If you HAD to vote for one of these as President?

I don't think they understand that the president is a stooge role. Gates has billions, which means, he has a seat at the shadow government's table, and quite frankly, I'm sick of the BS games and would rather just pick from the shadow government of whom I think is the best and brightest.

Basically, if we could pick from the corrupters who we wanted, then that person would actually have more power than other said corrupters. As all we can do is vote for puppets, it gives all the corrupters equal power, as the puppet is lower rank and file than them all.

 

2 reasons.

1. He must have thought McCain was not the fix..nor what we needed..I didn't either..He had a broader knowledge of what was happening in the world than we do..

2. Black..( and I don't fault that reason..) especially if you truly observe or listen to their point of view..you dont have to agree..just listen.
Transitional was his reason..my kids also voted for him..YOUNG..Handsome..Modern..and opposite what they ( the kids) had experienced before.The hype of being on the edge of change and direction appealed to many..ending the wars..closing Getmo..forcing the old white farts in power to share the wealth..Open government..
free health care..( what's not to like ) ?
While the Republicans offered more of the same .. ol with a token innocent woman thrown in.
We never has a chance.

He might have supported Obama then..but like my kids wont again ?

 

She isn't smart enough..

But, she would make a great cheerleader.. She doesn't lack 'enthusiasm".

 

People of integrity don't quit on their constituents.

 

I voted Chomsky. He is easily the most intelligent of that lot and he is humane. The only problem is he is 82 years old, so he would need a good running mate that could take over if he died in office. Someone like Al Franken or Russ Feingold.

 

If you were a real conservative/Republican, you'd vote Colin Powel. Amazing how the **********s(lol) have overrun that party and now Sarah Palin is popular. Wow. If I had to choose however, I'd choose Chomsky. He'd be different and isn't a Democrat/Republican.

 

I'd rep you for this post if I could.

 

Did you know mr. "I didn't inhale" lost the nuke codes, for MONTHS?

 

Clinton?

Tell me more...

 

That was also my thinking, and, it seems also the thinking of quite a number of others.

 

Or Norman Finkelstein?

 

I voted for Colin Powell. He was a successful and prominent political figure as Secretary of State under G.W.B., and he was the first black S.o.S., which appeases those race gooroos that voted for Obama because of his lineage.

 

Actually, no you wouldn't. Powell jumped ship for the black man. Who needs another racist in the oval office?

 

David Duke with Finklestein as his VP.

 

Write in candidate - none of those are acceptable.

 

In that list, the choice was relatively easy. Sarah Palin. The reason is the Constitution. She understands that the Constitution was meant to limit govt. I don't see any of the others as having that knowledge. Bill Gates would be great from a business standpoint, but I think he would run the govt as another charity. Sadly, no one has mentioned the Constitution in the first 9 pages of this thread.

Ask not what your govt can do for you. Ask what your govt can do TO you.

 

It is easy for anyone to speak in neat soundbites that appeal to a large, and sometimes not best informed section of the public.

I believe Palin to be precisely that type.

There is no substance to her, she doesn't strike me as genuine whatsoever, the opposite to be honest. And no, that isn't down to her politics, it's down to her manner. I would say the same whatever someone's politics were, if they had that same manner.

The 'small Gov' thing is a typical example of something that is bandied around, in such a manner. The implication is that 'people will pay less tax'.

Of course, this logic has been applied before. Dubya cut tax, and it went some way to making the US economy hamstrung. Any economist will tell you that a nation that keeps cutting tax eventually bankrupts itself.

As far as the Constitution goes, Palin laboured to name more than one Founding Father, then when she 'remembered' Washington, it was only because Beck had mentioned him, some moments before. Maybe she could write them down on her hand

Palin is a theocratic nut, and I'd say that if she were black, male, or post op trans.

If she ever made President, she would make Dubya seems like a genius.

And that really does take some doing.

 

What your post should say, is if you did some research without many brain cells, you would conclude the same thing. I believe Sarah Palin is sincere, don't get me wrong. However, she is also untalented, unintelligent, silly, and ignorant of history, economics, foreign policy, etc. She doesn't have a grasp of a single important subject, let alone multiple important subjects. She also has terrible ideas, and any changes she tried to make would lead to negative outcomes.

PS. Though to be honest, while the idea that she would be a good president is absurd beyond imagination, I don't think she would be much worse than any other serious candidate. The system is well entrenched, and her desires would be irrelevant, she would have handlers, and the system would keep her in check. I don't fear her with nuclear weapons, because the powers that be would not actually trust her with anything. She would be very tightly controlled, and she would be controlled by the same people who influenced Bush and currently influence Obama. So really there would be little difference between Palin as president and everyone else.

 

What an incredibly awesome response!!

 

I agree as far as Palin goes. Any modern "Constitutionalist" would say something anti-FED in one of their 100s of speeches. Let alone all the modern wars without declaration by congress. Let alone the signing over of our right to regulate trade to the WTO. Any strict Constitutionalist would be as anti the Bush years as any modern democrat presidency. Patriot Act anyone? LOL. I think ANYONE next to Palin could whisper in her ear that it was constitutional to make Americans house federal troops and she would support it.

 

Thank you.

But for me, it seems both a logical and normal benchmark for most things.

I have supported my British football team, Heart of Midlothian, for over 30 yrs. I have followed them home and away, and also when they have played in Europe. I have been in the crowd, and felt that I could see things that the coach could not, I have grown frustrated at players who I imagined I could do better than, and I have shouted advice to people better qualified than me.

Why?

Because I care, and I love my club.

I am passionate about them.

But in reality, were I put in charge of coaching, I would, I have to admit, likely be out of my depth.

When it came to maybe playing, well, I don't think there was ever a time in my life when I was better than their worse player.

And so too is it the same with Palin. She may well 'love' her country - whatever that really means. She may well be passionate about certain matters. But she is that fan, sitting in the stands, giving out advice and abuse to those who, quite frankly, are far more intellegent than her, and better qualified.

 

I take your point - that all modern Presidents are now merely puppets, figureheads of corporate elites, and the rich, therefore, one is really no different to another, it comes down to what rich elites want.

However, if the rich elites, and the Zionist movement ever saw her as the best fall guy to take the rap for a strike on Iran, then you would soon see Palin gaining serious ground. One day it may suit these sociopaths to attempt such a thing, after all, mixed into their racist idealogy, there is also that dangerous End of Days BS, that the Zionists have tricked Orthodox US Christians with - tricked them, because by bringing out some Biblical prophecy, and exploiting it for their own twisted political ends, they exploited Christians in American into validating all that Israel do.

Palin may be perfect for their needs;



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN7hJDS26rI&feature=related"]Sarah Palin's Witch Doctor - YouTube[/ame]

 

In a vacuum, your post might have a great deal of meaning. However, given the choices in your poll, your response is pretty meaningless. To refute my opinion, one would need to illustrate the other potential candidates' constitutional integrity.

 

Sorry - I was commenting on Palin in the broader sense than merely this poll, however, I do not feel best qualified to comment on the precise 'constitutional integrity', or otherwise, of the other listed candidates.

However, based on having heard most of them speak, at one time or another, and based on their actions, or writings, my observations on the others, save for Palin, who I have covered, would be along these lines;

John Hagee - A lunatic pastor, but a dangerously influential one. Televangelists like this are what set the US apart from the rest of the developed Western world. It seems part of the culture, while such a concept here would never get air time, and if it did, people would roundly laugh at the way it is delivered. He would likely turn the US into some perverse theocracy. War and killing would follow.


Noam Chomsky - A very erudite, intellectual, and intelligent man. You would somehow feel that with him in charge, that there would be greater thought behind decisions, and the thinking process. He would hopefully help free the US from the drain of being enslaved to Zionism, something which costs American lives, and American money.

Norman Finkelstein - Someone said before that the best leader is one that does not canvass to be leader, but who is even perhaps reluctant. I think NF and NC would suit that description well. Neither would likely wish to sully themselves by being politicians, but were it possible to give men like that decision making powers, I believe the US would be better for it.

Bill Gates - Yup, I can see how that one might work, in the US. It would appease the capitalists, for he is a capitalist, but he strikes me as a fair man, and I think that may appease most, actually. I believe he could perhaps develop new business and jobs, encourage entrepeneurship, so some positives there, imo.

David Duke - I believe in taking a person on what they say on each subject, and to his credit, at least he has the balls to say what many in the US are afraid to say, about Zionism in the media, in banking, and in politics. On the other hand, Duke knows that he has long been condemned for once having an affiliation to the KKK. He's hamstrung by that.

Jimmy Carter - Strikes me as ten times the man that a lot of politicians are today, that's for sure. He's really has his day obviously, that said, he does actually have the Presidential experience on his side, and sometimes we are too speedy to discount someone, due to their age.

Colin Powell - A large part of the Dubya admin taints him, in my eyes. Just as I feel that Blair's cabinet were all tainted by Iraq. No thanks.

 

I was thinking of replying to each of your paragraphs one by one, but I realize that your thought process does not seem to include the Constitution (my most important issue by far). The farther we move from the Constitution, the bigger the federal govt gets. And big government, whether by bankruptcy or whittling at rights, is the greatest danger we face.