• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

The search for a candidate that most of GF could support

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
I want to use this thread to answer the question: Is there a candidate that most of us could support for president? I don't mean that we'd all love the guy or he'd be our first choice, but that we'd tolerate if in office.

The only guy that comes to mind off the bat would be Ron Paul. Is there something about Paul that makes you say - I would never support him because _________? Is there anyone else that you could nominate that you think others would support? I read a lot of people's thoughts on politics that I differ with such as Kaz and QB and I think, man there's a lot of overlap there between them and myself. I just wonder if there's someone that could make both of us happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sim

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
Ron Paul is an unstable man who would destroy most of the valuable government institutions that under-gird the modern state, including the EPA, welfare for mothers and children, and support for most NGOs. So, absolutely not.

I'll counter with someone like Gary Johnson or Jon Huntsman. The latter supports civil unions and worked with Obama, but is still very much a conservative, the former supports drug policy reform and other changes to our system. My main issues with supporting either of them is that both of them want to maintain frankly ludicrous tax rate structures. So for every issue I like about them, I dislike something even more strongly.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
Ron Paul is an unstable man who would destroy most of the valuable government institutions that under-gird the modern state, including the EPA, welfare for mothers and children, and support for most NGOs. So, absolutely not.

I'll counter with someone like Gary Johnson or Jon Huntsman. The latter supports civil unions and worked with Obama, but is still very much a conservative, the former supports drug policy reform and other changes to our system. My main issues with supporting either of them is that both of them want to maintain frankly ludicrous tax rate structures. So for every issue I like about them, I dislike something even more strongly.
Jon Huntsman Sr. is one of my favorite people in the world as an inventor and philanthropist. I know nothing of his son, but I'm going to read up on him today.
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
Is there a candidate that most of us could support for president?

No, there's no way most here at GF would ever, could ever agree to support one person for president. GF is probably a sample population of the general and the split you see here is representative. Besides, if one such person exists, it's likely none of us know of him/her because 1) they aren't in the public eye, 2) they are not well-researched. Also, every "candidate" will have some flaw that is a deal breaker and you can bet that someone will find that flaw. Oddly enough, if by some miracle we got closer to a percent majority favoring one person, there is that human instinct drive to argue about politics. It would be no fun if we all like the same person!!
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
Is there a candidate that most of us could support for president?

No, there's no way most here at GF would ever, could ever agree to support one person for president. GF is probably a sample population of the general and the split you see here is representative. Besides, if one such person exists, it's likely none of us know of him/her because 1) they aren't in the public eye, 2) they are not well-researched. Also, every "candidate" will have some flaw that is a deal breaker and you can bet that someone will find that flaw. Oddly enough, if by some miracle we got closer to a percent majority favoring one person, there is that human instinct drive to argue about politics. It would be no fun if we all like the same person!!
You don't think that most people here would have supported Kennedy or Eisenhower?
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
You don't think that most people here would have supported Kennedy or Eisenhower?
Not really. There was a split then, just as there will be a split now.

RE: Kenedy (from Wikipedia): "In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point (0.1%)—the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century. In the Electoral College, Kennedy's victory was larger, as he took 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219 (269 were needed to win)."
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
Well, even if they aren't viable, aren't there modern-day Monroes, Lincolns, McKinleys, Roosevelts (pick your favorites)? Politics may have made it so the partisans get nominated, but aren't there consensus people that GF could side with?

Not to say that I think Obama is some kind of radical partisan. Viewed objectively, in a race where someone has to win a GOP primary he's probably the closest thing to a true centrist we have running.
 

BigBob

Registered Member
I disagree 100% with Shelgar, especially because she doesn't speak for every member of GF. If the right person came along, then I absolutely believe the majority could agree upon him but we know there are people here that if someone disagrees with one thing that they believe in that they'll automatically be thrown out.
 

qweerblue

Registered Member
Wow, I so want to be able to throw a name out there, but Kaz threw out the two I thought of, and I'm with him--there's just as much that I don't like about those guys are there is that I do. And, well, that can be said about every candidate or possible candidate that I just did a bit of reading on.

What are we going to do? I get the idea that most of us who participate in MD, even if our views are starkly different in some areas, have one huge patch of common ground: we are completely disgusted with both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Oh, and Ron Paul, geez! Same with all the other candidates for me: I like some of his stances, but I worry that his willingness to abolish almost all government agencies would be more detrimental that positive for us. But his opposition to things like The Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, NAFTA, WTO, and the Fed, as well as his foreign policy non-interventionist stance, caused me to take a good look at him in 2008.
 

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
Well, even if they aren't viable, aren't there modern-day Monroes, Lincolns, McKinleys, Roosevelts (pick your favorites)? Politics may have made it so the partisans get nominated, but aren't there consensus people that GF could side with?

Not to say that I think Obama is some kind of radical partisan. Viewed objectively, in a race where someone has to win a GOP primary he's probably the closest thing to a true centrist we have running.
I don't feel as if Roosevelt should be on that list (one was progressive and the other highly liberal). I'm not saying that they didn't do some good things for the country (they did both good and bad just like most presidents that's why I don't feel they fit on that list.) but FDR believed that government was the answer to every single problem (which I really couldn't disagree more with) however I certainly don't want to turn this thread into a debate about exactly who they were.

I do believe that there are modern day Monroes, Lincolns, etc. But I don't believe that they would ever have a chance at making it as president because of reasons already stated such as not being in the public eye or the parties being too partisan etc.

I wish that there was another like Reagan I mean look at these election results. Nobody has ever won by quite this much before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980#Results

And Obama is not even close to a centrist. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Top