The next President


PDA






Lupinus
October 14, 2005, 02:27 AM
Realisticly, who would you like to see as the next President?

Please keep it to someone who realsiticly has a shot. Feel free to post who'd you'd like that wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell, but if you do try and post someone who realisticly has a good chance as well.

If you enjoyed reading about "The next President" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
karlsgunbunker
October 14, 2005, 02:49 AM
Condi Rice!

Very pro 2nd Amendment :cool:

Lupinus
October 14, 2005, 03:11 AM
Well Bush did ask her to go to the bathroom

Maybe she is already running things lol

gunsmith
October 14, 2005, 06:09 AM
CONDI IN 2008!

spartacus2002
October 14, 2005, 07:20 AM
None of The Above.

Smoke
October 14, 2005, 07:33 AM
I don't want to vote for President. Presiden'ts are largely powerless. I want to have a dictator for 4 years. Somone with absolute power to fix everything thats wrong then we can return to the usual system.

The dictator should be trustworthy to repair the damaged parts of the government, which I alllow is most of it. ANd he should be aware that he will be shot at the end of his term if he doesn't willingly step down.

I suggest he roll back all laws made after 1901. He can add or remove laws from that starting point. He should dissolve all government agencies that have become unnecessary beaurocracues (kind of redundant isn't it?) and shut down the socialist programs that have made a large section of society beggars and sheep.

He should send home the career politicians, all of congress, the senate and the judiciary. They can be replaced with new elections in 2012. ( and hopefully better individuals)

He should abide by "The U.S. Constitution" [Reverent organ music sounds] and assure it is followed in every state.

He should get rid of the FBI, BATF, IRS, BLM, ACDA, BIA, DHS, FDIC, OCC, FCA, FWS, GwoB, INTERPOL, TSA, USDA, and FSA for starters. (maybe just get rid of all acronymed agencies)

He should give the finger to OPEC, the UN, and George Soros, he should make all the people that said they would leave the country after the last election do so, he should never provide social programs to illegal aliens, he should control the borders, he should allow drilling in ANWR, he should BBQ PETA.

HE should be........welll, ME! [nobody else I'd trust]


Smoke for Dictater in 08!

I solemnly vow to only serve one term and then return you to your regularly scheduled system of government.

Smoke

RealGun
October 14, 2005, 08:07 AM
Those who have a "realistic" chance wouldn't be popular here, that's for sure.

I suggest that those who do have suggestions or opinions keep in mind that form is more important in the end than substance. Getting elected is a deal with the devil.

Camp David
October 14, 2005, 08:20 AM
I'd like the next President to Be Dr. Condi Rice and I would like to see her Open Carry a .357 Mag in an black leather holster, which short black slacks and spiked heels and carry a whip 24/7... Screw this nice guy image... You visit the Oval Office and you be scared....

cuchulainn
October 14, 2005, 08:28 AM
Condi, but I'm not all that confident she can be pushed into running.

wingman
October 14, 2005, 08:28 AM
Rest assured the wealthy corporation have hand picked the next president
to bring before the public and they will dance him/her on the media stage
like a good puppet.:cuss:

Augustwest
October 14, 2005, 08:45 AM
I have no interest in anyone I can think of who has a realistic chance.

The only current national political figure I could vote for is Ron Paul.

RealGun
October 14, 2005, 08:49 AM
Rest assured the wealthy corporation have hand picked the next president
to bring before the public and they will dance him/her on the media stage
like a good puppet.:cuss:

I don't know that they can proactively select someone, but they can certainly determine which candidate gets the most money to run. Campaign finance reform is not a completely repulsive idea.

Bruce H
October 14, 2005, 09:02 AM
I would give the next president a better than even chance of presiding over the collapse of the United States. Too much paper and not enough durable goods production. Too many service jobs that aren't really necessary but are around when times are good. Too many " take care of me's".

The Drew
October 14, 2005, 09:13 AM
Ted Nugent...

Oldtimer
October 14, 2005, 09:15 AM
A bit premature to be making a personal selection, other than who I DON'T want as President! That list includes:

Hillary Rodham
John Kerry
Al Gore
Charles Schumer
Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
Louis Farrakhan
Osama bin Laden
Jacques Chirac

Believe it or not, but I wouldn't mind it if Mel Gibson became pro-active in politics! He was born in New York, so he IS a U.S. citizen. We didn't do too bad with that other actor fella, Ronald Wilson Reagan!

cuchulainn
October 14, 2005, 09:43 AM
I would give the next president a better than even chance of presiding over the collapse of the United States. :rolleyes:

boofus
October 14, 2005, 09:46 AM
Ron Paul

auschip
October 14, 2005, 09:58 AM
Tommy Franks

scout26
October 14, 2005, 10:10 AM
Hey, Smoke can I be your VP ????

I promise to do absolutely nothing for the four years we're in office.

cuchulainn
October 14, 2005, 10:15 AM
He was born in New York, so he IS a U.S. citizen. Actually, he'd be elligible even if he were born in Australia -- his parents were citizens, so he was a natural born citizen.

The idea that the president must be born within the borders of the USA is a common mistake. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires that the president be a "natural born Citizen," not a native born citizen.

CAnnoneer
October 14, 2005, 11:36 AM
+1 Smoke

Methinks it will take about 10 years realistically to set up things up, hire the correct people, clean house methodically, restructure the political and economic system, and then strengthen everything to allow continued success.

The post should be Imperator and would allow only one term of office, ever, for the holder and all his descendents, to preven hereditary problems.

Me (or somebody like me) for Imperator! :D

There are historical precedents - the Roman Republic had the post for times of extreme peril. With the war on jihadists, illegal invasion, and crumbling economy, I'd say the nation is in extreme peril...

But, realistically, it will not happen, because no decaying society ever avoided long-term problems by conscious intelligent choice.

So, Hail Hillary, those about to crumble salute thee.

:barf:

dpesec
October 14, 2005, 11:49 AM
Smoke,
That's exactly what happens to republics. Things stop working, graft and self centered politicians take over. Some powerful and well liked person stands up and becomes dictator. Then the SHTF.

I do think well see that happen here. As soon as the terrorists use a WND anyplace in the West the sheep will go into a panic.
Me I hope I never see it, but I'm not optimistic.

Now, to keep the thread on target, I'm for Dr. Rice. I don't see her as a RINO.

Werewolf
October 14, 2005, 11:57 AM
ME

Oh - wait - you want someone who actually has a chance.

There is in my opinion not a single serving politician in the US today who is both deserving and capable of serving honorably and competently as President of the US.

The system is broken, the apples in the current barrel too rotten. SERIOUSLY! Dump the lot and start over.

Sooooo...
I guess that leaves ME!

I promise to serve only one term (however long that may necessarily be).
I will eliminate pork in the budget, bring the troops home, solve the illegal immigration problem, rid the world of terrorists and the dictators that support them (don't need troops abroad to do that - think about it) issue executive orders re-establishing the BOR's as they were meant to be will not execute or enforce stupid laws (I reserve the right to decide which laws are stupid but will entertain suggestions and recommendations from my loyal subjects - errrr - the people) will make sure that congress stops blackmailing the states with stupid threats to with hold federal funds will eliminate :evil: career politicians from the congress (they can leave voluntarily or - well - not... think lots'a fun target practice) slash the federal employment rolls to the levels necessary to efficienty administer the national defense and national land management functions which are the only real jobs of the national government . Income tax will become a flat 15% - that's it - you earn 1000 you pay $150 - you earn $10,000,000 you pay $1,500,000. Income to be defined as any money or other asset that you acquire during a calendar year. No deductions, no loopholes. Any money left over at the end of the calendar year will be returned to those who paid in the previous year. Try to screw the system and I'll screw you (yay! no more tax lawyers and most bean counters get to learn new job skills! the IRS will become an auditing and tariffs/fees collection Agency Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will become a convenience store chain. Force Congress to establish a fast track appeals court that only deals with death penalty cases. Each death penalty would get one automatic appeal to the court and if upheld would be executed within 7 days. The execution would be public and be televised by all visual media live. This would make the death penalty an actual deterent.
The infirm and mentally challenged would continue to be cared for by the state - all others are free to freeze to death in the dark - or not - as they choose.

And that's just in the first YEAR!

Any other suggestions for my platform?

Werewolf for PRESIDENT in 2008! Hoooooooowwwwwwlllllll!

rick_reno
October 14, 2005, 12:09 PM
I'd like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed and George Bush get another term. He's my number one guy.

TallPine
October 14, 2005, 12:10 PM
I would give the next president a better than even chance of presiding over the collapse of the United States.
You think it will take that long....? :p


Okay to answer the question:
George W. Bush (after God tells him to cancel the election) :uhoh:

MikeIsaj
October 14, 2005, 12:17 PM
Condi Rice credits the 2d amendment with saving her fathers life in the sixties. You don't get more "pro" than that!

A pairing of Condi Rice and Tomy Franks in any order would be too good to be true. Probably Tommy as Pres. and Condi as V.P. only to ease the old guys into the idea of a woman President. It would be a hard sell since they're both from the south and have never held an office.

Lupinus
October 14, 2005, 12:41 PM
I don't know, we have had president's who neverh eld public office. It isn't so common but it happen's.

Tommy Frank's might be good, I don't know about his views all to much though. Simply being a general doesn't qualify you in my book....case in point- Wesley Clark

longeyes
October 14, 2005, 12:46 PM
Election? What Election?

(Hmmm, I can see I need to get rid of Smoke and Cannoneer...there's only room for one Imperator...) :)

Condi Rice looks like the only GOP who can stop Hill--but Condi's been embraced by "them." That gives one pause.

I've said many times here that there is no longer any way, in my view, that this nation can be united without the elimination of the very civil liberties we all prize here. I don't want harmony at that price. We need to shore up what matters, while we can.

silverbird
October 14, 2005, 12:50 PM
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will become a convenience store chain.

Excellent :D

Lupinus
October 14, 2005, 12:55 PM
It happen's with all vast land mass's.

For awhile it hold's together quite well but eventually cultural devid's happen and one group ends up opressing another and taking away their right's for the sake of unity. Few great land mass's last forever and I dont think our founding father's ever imagined a country as large as the modern day US.

And anyone wh osay's there is no major cultural difference in the US is a moron. Travel from the northeast into the south then to the midwest and from there to the west coast. There are major cultural difference's and all working in different direction's. Unfortunatly the liberal one is what seem's to be prevailing in washington.

BadAsh87
October 14, 2005, 07:24 PM
Probably Newt Gingrich, or condi rice.

wingnutx
October 14, 2005, 07:53 PM
P.J. O'Rourke

failing that, Condi Rice would be nice.

John Kyle or Jeff Flake perhaps.

beerslurpy
October 14, 2005, 08:17 PM
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will become a convenience store chain.

It is now Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives btw. And that would be better than Walmart.

I dont see any good presidential candidates yet.

Standing Wolf
October 14, 2005, 09:58 PM
Heck, I'll vote for you, Werewolf.

Crom
October 14, 2005, 10:08 PM
Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo.

shermacman
October 14, 2005, 10:15 PM
Just for fun, lets agree with the Left wing lunatic barking moonbat liberals: George W. Bush stole the 2000 election. Therefore, his first real elected term began in 2004.

So, W. in 2008!

ctdonath
October 14, 2005, 10:20 PM
Like to see? Rice, Gingrich, Sowell. A proven conservative who has the guts to stare down the socialists, cut taxes, refuse deficit spending bills, restore the Bill Of Rights.

Expect to see? Hillary. By far, nobody wants it as badly as she and her supporters - it's the culmination of her life and movement (socialist feminism). The Right does not have their act together, and is not ready for the absolutely vicious fight about to begin.

macavada
October 14, 2005, 10:34 PM
Gingrich? :barf:

I'd like to see either Bill Richardson, or Barak Obama. Anybody now Obama's stance on gun rights? He comes from a pretty un-gun friendly state.

Werewolf
October 14, 2005, 10:51 PM
Heck, I'll vote for you, Werewolf.:D One down - 65 million to go.

Sindawe
October 14, 2005, 11:31 PM
Obama on guns:Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Not one of OUR friends.

GunGoBoom
October 14, 2005, 11:34 PM
Smoke for Dictater in 08!

Ok, why not? You *promise* you'll step down after?

Zedicus
October 15, 2005, 12:16 AM
Ron Paul:D

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 12:28 AM
At this point. A dictator with common sense might be the only way to effectivly get the country back in order with all the idiot's.

I know the founding father's wanted the people to vote on thing's....but just like liberals say they never imagined the AK-47, they also never imagined such rabid stupidity.

meef
October 15, 2005, 01:02 AM
Tommy Frank's might be good, I don't know about his views all to much though. Simply being a general doesn't qualify you in my book....case in point- Wesley Clark

Case in point - Dwight Eisenhower.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 01:16 AM
Meef-

Plenty of good general's made good president's. And Ike was good.

But Clark was a general and I wouldn't want him in the office. Military experience is a great thing for a president to have. But jsut because you are a general doesn't mean I am going to vote for you over the guy with no military experience.

It doesn't hurt, but it also doesn't automaticly make you the best man for the job.

longeyes
October 15, 2005, 01:28 AM
Don't cry for us, Argentina...

There is no Messiah that is going to "save" us. Either we do it or it's over.

Winnisimmet
October 15, 2005, 01:43 AM
And they ask me why I no longer own a papered firearm. Two word answer - Queen Hillary. And then comes the collapse and breakup of the United States as we know it.

confed sailor
October 15, 2005, 01:54 AM
Mark Sanford, SC gov., the last honest man in politics

Barring that can we clone Theodore Roosevelt?

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 02:16 AM
Only if you want the liberals to change their mind's on cloning and research on fetal cells

Schmitty
October 15, 2005, 04:26 AM
Only if you want the liberals to change their mind's on cloning and research on fetal cells


Are you saying that the liberals block stem cell research or are you being sarcastic?

Combat-wombat
October 15, 2005, 04:41 AM
I'd vote for Howard Dean or Bill Richardson... epecially Richardson- I really hope the Democrats stop being friggin' morons for a moment and vote for someone like Richardson in the primary. If Hillary or someone similarly horrible is the Democratic candidate, I'll have to throw away my vote with the Libertarians. I'm assuming the Republicans will run some "moderate" scumbag like McCain or Gulliani (Think: supports gun control and police state authoritarianism. Bush's flaws, multiplied by 20.)

Steam dragon
October 15, 2005, 06:38 AM
Zell Miller

But it will probably be Jeb Bush

Hmm...

Zell for prez, Condi for VP...

THA WINNAH!:neener:

The Crazy Gobbo
October 15, 2005, 07:22 AM
Tom McClintock, too soon?

RealGun
October 15, 2005, 07:23 AM
I dont see any good presidential candidates yet. - beerslurpy

I am at a loss too. Has there ever been "a good presidential candidate"? Seems to me you take what you are offered. Frankly, I think really good people are nuts to want the job. First, it's a death wish, and secondly you won't be able to do or say anything "right". The press thrives on negativity, sharks responding to blood in the water. Good stuff isn't news. Where there isn't bad news, they create some. Where there is a sound policy, they portray it as demonic, pandering to antiestablishmentarians. Sniping at the President is a blood sport.

Just a reminder to those in this thread that the original request was for someone electable. He or she cannot be unattractive, must be refreshingly articulate, and cannot be ultra conservative or ultra liberal. Selecting someone based upon litmus tests for what type of Supreme Court nominees they might pick would be an aberration. If that's what happens, this country is truly broken. I think form will win the election, not substance. Thus the Presidency will not make as much difference as people seem to think. Senate races continue to be the most important elections for this country. Those Senators up for reelection in 2006 may well have enough momentum from a win to run for President in the following year. Granted Senators are rarely successful candidates.

Sheslinger
October 15, 2005, 09:50 AM
Tom McClintock.

Alex45ACP
October 15, 2005, 10:09 AM
Help us, Ron Paul. You're our only hope :(

Moondoggie
October 15, 2005, 10:11 AM
I'm hoping Condi can be convinced to run. I'd like nothing better than a president who hasn't spent decades angling and coniving for the job. Harry Truman is an excellent example and one of my personal heros despite my Republican orientation. Eisenhower was a general who never held elected office, and he was an OK president. Grant kinda sucked.

Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo are viable possibilities.

Werewolf's agenda in post #23 exactly mirrors my ideas for how to set things right in this country. Not only would I vote for him, I'd go door-to-door AND send $$$$$!!!

Hey, Werewolf, I'd be happy to serve as your VP. I wasn't a general, but I was a Master Gunnery Sergeant. Anybody who's ever been in the military knows that the senior NCO's actually run the show and get things done. Generals just have "big picture" ideas, the senior NCO's convert ideas into action.

dpesec
October 15, 2005, 10:21 AM
Case in point - Dwight Eisenhower.
You forgot Washington, Jackson.
Then of course there was the infamous US Grant
So it could go both ways.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 10:35 AM
Are you saying that the liberals block stem cell research or are you being sarcastic?
Sarcastic.

Werewolf
October 15, 2005, 11:22 AM
Regarding the founders:they also never imagined such rabid stupidity.Actually they did...

Which is why back then one had to be a land owner to vote. The landed gentry were in general well educated and had a vested interest in the well being of the nation.

Now the only vested interest most folks have is in how much they can steal out of the pockets of those that actually produce something. The designated thieves and redistributors are our elected officials.

And thus like all the other democracies in history went so goes ours - the people have finally figured out they can vote themselves into prosperity by stealing from the public coffers filled by those who actually produce something other than hot air.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 11:51 AM
Well stated and very interesting point Werewolf. And something I overlooked, actually I agree completly.

Part of the problem I agree is that people with no intrest of the country are now allowed to make decision's. In fact, that could care less if the country goes belly up and will expect someone to bail them out like someone has all their live's. So long as the goverment take's care of them like a lil baby, they could care less if the people in power are capitalist's (esspecialy don't care for that because they have no intention of earning something where a capitalist socity really help's them), comunist, socialist, faciest, or any other ist that could come to your mind.

Course. You can't revert to that system. Cause then oh my god you'd be denying minority's their right to vote. Because of course, minority's are the only one's that find themselve's in impoverished situation's. Maybe not have to be a land owner. But perhap's something to insure you have at least a basic understanding of politic's other then one guy is a democrat so he must be for taking care of me and the other is an evil republican.

longeyes
October 15, 2005, 11:55 AM
"And thus like all the other democracies in history went so goes ours - the people have finally figured out they can vote themselves into prosperity by stealing from the public coffers filled by those who actually produce something other than hot air."

And if this is so--and I think it is--our priority should not be trying to find an electable candidate for ALL but rather to figure out how we can segregate the producing citizens from the non-producing politically. If we do not draw a line around the values we cherish we will wind up being diluted into nothingness, maybe in as brief as one generation, maybe even less with a little help from Hillary and her friends.

stevelyn
October 15, 2005, 12:36 PM
Werewolf,

1) I would suggest putting us back on the gold standard.

2) Get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank and hand the responsibility of "coining money and setting the value thereof" back to the Congress per the Constitution.

3) Withdrawl US membership from the UN, make the bastages pay all their parking and traffic citations, deport them to Zimbabwe or other hellhole of their choice and sell off all UN assets.

4) Liberate Canada.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 12:51 PM
And if this is so--and I think it is--our priority should not be trying to find an electable candidate for ALL but rather to figure out how we can segregate the producing citizens from the non-producing politically. If we do not draw a line around the values we cherish we will wind up being diluted into nothingness, maybe in as brief as one generation, maybe even less with a little help from Hillary and her friends.
Unfortunatly, that can't be done without force. And selling that that sort of force is what needed is going to be next to impossible.

Smoke
October 15, 2005, 02:32 PM
Ok, why not? You *promise* you'll step down after?

Yep, or you can personally shoot me.

I suspect that after 4 years of complete and total control of the country and complete and total scrutiny by the press, I'd be ready to shoot myself.

Smoke

AZLibertarian
October 15, 2005, 04:11 PM
While this doesn't exactly answer the question, and he certainly won't be on any ballot in '08, it'd be hard not to vote for this guy (http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/10/05/bite-sized-wisdom-barry-goldwater-2/).

idakfan
October 15, 2005, 04:28 PM
Hillary won't run because she'll lose.

She's too polarizing.

rory1957
October 15, 2005, 04:45 PM
Condi Rice would be nice - and scare da hell out of the left. What, a woman, an african american woman from the poor South, highly intelligent, highly educated - and the woman can respond to a question far better than most. Hilary's nightmare, I say, especially if her (Condi's) Veep is a caucasian male from the South or the East.

"Where is the weapon with which I enforce your bondage ? You give it to me every time you open your mouth. -Frank Herbert

White Horseradish
October 15, 2005, 04:47 PM
Jesse Ventura. He might not fix everything, but he's sure to shake things up. :neener:

longeyes
October 15, 2005, 05:27 PM
Unfortunatly, that can't be done without force. And selling that that sort of force is what needed is going to be next to impossible.

I don't buy either premise.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 05:46 PM
Don't buy what?

That the fed's will use force to keep a state from breaking off? I doubt very highly a state will actually be allowed to leave the union peacefully.

Or that it will be hard to sale forceably leaving? Sure, some people will cheer it. On the course thing's are going it might be doable. But in a lot of state's you are goign to have a hell fo a time getting that to fly.

idakfan
October 15, 2005, 05:48 PM
Jesse Ventura. He might not fix everything, but he's sure to shake things up. :neener:

No 3d party will ever win, the statist establishment media would never allow it, nor to mention would the electronic voting machines. :neener:

Ventura didn't even support concealed carry. And the guy who ran for Governor under the Reform Party didn't even support Concealed Carry during the election, only the Republican did and he won.

Talk about being out of touch...

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 06:13 PM
"Ventura didn't even support concealed carry"
But he supported hooker's. Some would count that as a fair trade.

Monkeyleg
October 15, 2005, 06:55 PM
It's becoming obvious who is positioning themselves for a run right now: McCain, Giuliani, Hillary, New Gingrich, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney, and a few others I've missed.

None of them are acceptable. No Republican I've seen can win. Except Condi Rice.

It's been over fifty years since we've had someone who previously hadn't held elected office be president. If the Republicans had any gonads at all, they'd start grooming Rice now.

It would be the most exciting race in US history.

If they run McCain or Giuliani, I'm staying home.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 07:00 PM
If they run one of those to, I am becoming either a libertarian or constatutionalist, depending how conservative I feel on that particular day.

longeyes
October 15, 2005, 07:33 PM
The circumstances in which secession would be welcomed or feasible would be emotional, explosive. We are not there. Yet.

I like McClintock, Tancredo, others. But I believe, joining other posters, that Condi Rice has the best chance of actually winning in a head-to-head against Hillary. And we already know her position on 2A.

Moondoggie
October 15, 2005, 08:47 PM
I walked up on a discussion about Condi for President at a local auction this afternoon.

Out of several semi-rednecked SE Nebraska folks, everybody seemed to favor the idea of her as President. Nobody had anything negative to say about the idea, and in this neck of the woods (uni-racial) it's not uncommon to hear older folks use the "N-word" once in awhile in public. There was also unaminous agreement that Hillary was a no-go.

One of the guys asked me if I'd be willing to work on a local effort to organize a campaign for Condi. I gave him my name & #. Don't know if it will go anywhere, but she's the first potential candidate in my adult life that I'd be willing to support with more than just a vote.

I think Mitt Romney is a reasonably OK guy...better in my book than McCain or Gulliani, although I don't think it would be the end of the world if Gulliani were to become President.

lostone1413
October 15, 2005, 09:02 PM
Far as Rice and her stand on the 2nd amendment don't bet you know it. Did she say anything about the illegal confiscation of guns in New Orleans? Wouldn't a true supporter of the 2nd be raising some H**L over that happened? I look at her as a Bush appointed person. Other words if she wasn't like GWB she wouldn't be were she is. I guess you could look at her as being on the side of the Constitution if you believe GWB is on the side of the Constitution. I for one if I vote will vote 3rd party. Better to vote your belief then who you think is the lesser of two evils. With the Republicans in control of both houses and in the white house I for one am waiting for them to do something to show they are on our side. Sofar all i've seen is the Constitution going down the tubes. I voted for GWB twice but wish I voted 3rd party or stayed home. I for one can't see how we would be in worst shape as a nation if he would have lost

Barbara
October 15, 2005, 09:04 PM
Rice/Sanford would be my dream team.

longeyes
October 15, 2005, 09:18 PM
It's true that Rice got a hand-up from W. and is part of the Bush team. But where Bush and Condi R. differ is that Condi had significant accomplishments in her own right pre-Bush, not just significant friends.

How many major political figures have ever described themselves as "Second Amendment absolutists?" Those folks are few and far-between these days.

Grey54956
October 15, 2005, 09:26 PM
If Ted Nugent were to run, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

CAPTAIN MIKE
October 15, 2005, 09:37 PM
In no specific order, the following would likely make us proud:

Fred Thompson - former Senator from Tennessee (kicks ass & takes names)
Rudy Juliani - former Mayor of New York (can rally and inspire us)
Condoleeza Rice - most intelligent in D.C. (American bootstrap success story)
J.C. Watts - former Congressman from Oklahoma (American success story)
Oliver North - USMC Retired (hero, patriot, kicks ass & takes names)
Sean Hannity - conservative talk show host (patriot, promotes freed)
My brother Joe -- General and All-Around Squared Away Guy (all the above)

shermacman
October 15, 2005, 10:38 PM
I voted for GWB twice but wish I voted 3rd party or stayed home. I for one can't see how we would be in worst shape as a nation if he would have lost

I have one word for you:

"John Forbes Kerry"

Get real people. Say this: "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of The United States of America".

Put your protest votes aside; there is real danger, right in front of you. W is not perfect, but there are worse choices.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 11:06 PM
yes sherm, sometimes you are forced into the lesser of two evils.

But latly, dubya has been pissing me off

Monkeyleg
October 15, 2005, 11:12 PM
Captain Mike, with all due respect, Fred Thompson allowed himself to let John Glenn run out the clock during the Senate hearings on foreign contributions to the Clinton campaign. Glenn got another ride on a space ship for his loyalty, and Thompson disappeared into oblivion.

Rudy Giuliani won't win many votes outside NYC.

J.C. Watts is unknown, except for those who watch Fox.

Oliver North? The only thing that people know about him is that he did something bad. They can't tell you what it was, but that's what the press has told them for seventeen years.

Chrontius
October 15, 2005, 11:52 PM
Force Congress to establish a fast track appeals court that only deals with death penalty cases. Each death penalty would get one automatic appeal to the court and if upheld would be executed within 7 days. The execution would be public and be televised by all visual media live. This would make the death penalty an actual deterent.

Any other suggestions for my platform?

Werewolf for PRESIDENT in 2008! Hoooooooowwwwwwlllllll!

Have you ever read the book "Truth Machine" (or something along those lines)?

Such an idea was implemented, the "swift and sure" plan. It lead to huge increases in murder rates as professional criminals killed all possible witnesses.
Never mind the fact that they were executing at least ten times as many innocent people as before under the new plan.

mnrivrat
October 16, 2005, 12:21 AM
Interesting that Condi Rice's name comes up so often .. I would vote for her in a heartbeat over Hilary .

Also there seems to be an underlying concern of Hilary getting the democratic nomination and being elected president. I think that is a ligitiment fear ,and all to possible nightmare.

McCain seems to be a democrat in a see through disguise . If the democrats weren't after the distruction of the 2nd amendment as a party plateform ,as well as individual basis , it would maybe help open the field up.

This could be a real hard election . In my opinion we have come far enough down the 2 party system into a state of political corruption that will be impossible to change without major reform . I see few options for that reform.

RealGun
October 16, 2005, 07:19 AM
I have decided that I would prefer not to have Condi Rice because I don't think she would have a productive relationship with Congress. We should be reminded that she had a tough confirmation as Secrerary of State. Being pro-gun is not enough, but I certainly understand the attraction to her. I think Elizabeth Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchison, each Senators and seasoned politicians, would be a better President.

I would prefer that gender not be a deciding factor, so I do think it is important to counter Hillary with another woman. I don't think women always vote on real politics....the kind that actually run the country, protect and promote the economy, and keep the country secure. With all due respect, a President has to be more than likable. Having two women neutralizes the draw on female voters that only one would have and restores the debate to issues.

RealGun
October 16, 2005, 07:58 AM
If Ted Nugent were to run, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

I wouldn't feel good about being a single issue voter or in believing a rock star was remotely qualified.

Werewolf
October 16, 2005, 11:46 AM
I have decided that I would prefer not to have Condi Rice because I don't think she would have a productive relationship with Congress.Welllll...

That might not be such a bad thing. I imagine a president that used the veto pen quite liberally would be very effective if for no other reason than a congress that can't legislate can't screw things up more than they already are.

On the other hand given that the congress expects a presidential veto one of two things would happen:

They'd just stop bothering with any legislation that they weren't assured had 2/3 support - a good thing.

Or

They'd pass legislation normally and then just automatically override all vetoes - scary.

Moondoggie
October 16, 2005, 12:02 PM
I don't think a President who has a contentious relationship with Congress is necessarily a bad thing. Has GW even vetoed 1 bill from Congress?

One of my chief complaints about the Republicans is that despite holding the White House and majority in both the House & Senate they continue to let the Democrats set the agenda with their propaganda. The Republicans don't have enough gonads to call them out, then tell them to sit down and shut up. If the shoe were on the other foot it would be a totally different story. Kennedy, Schumer, Rangle, and Pelozi et al would run roughshod over the Republicans with great glee and reckless abandon!

Elizabeth Dole or Kay Baily Hutchinson would be just more of the same milktoast we're getting from GW.

We need a President who will tell it like it is, and go for the throat.

bjbarron
October 16, 2005, 12:06 PM
Ron Paul & Mark Sanford - Good Choices for us, but not many people beyond us know about them.

Condi Rice - Good choice again for us, but non-elected, non-executive types don't really get the experience needed to convince voters they can do the job...governors generally get the nod.

McCain & Gulliani - RINOs in the extreme. I don't see much difference between them and Hillary on 2A issues.

Zell Miller - Would win in a heartbeat, but would he run. Senators have a lot of baggage they carry around. I'd vote Dem for the first time in my life.

My dream team sees Condi as VP to gain executive branch experience and for her own run down the road. Top of the ticket can be just about anybody and they would win....the problem is I don't see anyone of Condi's quality with the national exposure right now that would be worth voting for....

Paul/Rice, Sanford/Rice all sound great.

But we'll probably wind up with something like McCain/Bush.....gag.

lostone1413
October 16, 2005, 12:36 PM
Still can't believe that anyone who really supports the 2nd amendment in goverment could be quite with what went on in New Orleans. If someone can be quiet with that going on no way will they support the 2nd amendment if in office.

Far as one said the Democrats are setting the agenda nothing could be farther from the truth. What is going on in the country is exactly what the Republicans want to go on. The Patroit act the homeland security the war campaign reform the lack of Pro Gun Bills. Oh least we forget about the illegals when everything i've see says 70-80% of the Americans want the borders closed.The trouble is the Republicans in control of the White House that the Senate and Congress. When they try to blame the Democrats for what is going on they look like a bunch of morons. I voted Republican all my life. Since 911 looking at what is going on in this country I can say the Republicans are every bit as much the enemy of our Constitution as the Democrats are.

TMM
October 16, 2005, 01:11 PM
my friend, nfl1990, seems like a worthy candidate...

Art Eatman
October 16, 2005, 02:46 PM
lostone 1413 said, "Still can't believe that anyone who really supports the 2nd amendment in goverment could be quite with what went on in New Orleans."

What "went on" didn't last long enough for it to come to the attention of the Secretary of State. Sure, idiots babbled, but it all got shut down pretty darned quickly.

The SecState has more to do than to worry about a teapot tempest, given the state of today's world. It's not like she has time to sit around on the Internet and offer opinions on everything that goes on, here there and yonder.

Art

lostone1413
October 16, 2005, 03:36 PM
So I seen it on the news read about it in the paper but the Secretary Of State knew nothing about it? Oh more important things then upholding the constitution? Guess that is why we have
1-Campaign Reform
2-Patroit Act
3-Homeland Security
4-CAFTA
5-Open Borders

A goverment that now wants
1-Full authority of the national guard in an emergency
2-monitor what you read
3-A national ID

Say your right! We do have allot in office with so much on their mind Guess they just don't have time to uphold something as meaningless as the Constitution. So much for the Republic. Well when we as a people don't demand the Constitution be upheld I guess we don't deserve it anyway

Moondoggie
October 16, 2005, 04:23 PM
I don't get the tirade about Rice and the gun confiscations in NO.

Secretary of State has nothing to do with what takes place in NO.

I also did not hear anything about it out of the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Agriculture, Housing & Urban Development, Education, TREASURY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, etc.

It's not her job to swing at every pitch when she's not even at bat.

I realize that this a firearms related forum, but having a rigid 2A litmus test is gonna leave you with a very tiny field of acceptable candidates. 2A is never going to command the attention of the economy, health care, social security, homeland security, and foriegn policy. If it were that big of an issue in the grand scheme of things, we'd have already heard the "Shot Heard 'Round the World", reduex.

I think that the pendulem is swinging in the proper direction, but it takes time. It took 60 yrs ('34 to '94) to get as far left as it did.

slzy
October 16, 2005, 04:30 PM
Fred Thompson also was somehow in cahoots with mccain.I might vote for someone who would make Pat Buccanhan sec. of state

lostone1413
October 16, 2005, 05:34 PM
Think the pendulem is swinging in the proper direction? Better read some of the bills passed since 911. Next i'll hear how Pro Gun GWB and the AG are

Moondoggie
October 16, 2005, 05:58 PM
I was referring to CCW in almost every state and the sunset of the AWB. Those are most definately improvements in RKBA.

lostone1413
October 16, 2005, 06:21 PM
The CCW are state issues. GWB has nothing to do with it. Then again if he was pro gun him and the Republicans could force the states to honor the 2nd amendment rights. Being the Constitution is the law of the land. Far as the AWB expired. GWB said more then once he would sign the ban. His AG has come out in favor of the ban. You would have never had the ban to start with under Clinton if the Republican controled Senate didn't go along with it.

macavada
October 16, 2005, 10:23 PM
The SecState has more to do than to worry about a teapot tempest, given the state of today's world. It's not like she has time to sit around on the Internet and offer opinions on everything that goes on, here there and yonder.


Yeah. Her time is taken up shopping for expensive shoes and going to see Spamalot in NY.:rolleyes:

Monkeyleg
October 16, 2005, 10:50 PM
Leave it to Macadamia to distill political arguments to their essence.

Macadamia, do you have a problem with Dr. Rice buying shoes?

macavada
October 16, 2005, 10:54 PM
I have a problem with Rice being a liar.

Art Eatman
October 16, 2005, 11:08 PM
macavada, I'm not sure what "lie" you're referring to, but between you and lostone 1413, it sounds like her only road to Second Amendment purity would be for her to resign and begin fulminating against such things as the San Francisco handgun ban and the various gun control laws of New Jersey and Maryland. Oh, and New Orleans.

Art

GunGoBoom
October 17, 2005, 01:28 AM
I can think of many far, far worse than Condi Rice. Quite a few better too, but none quite as electable. To the extent that Rice may be a "liar", I would venture a guess that that has 98% to do with her being beholden to towing the company line of her boss, one George the Shrub.

dasmi
October 17, 2005, 01:34 AM
I'd like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed and George Bush get another term. He's my number one guy.
:barf:

CAnnoneer
October 17, 2005, 01:44 AM
A liar is a liar. And she is a liar.
A congressional liar.
A national liar.

I have not seen anybody blink so much during testimony, since Richard Nixon.

How can anyone argue in favor of presidency for a person that would look you in the eye and lie shamelessly for hours? :rolleyes:

el44vaquero
October 17, 2005, 02:10 AM
Ted Nugent

Uncle Ted will make all the bad things go away.

Vote The Nuge 08

Too bad Colin Powell won't run.

PCGS65
October 17, 2005, 03:19 AM
Clint Eastwood, I'd love to see him carry his .44 automag on inauguration day bulging from his suit on national TV. ;) During his speech he should say, Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. I'm going to clean out this government corruption for the people that's been long over due.

So when I walk into your office and say with all this corruption going on I can't remember if I fired 5 or 6 shots your done. Do you feel lucky politician......well do you?......Go a head make my day.

That would be great wouldn't it! Oh heck then I woke up and was late for work! :cuss:

Gary H
October 17, 2005, 03:32 AM
I hope that tongue was heavily planted in cheek a few pages back when someone listed Howard Dean.

Tom McClintock is my man, but he doesn't have a chance.

Condi can beat Hillary. Right now, beating Hillary is the first requirement. Anyone know her stand on illegal immigration?

RealGun
October 17, 2005, 08:53 AM
Right now, beating Hillary is the first requirement.

Sound familiar?

Ric
October 17, 2005, 09:12 AM
I only know one thing.....the next election won't be about any issues that they will do anything about or what is best for the people. The next election will be about soundbites, photo ops, and image.
money raising and as much division that the pundits can muster.:banghead:


Which will prove my point that rabid politics is a religion unto itself.:(

thereisnospoon
October 17, 2005, 11:44 AM
I think it's a sad state of affairs when we can only think of one or two people who are possibly electable.

lostone1413
October 17, 2005, 12:30 PM
I think it's a sad state of affairs when we can only think of one or two people who are possibly electable.
Trouble the one or two you can think of you wish you didn't have to vote for them either.Shame the Republicans control everything and all they seem to do is destroy the Constitution more and more. Since 911 forthe first time I can see that the Republicans are as big an enemy of freedom as the Democrats are. So much for the Republic

cbsbyte
October 17, 2005, 04:45 PM
I'd vote for Hillary. Shes the Man.

Lupinus
October 17, 2005, 04:49 PM
byte.....I hope that was filled with sarcasm and not anywhere near serious

RealGun
October 17, 2005, 05:16 PM
I'd vote for Hillary. Shes the Man.

If here because you own a gun and value doing so, you will not seriously consider voting for Hillary. With only 21 posts, you might need more boot camp time here.

cbsbyte
October 17, 2005, 05:21 PM
Of course I vote for Democrats I live in Massachusetts. :rolleyes:

Gun Owners for Hillary.

RealGun
October 17, 2005, 05:55 PM
Gun Owners for Hillary.

Soon to be ex-gun owners for Hillary

Monkeyleg
October 17, 2005, 06:13 PM
RealGun, I believe that cbsbyte is pulling our collective legs. ;)

KriegHund
October 17, 2005, 06:29 PM
Ide like to see Teddy Roosevelt.

Im always amazed at how much people like Franklin Roosevelt. He was probably one of the most socialistic presidents ever. Add to that the fact he didnt want to get involved in ww2, and the fact that he served 4 terms while making a law limting others to two...

I dont like the man, and i can barely see why others do.

But Teddy roosevelt, by all means....

I would give the next president a better than even chance of presiding over the collapse of the United States. Too much paper and not enough durable goods production. Too many service jobs that aren't really necessary but are around when times are good. Too many " take care of me's".

Much agreed there. We are way to much based on credit, and we arent making any tradable goods.

Was it Thomas Jeffreson who said "A nation needs a good revolution every 20 years or so."

A tyrant, more so than a dictator. A charismatic Authority. Let him or her do what needs to be done- Eliminate federal governements intereference in our lives. Give us more micromanagement (civil councils, etc) and reduce terms to 8 months. Reduce pay to the minimum and a little extra recquired to live decently. Monitor all communications between elected officials, and i mean all. No 4 month vacations for elected officials. No 500,000$ pay rates.

Control illegal immigration, and keep raw goods production here in the US. Limit foreighn trade. (Ironic, because those limitations would violate free trade rights.)

Were getting to the way chicago, NYC etc was in the 1920's/30's.

That the fed's will use force to keep a state from breaking off? I doubt very highly a state will actually be allowed to leave the union peacefully

You know, i beggining to think the South had it right more and more often these days.

Very small federal govt that can help organize nation wide things such as war. the rest of the time, there is a slightly larger state govt and a larger county govt. Not quite the way the south wanted it, but its a somewhat similar idea.

cbsbyte
October 18, 2005, 12:05 AM
After the Bush era, and the mess the Republican congress has created for itself, by being weak, no true conservative is going to be electable, and it is probably more likely that people will want a Democrat as a leader. I don't like to say this but in 2008 there not going to be many choices, either McCain, Guilanini or Hillary. And with that lot it really does not matter who you vote for, it will all be the same. And if a conservative like Newt happens to win the primary Republican, and Hillary wins the Democrat ticket you can bet Hillary will win the election by a landslide. Hopefully at least the House will stay in Republican hands, I doubt the Senate will after 2006.

Lupinus
October 18, 2005, 12:10 AM
Right now most hope is lost reguardless if it is democrat or republican hand's.

And people just don't care enough to get involved and look into the peopel they vote for. Yellow dog democrats and yellow dog republican's, it is idiocy. My voter card say's republican. But both major parties are to strong for their own (and the countries) good. I think our best bet is the libertarian party. If they get rid of some of the religious reason's then maybe the constitutional party, libertarian has more chance at election though I think.

DRZinn
October 18, 2005, 01:10 AM
I think our best bet is the libertarian party.Welcome!

Lupinus
October 18, 2005, 01:24 AM
Im border line on that lol.

I think the constitution party might be a tad better. But, they have to much religion into them. Plus they seem to have all typicily right ing belief's

The libertarian's have views from both side's. They need to moderate a bit to identify better with the average person though IMO. But they are elctable with a little moderation and not compltly hard nosed on issue's. Most american's wont support the total legalization of drug's, or the total open market for firearm's. And few will ever agree with open boarder's (least thats how I read it on their site is how the view the boarder situation.)

So they get more moderate's and less hard nosed and they have a good chance. It'll take time but they have a chance. Maybe a few elections before you get enough on the national level to be really noticed. Few more to start gettign senetor's in there from the libertarians. I don't see a libertarian president or domination in the congress anytime soon.

mr.trooper
October 18, 2005, 02:43 AM
Dont worry guys. My Cousin is involed in local politics, and is dead set on becoming president soem day :D

We have an agreement that once this happens, she will use media brain-washing to make herself supreme dictator. I, Of course, will be the minister of Interior. This being said, i pledge to put a rifle in every home, and pistol in every glove-box. Soldiers will once agian be allowed whatever war trophies they want, and we will bomb/raid a new hippie nation OF YOUR CHOOSING every newyears :evil:

Lupinus
October 18, 2005, 02:45 AM
only one trooper?

And no ammo?

RealGun
October 18, 2005, 04:48 AM
After the Bush era, and the mess the Republican congress has created for itself, by being weak, no true conservative is going to be electable, and it is probably more likely that people will want a Democrat as a leader. I don't like to say this but in 2008 there not going to be many choices, either McCain, Guilanini or Hillary. And with that lot it really does not matter who you vote for, it will all be the same. And if a conservative like Newt happens to win the primary Republican, and Hillary wins the Democrat ticket you can bet Hillary will win the election by a landslide. Hopefully at least the House will stay in Republican hands, I doubt the Senate will after 2006.

If you know so little about politics to find the Republicans and Democrats indistinguishable, you should spend some time watching Senate debates on CSPAN. It helps to know who your friends are and who is truly dangerous..

lostone1413
October 18, 2005, 10:20 AM
Both parties have the same goal That is to destroy your freedoms. Anyone who thinks the Republicans and King George are Conservatives need to look at some of the bills passed since the King has been in.

If you enjoyed reading about "The next President" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!