I see two votes for Paul and the red bar goes to infinity

[edit] It's fixed now.

This is a flawed poll. Either it should be "if you had to pick one to be POTUS, which one?"

Or

"Which one would you like to see compete against a democrat"



I'm voting for Paul here, because I want him to be POTUS. If I wanted one to compete against a dem, I'd say Bachman.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

This is a flawed poll. Either it should be "if you had to pick one to be POTUS, which one?"
Or
"Which one would you like to see compete against a democrat"

I'm voting for Paul here, because I want him to be POTUS. If I wanted one to compete against a dem, I'd say Bachman.


The first question you've got is essentially the same as what I asked. I just worded it differently because I wanted it to be clear that I didn't mean your second question.

It's the first sentence of your description that muddles it a bit: "I'm really curious who the loyal Democrats view as the least threatening."

>> ^MarineGunrock:

It's the first sentence of your description that muddles it a bit: "I'm really curious who the loyal Democrats view as the least threatening."


I see where you're coming from now. I'll reword that.

I see there is one vote for Bachmann... some people just want to watch the world burn.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

At least Paul would bring home the troops and close the overseas bases.

I'm holding my vote for Ralph Nader.

I find it funny you people think the candidates will do what they say they"would" do. @dag *cough* *cough*

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think Paul would. He doesn't seem to give much a f*ck for the conventional paths of politics. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he's pushing.>> ^BoneRemake:< br />
I find it funny you people think the candidates will do what they say they"would" do. @dag cough cough

If Palin runs, Palin wins. End of line.

Least harmful? I'm gonna say Gary Johnson or John Huntsman, but that may just be because all I know of them is their relative sanity in the debates.

Of the people who have any real chance of winning, Romney would be the least harmful.

Which is why I'm pretty sure Perry or Bachmann will be the nominee.

>> ^NetRunner:

Least harmful? I'm gonna say Gary Johnson or John Huntsman, but that may just be because all I know of them is their relative sanity in the debates.
Of the people who have any real chance of winning, Romney would be the least harmful.
Which is why I'm pretty sure Perry or Bachmann will be the nominee.


I didn't think Johnson had been allowed into any of the debates yet. I disagree with him on his no tax increases stance (presently universal among the Republicans), but overall I'm a fan.

http://videosift.com/video/Gary-Johnson-speaks-at-CPAC-2011

The very, very, very first debate included Johnson (but didn't include Romney).
>> ^xxovercastxx
:

I didn't think Johnson had been allowed into any of the debates yet.

While I haven't been following the happenings anywhere near as closely as I did 4 years ago, it seems to me that Romney would be the lesser of evils.

Huntsman if I had to pick a republican. He seems the most moderate, worldly and sophisticated; so hopefully more rational.

Who do I want to run against Obama? Bachman or Perry. Neither is electable. I will probably donate a few hundred to help Bachman along. I may also register as a republican to vote in a primary.

As far as Ron Paul goes, you guys are delusional. Yes, he has some laudable positions, especially on the foriegn affairs, but on economics and domestic policy, he is a fruitcake who would turn this country into a bastion of state-level fiefdoms and widespread discrimination. Maybe most of you think you can live with that, but can you live with that when most of the country is non-white, and it may work against you?

Aside from that, Mr. Paul is in his 70s. He would never last out his first term. Same problem with McCain. This is a job that will age you 3 years for every real year.

Lastly, since most of his positions are on the fringe of what his fellow legislators like, Ron Paul would be an impotent President, hamstrung by Congress in a greater fashion than Obama is now.

Palin! Hahahahahahaahha He said PALIN!! Hahahahahaahah

>> ^dag:

At least Paul would bring home the troops and close the overseas bases.


And with the debt at incredible levels, can we afford to do anything besides that?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

But why is it that always seems to be way down on the list. Taken from This site:

III. The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

There are 6000 military bases and/ or military warehouses located in the U.S. (See Wikipedia, February 2007).

Total Military Personnel is of the order of 1,4 million of which 1,168,195 are in the U.S and US overseas territories.

Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:

800 in Africa,
97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
40,258 in South Korea,
40,045 in Japan,
491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore,
113 in Thailand,
200 in Australia,
and 16,601 Afloat.

In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.

In Central Asia about 1,000 are stationed at the Ganci (Manas) Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and 38 are located at Kritsanisi, in Georgia, with a mission to train Georgian soldiers.

In the Middle East (excludng the Iraq war theater) there are 6,000 US military personnel, 3,432 of whom are in Qatar and 1,496 in Bahrain.

In the Western Hemisphere, excluding the U.S. and US territories, there are 700 military personnel in Guantanamo, 413 in Honduras and 147 in Canada.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Paul.