President Who? by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

President Who?

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Saturday, November 5, 2005 16:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 871
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, October 30, 2005 7:39 PM

Okay, I'm going to start a thread here because I haven't done that in a while, and it seems that me and everyone else have been posting too combatively a little bit which is a sign of not enough active threads. I thought the political quiz was interesting but inaccurate, so here's a more specific question. It's a What If? kind of question, so all you sci-fi flans should do well with it.

The year is 2008, Bush has been impeached and managed to implicate Kerry and Hillary in his trial, as well as all of bush's own administration. Now only weeks left before the election, all of the candidates are in jail.

The supreme court and the congress agree that a dying alan greenspan should solve this dilemma, and he decides after a lunch with Kurt Vonnegut that he will try a novel approach. He calls a number completely at random and tells you to appoint the next president and vice president of the united states. He tells you that you must limit it to people who are eligible for the position, and not in jail, and currently holding a position in govt. from which presidents are commonly drawn, ie. governor, senator, congressman, or general. Who do you pick?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 1:13 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

There's a line of succession that goes beyond the President's cabinet which makes this post most unlikely.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 4:28 AM

DREAMTROVE

It was purely hypothetical

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 6:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It was purely hypothetical

Well sure, if we could just ignore the whole Constitution thing, then ok.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 6:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, I'll bite! Russ Feingold and John Conyers. Or John Edwards and Dr. Dean. Or Barbara Lee and Bernie Sanders. Or any combination of the above.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 7:59 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Well sure, if we could just ignore the whole Constitution thing, then ok.

Which is pretty much why it's called a hypothetical.

Anyhow-
I wouldn't mind a Reid/Obama ticket, or maybe Dean/Obama. Durbin/Obama woudn't be so bad either. Obama isn't ready for Pres yet, but I think he just might be in 10, 12 years. He really won me over a few months back when he wrote a letter to a local paper explaining how he voted on an issue in a way that he shouldn't have; that once he found out more information he wished he could go back and change his vote.

I like that attitude. I respect it, and it's something you don't see with this administration. Accountability - I made a mistake, the buck stops here, and I'm sorry.

GWB has done that once his whole Presidency, and even then it looked forced and unnatural.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2005 8:59 AM

HERO

I'd pick Alan Alda's character from West Wing. Pro-choice California Republican...without the accent.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 11:09 AM

DREAMTROVE

Lot of democrats I see.

Okay, someone said Feingold, I'll support that. If I don't have a decent republican. ie, if it's Feingold against JEB or Frist. A sane republican would obviously get my vote, but barring that, Russ Feingold would get it. Dick Durbin I would certainly consider.

Harry Reid would not be so lucky. I don't share people's fondness for Conyers, basically because I think he thinks he's better than everyone else and he did forward the draft bill, so he can't get my vote.

Obama is too green. So is Edwards. He would need to actually run for the senate again, and once in, he would need to actually show up.

Dean is too much of yale and bones team player.

So I've got Durbin and Feingold. I'll nominate them for a democratic sanity ticket.

I'd like to see if the republicans would like to forward some nominees so we could have an election.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 6:02 AM

CYBERSNARK

Joss and Tim!

Oh, wait, I'm in the wrong thread. Sorry.
*wanders out*

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 9:55 AM

DREAMTROVE

I don't want Joss as president, because he wouldn't have time to make more shows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 9:15 AM

DREAMTROVE

Lynch,

I can see we're going to have to have a long talk at some point.

I think we're basically coming from the same place in what we want, but I'm probably more cynical. There are a lot of people I don't trust, and I am very afraid of what I call neo-socialism. Some sort of pseudo-socialist society based on permanent state-corporate ties that will ultimately deaden the free market and bring progress to a standstill.

So individually, just want to comment on your selections, becuase it's my thread and I wanna :)

I like Condi Rice okay. I don't know if I trust her as pres. right off the bat. Her militaristic outlook and careless disregard for the concerns of our allies worries me. I'd probably like to see her as VP first.

I can't say I trust Wolfowitz's judgement at all. I think he's basically well intentioned, but I think he botched Iraq, and he is in with PNAC, which worries me more. I'm not tempted to put him in a govt. position. If I dealt with him it would in an advisory position but not one of executive power.

I'm quite fond of Newt Gingrich and wouldn't mind seeing him in office. I don't think he would win a presidential contest because I think he lacks the popular appeal, it would come out sort of like goldwater. I don't know much about his defense views, so I can't really speak to that. I'd probably like to see Powell back here.

Bolton appalls me utterly. I think he may have been involved in a couple of homocides, and his idea of process, well let's face it, he has no concept of process. I would like to see Mr. Bolton out of govt. Possibly in jail ;) But seriously, if he were on my team he would not be put in a place where he was in charge of anyone else. If I thought he would intimidate other staffers, I would have him fired.

I like Ann Coulter a lot. I think she's just the sort of person I'd want on my team. Outspoken, independent minded with a solid conservative ideological bent. Not to mention a good sense of humor. I would like to know when she was joking actually :)

I'd Actually prefer to see Newt/Rice than Rice/Newt for the reasons I stated above. Getting such a ticket into office either way would largely involve splitting the democratic vote. I have some ideas on how to do that, but that's another story.

I want to return to slamming Bolton for a second. Even if I wanted someone who would take a tough no nonsense line with other nations, which I particularly don't, you clearly do by this choice, I still wouldn't want John Bolton. I believe you catch more flies with honey, first off, but there are other issues. The Sec. of State is not just a top diplomat job, but also the person who has to run this office. If Bolton ran a ship it would be like Crais' command carrier. Descent would be dealt with by execution. The entire dept. would fall in line, but there would be no debate. No one would ever oppose Archon Bolton and the communication channel would be reduced to a trickle. This is a recipe for bad policy. I have say I'd like to Powell in this post.

Again, as with the other's I'm nitpicking the selection, not endorsing the ticket :)

I think people know enough about my that I'd be likely to vote for McCain if he was on a ticket, if nothing else because I would know he would be a shoe in in the general election, but also I think he'd be good. I'd vote for newt in a primary, I would vote for a ticket that have Condi as VP, but as I said I'd be hesitant to support her as a Pres.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 4:23 PM

DREAMTROVE

Lynch,

Another thing. There was a post I can't find now. You put a long post to my post and said a couple of things I have to briefly respond to:

1. Neocons were socialists is not an empty conspiracy theory. I don't subscribe to such things, generally. I discuss them sometimes because sometimes they are ideas worth having. I am not guess here, I know this to be the case. I am also not saying that no member of PNAC can every be taken seriously as a conservative as a result of the fact that many of them have socialist or communist pasts. But the fact that as a group the same people have been in many organizations of a socialist or pseudo-socialist nature, and the fact that the agenda of those groups has not changed appreciably over time, and is not and never was particularly different from what is now the PNAC agenda, means that anything suggested by these neocons that fits into that agenda must be treated with some suspicion.

Ultimately, if a communist were to suggest an idea as a plan of action for the United States in it's free market society, it could prove to be beneficial to our interests even from a arch-conservative perspective. But of such a communist makes suggestion, I know its origins, and know what to be supicious of.

If a neocon makes a suggestion, there is a slight added suspicion because the idea may come from the original socialist idea, but may have been dressed up deceptively as a conservative idea. Even so, the idea may have merit from an ultra-conservative perspective, but it does require a certain due dilligence of scrutiny.

For this reason, a neocon PNAC member would have to be an advisor in my government, and not an executive, because I would need to apply the scrutiny to ensure that the US not start passing socialist legislation into law.

Unfortunately, I am certain that we have already done so. The Patriot Act is almost certainly a derivative law aimed at copying the effects of socialist legislation put into effect in more than one european nation in the early 20th century, sometimes, or even often, with disasterous results.

This is the sort of thing I would like to make very sure never happen again.

2. I don't recall what the other item was. If you can remember what the post or thread is, let me know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 4:54 PM

DREAMTROVE

I recall what the other item was, I think it was you that posted this.

Re: the president lying.

I am fairly confident in my assessment of the president as basically a chimpanzee. I don't know the man personally, but I know some people who do, and I have seen him on for countless hours on various downloads. I don't actually own a TV.

Still, I feel confident. Everything I see backs up these people's assertions. These are loyal republicans I refer to who thus painted him.

This is both condemning and absolving for the president. He seems to be rather dim, or at least vague, and may actually believe what he says.

Mostly, I treat the situation as if Cheney were president which I think is closer to reality, and Cheney is neither dumb nor vague.

Since I saw the hearings and I saw the intelligence reports and then later I saw the speeches saying what was so clearly not an accurate appraisal of the intelligence data, i came to the inescapable conclusion tha the vice president deliberately deceived the UN, Congress and the American people.

I don't think this is the major issue that other people do, but it does grate with my conservative values. It's not what I like to see in a VP.

I also think most of the people who post here are quite intelligent, quite possibly all of them, they are after all firefly fans :)

So basically, since I am fairly certain of my conclusions on both these issues, and again quite certain that an honest appraisal of the facts would bear this out, and since I'm not a partisan democrat or for that matter someone with any kind of left bias, I say them with a fair amount of indifference.

Also, it is not that I say things against Bush because I am anti-Bush. I'm anti-Bush because I am fairly sure the things that I say are true.

Finally, I urge you to read more about this stuff. There are several different perspectives which are well written from on the web, and it is to everyone's advantage that they read all of them, Wingnuts, moderates, progressives and partisan hacks, they all have something to say, and it behooves all of them to be as honest as possible about the facts which they choose to present, because they all value their credibility. Of these, the partisan hacks on both sides probably value their credibility least of all.

But let me stress this point because I think it's a truly important one. I'm really addressing this to everyone, and I don't mean to soung pretentious, some people are undoubtedly already following this, but it is sound advice.

So I urge people to read this:

Quote:

Everyone should frequent blogs from all political perspectives. Your opponents may reveal truths to you about facts that are either embarrassing or of little strategic advantage for your allies to expound on.

Don't stay away from OneGoodMove.org because you're a partisan republican, and don't avoid andrewsullivan.com because you're a partisan democrat.

Sure, political sites have slant and spin, learn to weed through that and get to the facts underneath. Go to fox news, but also reads the nation. Hell, read the onion.

Information is good for everything. Most people, surprisingly, are not lying most of the time, and there is a lot of truth in what they say.

If I can carry this to it's logical extreme, read what Osama Bin Laden has to say. Go ahead. Google it. Bin Laden is a nutcase, he's anti-semitic, and all sort of other things, and in short I think this guy is basically a child murderer. But he's not stupid, and what he has to say not only makes a small amount of sense, it is also honest, and gives you great insight into where he's coming from.

I feel confident that if the president and vice president had read what Bin Laden had to say, they would not have conducted their dispute with Saddam Hussein in a manner tailor made to aid Bin Laden's cause.

This is one last point I want to make. Because of their ignorance of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, they definitely made matters worse. If they understood the situation better, and then acted accordingly, they could have, without changing the overall agenda, sent Bin Laden's popularity in the Muslim world down the drain.

I guess if in all of these arguments I can impress one idea on everyone, I would have it be this:

read all of the political points of view.

If you're a lefty, sit down and read what Pat Buchanan has to say.

If you're a right winger, spend a little time with Ralph Nader.

This isn't going to change your political perspective, and that's not my goal in saying it. It's going to give you perspective because they will say some things that you won't normally run into if you stick to you political home turf. If you're someone who is not doing this now, you will probably at first disagree with everything they say. But in time you will come to see everyone has a point, even the most wrongheaded people, even if they are still completely wrongheaded about their solutions, as I believe Mr. Nader is, and some of you will continue to think Mr. Bunchanan is, that everybody who has received some attention from someone does, at some level, have at least a point or two.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2005 4:58 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, I'll bite! Russ Feingold and John Conyers. Or John Edwards and Dr. Dean. Or Barbara Lee and Bernie Sanders. Or any combination of the above.

Heaven help us if this were come to pass.

I could almost bear Russ Feingold and maybe John Conyers for a while as they are too invested in the system to get too "out there". However, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Barbara Lee, and Bernie Sanders represent the true fringe left.

Bernie Sanders (if he is the guy I am thinking of) is a tried and true, no kidding and openly admits it socialist, right? I mean that not as a slur but Socialist is his actual political affiliation.

Yikes.

Andrew Lynch

I really agree. I actually like Russ Feingold. He's probably one of the few democrats who could get my vote if I really couldn't stand the republican candidate. He might be the only one.

I have some problems with Conyers. Still he's not as far gone as the others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE