# POLL: Vote for next US president.



## SvK (Sep 2, 2007)

If election were held today!!

Vote for the next US president. I have only included realistic nominees, front-runners. Should be interesting........

I would prefer if only you guys and gals that have been following the debates so far vote in this poll, but what the heck.........

Let's Vote!

SvK


----------



## lux (Sep 2, 2007)

cant see choco up the list. I guess i will not vote.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 2, 2007)

lux @ Sun 02 Sep said:


> cant see choco up the list. I guess i will not vote.


Can't see Miss South Carolina there either... 0oD 

Excuse the newb questions: Who is choco? Is this an all US board? Are you Americans directly voting your prez?


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 2, 2007)

I'm not american or following the debates but I voted anyways. Lux, I am on the poll, my real name is Mitt Romney.


----------



## SvK (Sep 2, 2007)

Aeneas,

I'm just interested in seeing what a composer forum cross-section looks like politically....just for fun....I'm not being elitist....just wanna see to which side "American-Orchestral Geeks" are leaning for the upcoming 2008 election.

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 2, 2007)

What a depressing list. And to see that two people voted for Guiliani is even more depressing. He's just awful.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 2, 2007)

Can I vote for none of the above?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 3, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Sep 02 said:


> What a depressing list. And to see that two people voted for Guiliani is even more depressing. He's just awful.



OMG! Is that true? :(

I'm not voting myself as all of the candidates above are political whores one way or the other.

SvK, i cant believe Ron Paul is not on that list! And what about Mick Gravel and Kuchinni? These 3 mens are the only ones who speak the truth. Either one of them would be a good candidate. Americas have a great opportunity here but they don't see it. :cry:


----------



## sbkp (Sep 3, 2007)

Can't vote... My guy ain't there. Put Kucinich on the list, please  (If you want to get an idea of the politics on this board, I think we need a wider range of choices.)


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 3, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Sep 02 said:


> Can I vote for none of the above?



I'm in this boat too with that list. Are any of these people really qualified? Hillary by virtue of her husband I guess but is _she_ really qualified? Obama is very likable but how qualified for the most demanding job on the planet? Romney sort of gives me the creeps. I was impressed with how Guliani cleaned up NY ages ago but I need to research where he really comes down on things. Thompson seems like a bright guy but again I have to research the fellow. In fact it's time for me to really get a handle on who's who in the race. Not an encouraging list.


----------



## SvK (Sep 3, 2007)

Guys,


Kucinich will not get the nomination. Nor will a Brownback, or Biden, or Paul...

For the record...I like Kucinich, Biden, Paul, Huckabee....

But I limited the Poll to the actual nominee contenders because I want to see where the votes for the third-tier candidates will fall.....

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 3, 2007)

" I was impressed with how Guliani cleaned up NY ages ago but I need to research where he really comes down on things. "

Guiliani is the worst candidate period. A total dead loss, and it depresses me to no end that he's the Republican frontrunner right now.

I'll look for the link to his article about foreign policy. Summary: the lesson of Vietnam is that we should have stayed there and won; the Iraq war was a good idea because it shows how tough we are.

He's totally uneducated about the issues - no sense of history at all, which as we've seen is just frightening. It's depressing how swaggering with a huge ego makes people think you're a good candidate. I don't even know what he did that was so great after 9/11. Sure he moved homeless people around and put new seats in taxis, but so what. This guy is really, really bad news.

By the way, I definitely will vote in the election, because not voting will probably be a vote for Guiliani.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 3, 2007)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901f ... peace.html


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 3, 2007)

People like Giuliani because he the most sadistic of all the candidates. Is there any other explanation why a New Yorker who lived with gay men, has had a terrible family history is anti-gun and pro-abortion would be the Republican front runner? It's all about image - and lots of people like sadistic images these days.


----------



## artsoundz (Sep 3, 2007)

JonFairhurst @ Mon Sep 03 said:


> People like Giuliani because he the most sadistic of all the candidates. Is there any other explanation why a New Yorker who lived with gay men, has had a terrible family history is anti-gun and pro-abortion would be the Republican front runner? It's all about image - and lots of people like sadistic images these days.



I'm not a fan of Rudy- BUT-You seem to suggest it's a negative to be associated w/ gay men. or sadistic to be pro-choice or pro-gun control. 

Paulr-is that you!??


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 3, 2007)

Read it again, artsoundz. That's not at all what Jon is saying.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 3, 2007)

artsoundz @ Mon Sep 03 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Mon Sep 03 said:
> 
> 
> > People like Giuliani because he the most sadistic of all the candidates. Is there any other explanation why a New Yorker who lived with gay men, has had a terrible family history is anti-gun and pro-abortion would be the Republican front runner? It's all about image - and lots of people like sadistic images these days.
> ...



Don't worry artsoundz...Jon Fairhurst is about as left and liberal as they come. He is trying to paint all Republicans with the notion that they are pro-gun (to Rudy's "anti-gun") and pro-life (to Rudy's "pro-abortion" in the eyes of Jon's view of Republicans). It just didn't all come out that way in his post. 



For the record...I did not vote in this and probably won't so, none of those votes are from me.


----------



## artsoundz (Sep 3, 2007)

aw geez== I get it. SO sorry. I just woke up when I read that. 

my apologies-Jon.

Thanks Brian and Nick.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 3, 2007)

Brian Ralston @ Mon Sep 03 said:


> Jon Fairhurst is about as left and liberal as they come.


But Brian, 

In Portland (called little Beirut by Bush Sr.), I'm a centrist. 

-JF


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 3, 2007)

And in Eugene you'd alternately be called far right and far left! (The population seems to be either lumberjacks or Grateful Dead devotees.  )


----------



## handz (Sep 3, 2007)

HEY! Where is Arnold Schwarzenegger?!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 3, 2007)

artsoundz @ Mon Sep 03 said:


> aw geez== I get it. SO sorry. I just woke up when I read that.
> 
> my apologies-Jon.


No prob.

The current field of Republicans does surprise me though. I would have expected at least one true social conservative to be in the lead pack.

We have Giuliani (my analysis above)
Romney (a Mormon from Massachusetts no less), and 
McCain (branded a liberal by some Bush supporters, recent war mongering aside)

As I recall, Huckabee did well in the Iowa straw poll. He's a more traditional social conservative candidate. He doesn't come off as a strong leader though.

Some are trying to brand Fred Thompson as a meat and potatoes social conservative, but he's never really shown much brimstone, if you ask me.

So... the stink from the current administration aside, I don't sense a feeling of excitement over any of the Republican candidates - except Ron Paul. 

Aside from Giuliani, who has some spunk (but no social conservative cred), I see this as a Bob Dole kind of year for the GOP. 

Nobody seems like they will be able to truly inspire the base.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 3, 2007)

"Kucinich will not get the nomination. Nor will a Brownback, or Biden, or Paul... "

Nor will McCain, Edwards, Romney, or Obama. But it's interesting that Barack Obama is leading here.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 3, 2007)

Regarding the Guilani foreign policy statement Nick, did you get the inference that the war was fought completely wrong in the first place? This by the Democratic Presidents from 60 to 68? And that he would never fight a war this way? Nixon and company _did_ try to win that war and eventually bailed so whatever his policy statement I don't think any president no matter how hard nosed could have done anything else but get out. What is your opinion about Kennedy and Johnson on Vietnam? I'm not put off by someone who's against some lukewarm attempt at fighting where American companies get rich and young men die by the bushel.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 3, 2007)

SvK @ Mon Sep 03 said:


> Guys,
> 
> 
> Kucinich will not get the nomination. Nor will a Brownback, or Biden, or Paul...



That's the same logic the main stream media use to focus only on the candidate picked up by big corporations. In the end we don't even have a choice as other candidate gets no exposure.

Come on now put all the candidate up there.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 3, 2007)

Dave, in the fuzzy abstract, sure. But don't you kinda think Vietnam was a terribly sad, unfortunate episode in our history? It was a horrible mistake by any measure, and everyone from Kissinger on down understood that. For someone who's a Presidential candidate to actually be naive enough to come out and say that the lesson of Vietnam was that we should have stayed and won it is just shocking to me. The total historical revisionism is frightening.

You're my age, Dave. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin, the My Lai massacre, the Pentagon Papers?

Sure the Iraq war wasn't managed well, but the lesson there is that people should be appointed to positions because they're competent, not because they share your political ideology. Whether it was possible to "win" it is something we'll never know. It seems extremely unlikely to me, however, in fact it did before the war started.

In any case, that isn't the point. Guiliani is a total jackass with a big ego. He should know the history of the Vietnam war better than to come up with this total pile of bullshit. And this isn't the first stupid thing he's said, of course. This guy is a total shoot-first-ask-questions-later imbecile.

As I said before, someone who's going to be President should really know the issues. This guy knows nothing.

Oh, and he's not against a "lukewarm attempt at fighting etc." He's against leaving - not that I'm convinced that's the right thing to do either - but he's in favor of war for the sake of setting an example and showing how tough we are. That's fine for the schoolyard, but for that to be the basis of your foreign policy is absolutely insane.

Please, let's have any other Republican candidate than Guiliani. Any of them.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 3, 2007)

I vote for Jose.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 3, 2007)

Scott Cairns @ Mon Sep 03 said:


> I vote for Jose.



Haha.

I think as an African American Puerto Rican with Scottish ancestors I stand a fair chance!

Guys,

Since when has competency been a requirement for being president? We haven't had a competent president since Nixon and look what happened to him.

I want a president who's lazy. I don't want him to do a damn thing. I want a congress that's lazy. I don't want them to do a damn thing either. That's what I liked about Bill Clinton. At first he tried to do all these great things. They all failed. Then he realized that people liked him a lot better if he did nothing. Same with Regan. All he did was give people hope that tomorrow would be better than today. That's all we need.

I don't think any president or any ruler will ever do a damn thing for people. I think that people will rise up and do for themselves. The more we wait for some president or government official to fix our lives the worse things get.

Jose


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 3, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Sep 03 said:


> Dave, in the fuzzy abstract, sure. But don't you kinda think Vietnam was a terribly sad, unfortunate episode in our history?



I couldn't agree more Nick. I just don't think it's idiotic if someone comes out and says he would never do the above. My point being that this makes Kennedy and Johnson dumber than Guilani. Any candidate that takes office now will not be able to substantially escalate the war because there is zero support for it. Whoever takes office better damn well have a 'No Vietnams' policy and it seemed this was what the fellow was actually saying. Okay maybe he's talking tough to get elected but so is Obama according to the media these days. I like Obama btw as a person from what I've seen but I'm really just starting to take a look at the candidates. I couldn't vote for anyone in good concience yet. I'm just starting with Guilani and Obama as far as research since Hillary is more of a known quantity to me (and David Geffen and others it seems.)

Also,I don't think there's a single candidate that's a serious contender this year that is advocating a total withdrawal from Iraq the day they take office. Because, they share your reluctance (as well as most people's) to leave that place in worse shape than we found it.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 3, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon 03 Sep said:


> " the Iraq war was a good idea because it shows how tough we are.
> 
> He's totally uneducated about the issues - no sense of history at all,


I agree - making war just to prove you are tough will just keep America as the no. one target for fanatics. It is not the wealth, it is not the ideological values - it is precisely your ambition to have the toughest army, which drops bombs and walks wherever it wants to. Armies can only conquer territories, but that is likely to increase the determination of those fanatics. IMHO, the war on islamic fundamentalists can be won only by the muslims themselves, and I believe they will eventually win it, just like civilized christians won over their own fanatics. 

Here an idea that most of you will likely dislike, or laugh at, but I will post it nevertheless: a muslim candidate to the US presidency would be a shocking strike on your enemies. Deadly on them in the event he won! They will be completely disarmed when hearing prayers for America in their own mosque, figure that! Look in the very recent history: Not that Hungary has ever been a traditional enemy to France, although they fought one against the other in both WWs, and look who's the French president now. The lack of ethnic/religious prejudices is a sign of political maturity, and a bringer of peace.

Please, don't vote a warmonger. (no appropriate emoticon available :( lol)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 3, 2007)

Interesting idea!

Jose:

"I don't think any president or any ruler will ever do a damn thing for people. I think that people will rise up and do for themselves. The more we wait for some president or government official to fix our lives the worse things get."

I disagree. The number one problem facing civilization is climate change, and we need what Jared Diamond calls "top down" leadership to deal with that. "Bottom-up" solutions will be helpful too - driving cars that get good mileage, conserving energy and water, etc. - but that alone won't do it.

Or if you're one of those people who believe the PR that we have nothing to do with global warming...to repeat myself, we still need to be researching the next energy economy. Right now doing nothing will result in the energy companies making as much money in as short a time as possible - which is what large companies try to do - and then all the cheap oil will be gone and so will our economy.

We need leadership, Jose. Doing nothing is better than screwing everything up, but the world is too big for individuals to solve all the problems of the world on their own.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 3, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Sep 03 said:


> Interesting idea!
> 
> Jose:
> 
> ...



I agree. But by choosing a "leader" that's exactly what we're doing. We're investing the power in an individual to solve the problems of us all.

We as a country sit around and wait for our "leaders" to solve all problems then when they don't we blame them. 

Take Civil rights. It certainly wasn't a government that gave us civil rights. It was a group of people lead by a minister that changed people's mind about the cast of black people in America. It took actual people doing something about it. Protesting, marching ect... until our "leaders" decided that it was in their best voting interest to enact laws ensuring civil rights for all. But if it hadn't of been for the people and civil organizations like the black churches in the south, nothing at all would have happened for civil rights in our government.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 3, 2007)

Again, some problems require "bottom-up" solutions, others require "top-down" solutions.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 3, 2007)

What's the best site for Obama's policy statements? I haven't been able to find essay type materials yet.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 3, 2007)

Bottoms up. Ill drink to that. o-[][]-o 

(do you notice I never have anything even remotely intelligent to say when it comes to political subjects?) (some might say I never have anything intelligent to say period.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 3, 2007)

It's okay, Scott, you're an Aussie - the land of zinc-covered noses where everone is named Bruce and is a member of the Drinking Society...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 3, 2007)

Dave, that's the problem: he hasn't said anything much, at least he hadn't last time I looked.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 4, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Sep 04 said:


> It's okay, Scott, you're an Aussie - the land of zinc-covered noses where everone is named Bruce and is a member of the Drinking Society...



Well you got the 'Aussie' and the 'drinking' part right Nick. :wink: :D


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 4, 2007)

So Obama was first elected to public office (Senator) a few years ago (2004)? Prior to that a lawyer and school teacher? Oh well, maybe he's the next Abe Lincoln but that is one thin resume'.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 4, 2007)

This poll reflects another fact about US politics...

Only 24 people actually vote.


----------



## david robinson (Sep 4, 2007)

Scott Cairns @ Tue Sep 04 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Sep 04 said:
> 
> 
> > It's okay, Scott, you're an Aussie - the land of zinc-covered noses where everone is named Bruce and is a member of the Drinking Society...
> ...



We've also the most beautiful women in the world, with the exception of the Eastern Block in Europe.
We also have the best beer except for Europe.

I think i'm going to Europe, leaving my Mac behind.

DR9.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 4, 2007)

8) 

We've got George Dubba-ya Bush here in Sydney at the moment. He's brought a staff of 670 people. The part that floored me, he has *250* Secret Service agents travelling with him.

He also got a "sealed corridor" to travel from Sydney airport to his hotel in the CBD. What usually takes everyone else anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour (depending on traffic) took George eight minutes. :shock:


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 4, 2007)

david robinson @ Tue Sep 04 said:


> We've also the most beautiful women in the world, with the exception of the Eastern Block in Europe.


Have you been to the US?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 4, 2007)

Or to my house?


----------



## david robinson (Sep 5, 2007)

hi, no, not that interested.
after europe it'd be the more exotic places for me.
morocco, nepal, etc.
i'm sure you get my drift.
DR9.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 5, 2007)

Psst - David: don't tell anyone, but the point is that there are lots of beautiful women everywhere.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 5, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 05 said:


> Psst - David: don't tell anyone, but the point is that there are lots of beautiful women everywhere.



Yes yes Nick. So I've heard. And I don't have any kind of problem with it. It's just that we have woman from all over the world here so those hotties over seas are well represented. Just playing the percentages. In any case, I wish they all could be California girls.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Sep 5, 2007)

US woman aren't better than Aussie's...sorry. It's eastern european and aussies for me.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Sep 5, 2007)

> It's just that we have woman from all over the world here so those hotties over seas are well represented.



They lose the accent after a while though...


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 5, 2007)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Sep 05 said:


> > It's just that we have woman from all over the world here so those hotties over seas are well represented.
> 
> 
> 
> They lose the accent after a while though...



Excellent point! I stand corrected.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 5, 2007)

david robinson @ Wed Sep 05 said:


> hi, no, not that interested.
> after europe it'd be the more exotic places for me.
> morocco, nepal, etc.
> i'm sure you get my drift.
> DR9.



Yeah sure I understand but didn't we invent hotpants?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 5, 2007)

Actually I was talking to David, not Dave. 

I personally have never even had sex with three women at the same time, so there are more than enough nice ones for me in every country.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2007)

Please, someone ask whether I've had sex with two women at the same time so I can deliver my punch line: no.


----------



## PolarBear (Sep 7, 2007)

Did you ever have had sex with more than 1 woman at the same time, Nick? Or should I better ask the same about men?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 7, 2007)

This thread demonstrates TWO things about American politics...

As I wrote earlier, only 24 people actually vote, and

It's all about sex. 

For examples, see Clinton's impeachment, roughly ten recently discredited socially conservative Republicans, and the hot button issues of gay marriage and abortion. 

Lies that lead to a trillion dollars flushed down the drain and hundreds of thousands dead? The trouncing of the Constitution? The drowning of a city? Big whoop.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Sep 7, 2007)

[takes quote entirely out of context]

I have had sex with two women..

one in 1986, and one... well she's my wife! /\~O 


If only I were so innocent.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 7, 2007)

Two things can be mined from that comment.

First, you were three years old in 1986.

And second, you really married a Mary Jane girl? A superfreak? The kind you don't take home to motherrrrrrrrr?!

Congratulations! Hats off to you!


----------



## david robinson (Sep 7, 2007)

you guys are just your average set of sex-maniacs.
and i wasn't referring to wimmen when i mentioned Morocco and Nepal.
there's plenty of other things in life. :roll:


----------

