Election Confection!

[mooseontheloose]

Since Chewie just owned the creationism vs. evolution debate now and forever, I figured it's time to mix things up a little bit. So, how 'bout them primaries? Candidates are scrounging around for votes like like a binging Whinny the Pooh for honey jars, and all of the sudden everything's up for grabs. What candidates do you like, and what do you think is going to happen? Is Barack destined to ba-rock the White House? Will Hillary be king of the Hill? Will Huckabee bee elected? Will Romney's Mormonosity propel him to victory? Will Giulani...uhh...dang can't come up with a ****y pun for that one. But you get the idea.

[Humor's Hand]

I'll do this the most logical way I can. Process of elimination by order of obsolescence. You will see there is no advantage between Republicans and Democrats. And for the record, this is by comparison to my views of the Presidency, not who in effect, would be the shapeliest for the general populace.

Huckabee: Though I wanted to give someone else the last slot, this guy takes the cake. Both in principle and positions. In general, I disagree with too many of his policies to name here briefly. A big force behind that and another reason I'm knocking him out so soon is his religious stance. Not that he is religious, but that he will bring it into his leadership. I think a man is good if he has a strong belief if something, anything. But he is a greater man if he can keep it from affecting his work. Something Huck can't do. On a smaller note, Sean Connery owns Chuck Norris.

Clinton: Okay, anyone who asserts their middle name without having a cool middle name is lame. It's not like her name is Spartacus Maximus Clinton III. None of my distaste lies in her female persona at all. Women are just as capable as men, but I dunno if I can in all faith Clinton is female. She's uptight and represents the least amount of change of any of them. Why? Her policies are following the popular crowd and changing nonstop. She's too polarizing. It's the same old dong and dance. But wait, let's count (on our fingers if we have to). How long has it been since our last non-Bush and non-Clinton president? That's right, Clinton means a full 24 years bare minimum of the same two families running the country. And where has that gotten us? She's pretentious. A lot of "when's" rather than "if's". She assumes too much just to get us to vote for her. I truly wanted her to be below Huckabee because I think he's a nice guy and she is not...nice at any rate.

-The next two are tied as they both having ****ing and redeeming qualities-

Edwards: His energy policy is pretty sound. Military Drafts are a no-no and abortion is okay and must be treated situation by situation. So far, so good. His health care plan is plausible. And he is one of the best candidates as far as stating the condition of the War on Terror: greatly misnamed. He is at least trying to withdraw from Iraq if a bit sluggishly. And he supports Net Neutrality. These are all decent things. But he's still a very bland nominee. If anything, having him president wouldn't bother me. He at least represents a little less of the older crowd. He's mature and yet he's not old enough to be corrupt or overly reactionary.

Giuliani: I like his health care ideas generally. Not quite private sector yet but it's getting there. It's an empowering "take care of yourself" position. Tsk tsk tsk though. Saying a defensive word or two for the patriot act? Domestic surveillance? Really people. As far as energy and global warming, his stance is fairly hobbled together. He's the right kinda thinking once again in abortion in that, at any rate, you should have the option. Stem cell research is important to him, more bonus points. Even as a Christian he has enough sense to say that teaching evolution is good. I mean ****, anyone got any more logical ideas? No, they don't. His final big marks are on LBGT issues and Immigration. The fact that he supports all forms of civil unions is canceled out by the fact that he is actually trying to preserve livable conditions for illegal immigrants. In conclusion, any good stances canceled out by an unsavory one. And he represents the flip-flopping and *slight* corruption of the older candidates.

THE TOP 3:

Romney: Eh his abortion is alright. Though when he says "only rape, incest, and mother endangerment" are cases for it, he forgets that mothers who aren't financially prepared or for that matter old enough can give a troubled life to these kids rather than waiting for a better time. Let's quicken this up, shall we? Supports No Child Left Behind: Boo. Abstinence-Only Education: Boo. No Prayer in Schools: Yay! Health Care: Sloppy. Against LBGT Rights: Boo. Research in General (Stem Cell, Nanotech, etc.): Yay!!! And his Foreign and Economic Policy are just suitable. Sound enough. And no, his Mormonism has no impact whatsoever. It's not what religion you practice, it's how you let it influence your life.

Ron Paul: The only candidate you don't hear called by their last name. I would certainly be happy to see this guy president. Why? He wants to get rid of stuff. yes, general stuff. His policies are mostly sound and he is for more freedom, less complication. Foreign Policy is nonintervention which allows America to concern itself with America until it has licked its wounds a little. His immigration is defensive. A purge America from its illness kinda thing. He is in favor of free trade which also benefits us, but he's against setting up trade agreements, which has shown to be the counteractive portion of the practice. He wants to spend time on SS which badly needs bandaging. He wants to lessen the overall control of the government and basically, wants us to have our freedoms. Not to do one thing or another, just to have the choice there. This man is the epitome of efficiency. He is the Libertarian's Libertarian.

Obama: This man beats Ron Paul by the skin of his overly contrasted white teeth. And after writing all that I just have, I wonder if I haven't changed my own mind. Nevertheless, I think that Obama represents the change and young face that America needs. His lack of experience seems more of an advantage than an impediment to me. He's going in there doing what he needs to do to fix things, not how he thinks the government works. He is culturally diverse enough to have no bias towards white-bread America. He loves our freedoms (as seen in NN) and he has some other great ideas for the future. It's almost like he's come to us from a year in the future. He doesn't represent the present, he represent what will be, what should be. He's against lobbying, which we need to get rid of. His immigration and energy policies could be reworked a little, sure. But all in all, he's practical. That's where he gets in. He's practical. He's really solid and I think he'll stand strongest in the current of the river of presidential corruption.


Please, I'd love for people to debate this. I realize my post is fairly difficult to digest but this is something I'm well informed about. I'll be old enough by a little over a month to vote and I don't plan on wasting it.

[nirorivers6]

i think you should add the rest of the presidential hopefuls.

[Humor's Hand]

Hrm, maybe I'll outline what I think of them. Honestly I think I've counted just about anyone with any kind of support. Richardson's odds aren't exactly huge. I'll probably get to them tomorrow.

And after that it occurs to me you were probably referring to the poll and not me. Ah well.

[worsethansex]

How about John McCain, who on InTrade, the betting agency that handles live odds for presidential nominations, is currently in first place, and who is second behind Giuliani on the RealClearPolls average of all polls?

[Humor's Hand]

In my humble opinion, polls mean absolutely nothing. If the poll doesn't account for every person who will be voting, it's bound to be pretty inaccurate. I could pick any source I wanted to cite my candidate's of choice popularity. Because odds are there's a different source of equal or greater reliability that says the opposite of you.

No, polls hold too much eccentricity in them. Whether they coincidentally poll a large group of like-minded people, use a poorly selected scale, or some other randomness that throws it out of whack. Not to mention that posting a poll for people to see only alters people's opinion. Any statistic they see will affect them, making the poll slightly less accurate.

In other words, humans are horribly unpredictable and I quite like it that way. I only mean to argue the benefit of candidates. Not their odds. Especially not by using a site that labels itself "prediction market" where it builds an environment for like-minded people.

[nirorivers6]

Hrm, maybe I'll outline what I think of them. Honestly I think I've counted just about anyone with any kind of support. Richardson's odds aren't exactly huge. I'll probably get to them tomorrow.

And after that it occurs to me you were probably referring to the poll and not me. Ah well.

erm, actually i was talkin' to mooseontheloose to add the rest to the poll, but I'd be glad to hear your two cents on the rest.

[worsethansex]

Hrm, maybe I'll outline what I think of them. Honestly I think I've counted just about anyone with any kind of support. Richardson's odds aren't exactly huge. I'll probably get to them tomorrow.

And after that it occurs to me you were probably referring to the poll and not me. Ah well.

erm, actually i was talkin' to mooseontheloose to add the rest to the poll, but I'd be glad to hear your two cents on the rest.

Yeah, man, where's Mike Gravel? He's going to be the next President, dammit! No, really! He is!

[Humor's Hand]

Does anyone know if polls can be edited to include the others? Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson, Hunter, Thompson. Regardless of whether they are even going to get close to a nomination should be irrelevant. They should be in the poll.

I'm too tired to whip up some general knowledge for these guys right now but some time tomorrow I should be able to give a write-in for those of you that want the story on all the candidates. Even if they are told from my belief set, it's better than nothing.

[mooseontheloose]

erm, actually i was talkin' to mooseontheloose to add the rest to the poll...

Yeah I tried to go back and add Bill Richardson and Fred Thompson the poll but couldn't find a way to edit the poll. Those are the only two that slipped my mind, because i was going off of the candidates at the New Hampshire debates. Biden and Dodd already conceded, so they can't really be put on any poll and Kucinic and Gravel are...well...Kucinic and Gravel. Unless anyone knows a way for me to edit the poll you'll have to post your support for lesser tier candidates.

And as for my pick, well [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc]this speech[/ame] pretty much sums up why I support Obama. The people most commonly recognized as the great presidents of the 20th century (Reagen, Kennedy, Roosevelt) are not people who carried immense political experience or appealed to people simply with policy. Rather, it was there ability to gain respect of Americans and give them a reason to hope when all logic pointed for them to do otherwise. This is what Obama does which the other candidates do not; he inspires where others criticize, he tries to build where others try to tear down. These qualities are what make leaders great, and I truly believe that is what we have in Obama: a great leader.