Which would you prefer?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 05:07:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Which would you prefer?		 « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which would you prefer?
#1
A third Bush term		  
#2
One term with Ron Paul as President		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 27

Author Topic: Which would you prefer?  (Read 932 times)
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,031
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 18, 2007, 08:34:15 PM »
Paul.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,419
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2007, 08:49:36 PM »
a third Bush term.  It's a lot easier to fix a broken government than rebuild a destroyed one.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2007, 10:23:47 PM »
Both would be awful, but I'll take Paul.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,003
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2007, 10:37:33 PM »
Paul by a longshot. Neither would be able to get much done, but at least the few things he would do would help the country more than the few things Bush would do.
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2007, 11:01:57 PM »
this is probably one of the few times you could get me to vote for Bush, if I would vote at all...
Paul would damage the country like none other if he got some of what he wanted passed, I mean think about it: No public education system??? What!?!?

At least Bush wouldnt do anything that we wouldnt be able to fix after 20 years or so...
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,031
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2007, 10:29:38 AM »
Quote from: CultureKing on June 18, 2007, 11:01:57 PM
this is probably one of the few times you could get me to vote for Bush, if I would vote at all...
Paul would damage the country like none other if he got some of what he wanted passed, I mean think about it: No public education system??? What!?!?

At least Bush wouldnt do anything that we wouldnt be able to fix after 20 years or so...

Except that stuff would never pass, and the public education system is mostly ran by the states anyway. It's not like Paul can abolish all public schools by decree and even if he could, it'd go completely against his political philosophy to do so. Hell, the education system would probably be improved by him getting rid of NCLB.
Logged
agcatter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,740


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2007, 10:32:17 AM »
My God.  What a horrible choice!
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2007, 10:32:38 AM »
A third Bush term, at least I agree with Bush on a few things unlike nothing with Paul.
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,031
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2007, 10:33:46 AM »
Quote from: MasterJedi on June 19, 2007, 10:32:38 AM
A third Bush term, at least I agree with Bush on a few things unlike nothing with Paul.

You don't agree with him on economics?
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2007, 08:56:34 PM »
Well that's an easy one -Ron Paul.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2007, 09:04:37 PM »
Quote from: We doubled the hits for a certain Google search on June 19, 2007, 10:33:46 AM
Quote from: MasterJedi on June 19, 2007, 10:32:38 AM
A third Bush term, at least I agree with Bush on a few things unlike nothing with Paul.

You don't agree with him on economics?

I don't think you'll find many Republicans opposed to public schooling.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2007, 09:59:24 PM »
Quote from: Harry on June 18, 2007, 08:49:36 PM
a third Bush term.  It's a lot easier to fix a broken government than rebuild a destroyed one.

Destroyed one? Please, let's not delude ourselves Harry. Even if Paul managed to become president, he would either be forced to moderate in order to get anything significant done or there would be extreme deadlock. There is no way in hell he'd get some of his more extreme views, such as return to the gold standard, implemented with Congress the way it is now.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,419
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2007, 10:49:16 PM »
Quote from: SE Magistrate John Dibble on June 19, 2007, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: Harry on June 18, 2007, 08:49:36 PM
a third Bush term.  It's a lot easier to fix a broken government than rebuild a destroyed one.

Destroyed one? Please, let's not delude ourselves Harry. Even if Paul managed to become president, he would either be forced to moderate in order to get anything significant done or there would be extreme deadlock. There is no way in hell he'd get some of his more extreme views, such as return to the gold standard, implemented with Congress the way it is now.

Similarly, Bush wouldn't be able to get anything done either.  So with a choice of 2 people who can't get anything done, I'll go with whoever would be better IF they could get stuff done.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2007, 10:54:44 PM »
Quote from: Harry on June 19, 2007, 10:49:16 PM
Quote from: SE Magistrate John Dibble on June 19, 2007, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: Harry on June 18, 2007, 08:49:36 PM
a third Bush term.  It's a lot easier to fix a broken government than rebuild a destroyed one.

Destroyed one? Please, let's not delude ourselves Harry. Even if Paul managed to become president, he would either be forced to moderate in order to get anything significant done or there would be extreme deadlock. There is no way in hell he'd get some of his more extreme views, such as return to the gold standard, implemented with Congress the way it is now.

Similarly, Bush wouldn't be able to get anything done either.  So with a choice of 2 people who can't get anything done, I'll go with whoever would be better IF they could get stuff done.

Which is all fine and good - just don't go making ludicrous claims about a destroyed government when it wouldn't happen.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2007, 11:55:18 PM »
Definetly a Paul term. Why give Bush more time to maybe fix anything? Wouldnt give em the chance. If Paul is successful, who cares? The Libertarians wont get anywhere with or without him. I just want to know that Bush goes down in history negatively. Smiley
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,031
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2007, 12:08:49 AM »
Quote from: Harry on June 19, 2007, 10:49:16 PM
Quote from: SE Magistrate John Dibble on June 19, 2007, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: Harry on June 18, 2007, 08:49:36 PM
a third Bush term.  It's a lot easier to fix a broken government than rebuild a destroyed one.

Destroyed one? Please, let's not delude ourselves Harry. Even if Paul managed to become president, he would either be forced to moderate in order to get anything significant done or there would be extreme deadlock. There is no way in hell he'd get some of his more extreme views, such as return to the gold standard, implemented with Congress the way it is now.

Similarly, Bush wouldn't be able to get anything done either.  So with a choice of 2 people who can't get anything done, I'll go with whoever would be better IF they could get stuff done.

But remember that Paul would also shut down Gitmo and put an end to all the Patriot Act bullsh!t like and the like.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.238 seconds with 14 queries.