Presidents

[windhound]

I prefer the phrase "scare terrify the moderates" Ollie.  

That's the reason John McCain tanked last election, he himself wasn't aweful but "his" (his campains') choice of Palin scared the heck out of the moderates.  If McCain, old as he is, had died in office...

Anyways.
I don't know why Newt is still running.  He's utterly unelectable.  He has been shown to be both moraly and ethically compromised.  How he has any support is beyond me.
Santorm is just icky.  I don't mind a religious candidate, I think thoughtout history the US has always elected someone with religious views.  But Santorum appears to be taking it to the next level.  No thanks.  
I like how well Ron Paul has faired this cycle, but he's not really electable.  Which is a shame imho.
Romney is a flip flopper extraordinair, but he def. has the best chance of not terrifying the moderates.  He just has to convince the GOP as a whole that he didn't really mean the Massachusets Health Care plan he passed (and helped write?) while govenor.  "Romney Care" as its being called forms the basis (iirc) of the Health Care law passed by Pres. Obama (and it included an individual mandate, that people had to buy healthcare or face a fine), which is pretty much universally reviled by the core of the GOP.  

Ollie...  'progress' as defined by what?  Obama made more 'progress' in his direction than George Bush, but Bush wasn't going in the same direction.  Both Republicans and Democrats share many of the same views (no, seriously), but in things like regulation and social programs 'progress' by one is a detriment to the other.

[Peace Alliance]

I mean progress as in any progress. Rather then a conservative government that tries to maintain the status quo or even move backward (example currently in Canada).

[windhound]

That statement assumes all "progress" is positive for everyone.
Santorum would love to see progress in outlawing homosexuality, abortions, etc.
This would be progress to him, but a detrimental move for just about everyone else.

Just as removing regulations from oil drilling would be progress towards making the US energy indepenant.

Define your values for the things that have no meaning.
That's the problem with Obama's Hope and Change.  He actually did have some goals and promises, but those were overshawdowed in his rhetoric of "Hope" and "Change" -- which people then defined for themselves.  Is it any wonder most people are unhappy with Pres. Obama?

[Peace Alliance]

No, outlawing homosexuality and abortions is regression.

There are right-leaning things that are progress. Like if you want to progressively lower taxes, shrink gov't, etc. I'm just talking about going forward vs going backward.

As for using "hope and change" to inspire people. That is not illegitimate. If only such values could work in the global capitalist system. Those words are more accurately attached to revolution.

[Neobaron]

Sharpie, in the american midwest there is a place called Minnesota.

Their opinions don't count and they are almost always marginalized and thought of as "that state giving wisconsin a hug" or in the context of "didn't that movie Fargo take place in Minnesota?"

The fact that they elect pro wrestlers, unfunny comedians, and religious crackpots isn't really a surprise to anyone.

I apologize for their shortcomings, but please don't use them as an example in any serious discussion ever.

---

There are right-leaning things that are progress. Like if you want to progressively lower taxes, shrink gov't, etc. I'm just talking about going forward vs going backward.

You talk about going forward and going backwards as if the idea of progress isn't completely subjective.

[Firetooth]

If Ron Paul was as popular with the American public as he is with the internet, he'd win without a doubt...

Not much to say myself, though from what I've seen of him I have to say I'd probably like Obama to stay in. Health care was the right thing at the wrong time, I'm surprised he got it out in any form with how American politics seems to work.  It's not like you can exactly blame him for not doing anything,  because since he lost that majority thing to the republicans, he pretty much hasn't been able to do anything.

That said, I know about all the republican candidates, except Romney (apart from that he is Mormon iirc), who is supposedly the most rational. So I w ill not go indepth before I educate myself on him.

[Sharptooh]

There are right-leaning things that are progress. Like if you want to progressively lower taxes, shrink gov't, etc. I'm just talking about going forward vs going backward.

I disagree that those things are necessarily progress.

I apologize for their shortcomings, but please don't use them as an example in any serious discussion ever.

I apoligise for the fact that I am only now learning there is a state called Minnesota :P

P.S. Why is Ron Paul still not on the list?

[Neobaron]

Because Ron Paul is too genuine and uncorrupted to gain the popular support (read: the right people with the right money).

Also because people don't understand what "libertarian" means.

They assume he is some kind of anarchist, and rather than learn about a thing, they do the america and vote on party lines.

[Ashyra Nightwing]

Definitely Obama - the other guys are far too crazy imho. Agreed that they will most likely terrify the moderates. 

I think the issue with Obama is that people viewed him as more of a superhero than a politician.

edit: Ron Paul is popular on the internet because of his whole 'legalise drugs' stance. He also hangs out with white supremacists.

[abartell]

i agree but it seems everyone is either corrupt or not that good of a choice like i was gonna go with donald trump but he dropped out thats ok though i couldn't vote anyway i'm only 13

[Sharptooh]

Because Ron Paul is too genuine and uncorrupted to gain the popular support (read: the right people with the right money).

Also because people don't understand what "libertarian" means.

They assume he is some kind of anarchist, and rather than learn about a thing, they do the america and vote on party lines.

Unfortunately I think all three points you make are fairly true :/

I think the issue with Obama is that people viewed him as more of a superhero than a politician.

He has himself to blame if that's true, he hyped himself up with all of this "hope" talk

[abartell]

don't forget change, change and hope

[Gen. Volkov]

P.S. Why is Ron Paul still not on the list?

Because despite what you may have heard, Ron Paul is a fringe candidate at best. He hasn't come close to winning any state, well except Maine, because Maine is filled with crazy survivalists with an isolationist worldview. In short the sort of mouth-breathers who tend to support Ron Paul. I know, because I have relatives who live in the state. They are not Ron Paul supporters, because they are sane, sensible Indiana folk. (Hah) They are also Polish, and us Polish people have an issue with the US being non-interventionist, because the last time the US was, our home country got invaded by Nazis. Said Nazis then proceeded to kill 16% of our population. That, by the way, is the largest percentage of any population that died in the war. So we really, really, do not want to see the US become non-interventionist again, and that is part of Ron Paul's primary platform.

Anyway, it's also because Ron Paul is insane. He might wield some influence in the insane republican circles, but he is not going to get elected. All he might manage to do is get enough delegates to get some respect at the convention. Gingrich, Santorum, or Romney will be the one to get the nomination. I personally don't think it matters who gets the nomination though, Obama is going to win. None of the Republicans are attractive enough on their own merits to beat him, and just being the "not Obama" isn't going to be enough.

[Neobaron]

Volkov you just implied that Ron Paul would lead to nazi invasions.

[Gen. Volkov]

No, I said that non-interventionism is bad, and an example would be non-interventionism leading to Nazi invasions. It wouldn't be Nazi's this time, it would be Russian ultra-nationalists. That is still a very bad thing for Poland.