy cults (Mormonism for one guy, Catholicism for the other), but are night and day beyond their common superficialities. I'd be happy if I didn't have to see much more of either one.

I also totally got a Mitt Romney vibe watching Gavin Newsom on real time, except it was purely based on his look and style of speaking.

[At Home 0]

Gavin Newsom should be the French Mitt Romney, because he cheats on his wife and everyone in SF is okay with it.

[NoCalMike 0]

CPAC's straw poll picks Romney as the GOP frontrunner.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/cpac/index.html

 

So, if this CPAC conference is any indication, the motto for Republican Party for the next 4 years will be "we weren't conservative enough."

 

On behalf of the Democratic Party, I'd like to say:

Yes, that's exactly right. Keep believing that, and we'll be no match for you.

 

THAT, and "oh we got away from our TRUE VALUES and spent money" as if that is ever going to change from either party. Both parties spend a lot, it is just what they choose to spend it on.

[SuperJerk 0]

CPAC's straw poll picks Romney as the GOP frontrunner.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/cpac/index.html

 

So, if this CPAC conference is any indication, the motto for Republican Party for the next 4 years will be "we weren't conservative enough."

 

On behalf of the Democratic Party, I'd like to say:

Yes, that's exactly right. Keep believing that, and we'll be no match for you.

 

THAT, and "oh we got away from our TRUE VALUES and spent money" as if that is ever going to change from either party. Both parties spend a lot, it is just what they choose to spend it on.

And you don't suppose running against government spending, at a time people want it the most, isn't a good idea?

[Big Green 0]

CPAC's straw poll picks Romney as the GOP frontrunner.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/cpac/index.html

 

So, if this CPAC conference is any indication, the motto for Republican Party for the next 4 years will be "we weren't conservative enough."

 

On behalf of the Democratic Party, I'd like to say:

Yes, that's exactly right. Keep believing that, and we'll be no match for you.

 

THAT, and "oh we got away from our TRUE VALUES and spent money" as if that is ever going to change from either party. Both parties spend a lot, it is just what they choose to spend it on.

And you don't suppose running against government spending, at a time people want it the most, isn't a good idea?

 

There are still people out there who cling to the idea that Obama is a socialist. I happen to know one of them. He refers to Obama as our "socialist" President and Mitt Romney as the white knight who will come and rescue us from socialism.

[SuperJerk 0]

Do we need to find a 13 year old boy to define socialism for him?

[Big Green 0]

Do we need to find a 13 year old boy to define socialism for him?

 

What's scary to me is that I attend an Ivy League school and I still run into people who buy into the "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST" line. You'd think that an Ivy Leaguer would have a clear idea of what a socialist is.

[At Home 0]

Well it depends on how loose your definition of socialism is. The way I learned it, socialism is anything that attempts to detract from a laissez-faire system. So, under that definition, yes, Obama is a socialist, but so were the last 10 presidents.

[SuperJerk 0]

And here all these years I thought it meant state ownership and control of industry.

 

 

Oh, wait. It does.

[Big Green 0]

What's even funnier is how he accepts Mitt Romney's explanation for his flip flop on abortion. He says that Romney admitted that his stance was a mistake and it was a rethinking of his position and not a flip flop.

[At Home 0]

And here all these years I thought it meant state ownership and control of industry.

 

 

Oh, wait. It does.

 

So instead of presenting me with any evidence that my definition is wrong in anyway, you just give me another definition, and one from the Merriam-Webster dictionary at that.

[Big Green 0]

And here all these years I thought it meant state ownership and control of industry.

 

 

Oh, wait. It does.

 

So instead of presenting me with any evidence that my definition is wrong in anyway, you just give me another definition, and one from the Merriam-Webster dictionary at that.

 

Is Princeton University good enough for you?

 

Noun

 

S: (n) socialism (a political theory advocating state ownership of industry)

S: (n) socialism, socialist economy (an economic system based on state ownership of capital)

 

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism

 

[At Home 0]

No, I'm looking for anything that tells me that my definition is wrong, which no one has been able to do the number of times that I have brought it up, despite the fact that whenever it is brought up, SJ flat out says that it is wrong without giving any sort of thought into it sans copy-and-pasting something. And how does "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" not fall under the "anything that moves away from a laissez-faire economy" definition?

[Big Green 0]

No, I'm looking for anything that tells me that my definition is wrong, which no one has been able to do the number of times that I have brought it up. And how does "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" not fall under the "anything that moves away from a laissez-faire economy" definition?

 

Because state ownership is an extreme form of that?

[At Home 0]

Does martyrdom not fall under a "religious practices" umbrella?

[Big Green 0]

Does martyrdom not fall under a "religious practices" umbrella?

 

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

 

Socialism means the STATE OWNING EVERYTHING. A socialist government would own EVERYTHING. Get that? EVERYTHING!

 

The U.S. economy is a mixed economy, it's a combination of a command and a free market economy. The government DOES interfere but it doesn't do nearly enough for us to be socialist.

 

The world isn't black and white. Our economy has some characteristics of socialism but it is FAR from a socialist economy.

 

[At Home 0]

Oh come on, that's entirely based on your definition, and mine just happens to be more free ranging. Not even the European socialist economies are entirely socialist, they still have some free market aspects, but it would be counter-intuitive to say that these countries aren't socialist. If you wanted to remove every single aspect of a free market economy and call it socialism or communism or whatever denomination you choose to attribute to it, that's fine, but you'll run into problems, I guarantee. What about Socialism With Chinese Characteristics? They call themselves socialist and many of us would say that they have a fair share of a command economy, but the SEZs are about as free market as you get. Why in the hell wouldn't an American from the 1850's look at the American economy now and call it socialist? These definitions are constantly changing and are going to differ with every person you ask, that's why I use the broad definition.

 

Concurrently, why or how would a government pension be any less or more "socialistic" than anti-trust legislation or the like?

 

I'm an econ major, dude, I know how the US economy looks. You don't have to tell me what I already know.

[Big Green 0]

Oh come on, that's entirely based on your definition, and mine just happens to be more free ranging. Not even the European socialist economies are entirely socialist, they still have some free market aspects, but it would be counter-intuitive to say that these countries aren't socialist. If you wanted to remove every single aspect of a free market economy and call it socialism or communism or whatever denomination you choose to attribute to it, that's fine, but you'll run into problems, I guarantee. What about Socialism With Chinese Characteristics? They call themselves socialist and many of us would say that they have a fair share of a command economy, but the SEZs are about as free market as you get. Why in the hell wouldn't an American from the 1850's look at the American economy now and call it socialist? These definitions are constantly changing and are going to differ with every person you ask, that's why I use the broad definition.

 

Concurrently, why or how would a government pension be any less or more "socialistic" than anti-trust legislation or the like?

 

I'm an econ major, dude, I know how the US economy looks. You don't have to tell me what I already know.

 

I qualify a country as socialist when the majority of its industries are state owned. America is far from reaching that point. I would even argue that some of the European socialist countries are not totally socialist by the dictionary definition.

 

I'm not an econ major so I do admit that I could be wrong on the issue.

[At Home 0]

Socialism means the STATE OWNING EVERYTHING. A socialist government would own EVERYTHING. Get that? EVERYTHING!

 

I qualify a country as socialist when the majority of its industries are state owned. America is far from reaching that point. I would even argue that some of the European socialist countries are not totally socialist by the dictionary definition.

 

So even here, you present two different definitions: where a country is only socialist if the state owns everything, and where the state owns the majority of industries. Excluding that owning industry is only part of the socialist paradigm, of course. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm just defending my own definition and trying to explain why I use it and am not all that excited to go beyond it.

[Big Green 0]

Socialism means the STATE OWNING EVERYTHING. A socialist government would own EVERYTHING. Get that? EVERYTHING!

 

I qualify a country as socialist when the majority of its industries are state owned. America is far from reaching that point. I would even argue that some of the European socialist countries are not totally socialist by the dictionary definition.

 

So even here, you present two different definitions: where a country is only socialist if the state owns everything, and where the state owns the majority of industries. Excluding that owning industry is only part of the socialist paradigm, of course. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm just defending my own definition and trying to explain why I use it and am not all that excited to go beyond it.

 

In modern society, a country IS socialist is a majority of industries are owned. I would argue that there are no textbook socialist countries out there though, just as there are no textbook capitalist countries out there.