i voted for kucinich. he is just crazy enough to work.

I voted for Ron Paul, because after what's happened recently, I want the "free market" to destroy the economy, and for states rights to allow state-sanctioned racism, bigotry, forced prayer in schools, and abortion to be put back in the dark alley where it belongs!

Kucinich. He's got spine.

I tried to pick a cross section of people I felt everyone would be excited about. I don't think people like McCain or Huckabee would receive anything outside of ironic votes from QM or BillO, so that's why you see a majority of Democrats up there.

Why not Lyndon LaRouche, Michael Steele or Sam Brownback?

Those three are just as viable as Barr.

Nader would've been a good one to put up there. Missed opportunity.

^ I actually would've picked him.

I picked Ron Paul because I think he's spot on when it comes to foreign policy. That's pretty much all that matters to me since I'm not from the US (I don't share his views on abortion at all).

I, too, am in the Ron Paul camp. After listening to most of the points each candidate made, he's the only one that consistently made any sense.

can i vote to revert back 1000 years or so and live in egalitarian tribal communities on the unexploited texas plains????


i actually voted for obama, mostly to make a point that more candidates SHOULD campaign in texas because its not as republican as it thinks it is. obama took the 4 major metropolitan areas as well and easily could have taken more if he had campaigned.

i probably would have voted for cynthia mckinney had she been a write in candidate in my state.

i will abstain from this vote until tribes are a choice.

I think McCain should have been on the list, same with Nader.

Better yet, put Palin on the list instead of McCain, I'm sure she'd win this time.

^better yet, put Putin on the list

^ I thought you didn't like Putin.

Kucinich would be a fun and great Speaker of the House, Majority Whip, or even Supreme Court justice. But Obama has got that presidential vibe to him that Kucinich just doesn't have.

I would like to see Ron Paul... and maybe Kucinich.

I'm mixed between Ron Paul and Kucinich too, they both have similar ideas about foreign policy, but their ideas domestic policy is very different. Both good, but different.

At some point I might have voted for Gravel, because he just makes so much damn sense. But I dunno.

Mike Gravel and Kucinich.

Am sorry but Ron Paul does make good points in most cases but he his economic views are counter productive. I think most people are too swayed by his strong rhetoric and don't delve deeper into specific policies.

Lyndon LaRouche? ROFLMAO.

i wonder what sort things rp could do to make healthcare (though it wouldn't be socialized).
with his economic and medical background, good things could come.

Science is dying in America. NSF might have it's budget completely eliminated. NIST, NIH, NOAA, NRL, ANL, have all seen there budget sharply cut when compared to inflation. And you ask, who would I vote for?

You people. And you wonder why we have such a bad economy. The days of "Made in USA" are over people. We cannot compete with the foreign labor. Americans innovate. We make new things that no one has thought of, which are conceived in national labs and universities. Even Google was invented at a University.

"Google began in January 1996, as a research project by Larry Page, who was soon joined by Sergey Brin, two Ph.D. students at Stanford University in California."

And you ask me who I would vote for. Do you have any idea how bad it is and has been for science? This is ridiculous. Is there a choice?

Obama is the only one of those candidates who had a legitimate science policy. No one ever asked Ron Paul "What are you gonna do about Science?". Why? Because he would have said, "I would eliminate the NSF and all other research institutions and give tax incentives to corporations to do research."

And if you seriously think that is a viable economic philosophy, then you need to get off your computer, because that was also invented at a University.

No Sarah Palin!?

I don't understand this poll at all.

Each one of these people were in the POTUS race, and only one of them won. The rest barely got any votes whatsoever.

>> ^volumptuous:
I don't understand this poll at all.

Perhaps the results are skewed by the fact that a number of voters here were not eligible to vote in U.S. elections.

Ideologically I probably fit more closely behind Kucinich. However, I don't think he would make an effective leader given the nature of people and ideological atmosphere that exists in this country. People have to agree enough to 'play along' for something to work.

In the same vein I think Ron Paul would work too, if people 'played along', but they don't. Free market would be great if a lot of the people who owned(ran) the businesses actually cared about the success of the business as opposed to the personal wealth they generate from the business. There isn't enough of a penalty to keep these people from basically looting the companies until they fail. The companies fail, they leave with their pockets stuffed with money get hired on at another place or start another business, lather rinse repeat.

Hell if I had my way you wouldn't need government at all because people would just be naturally inclined to act in a responsible manner.

I agree with much of what the bedazzling Saint Paul says on foreign policy, but his (privatize everything) economic ideas are just plain goofy. Maybe Ron Paul could build an undersea utopia to use as a guinea pig for his economic flights of fancy. If not undersea, then maybe in a humongous zeppelin. (If Ron Paul is reading this: Please don't fly your libertarian death trap over my house. Thank you.)

>> ^jonny:
>> ^volumptuous:
I don't understand this poll at all.
Perhaps the results are skewed by the fact that a number of voters here were not eligible to vote in U.S. elections.


Upon further reflection, I see that each of these candidates (sans Obamessiah) received precisely the same amount of votes for their candidacy as they have here in Blanky's poll.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
...but his (privatize everything) economic ideas are just plain goofy.


Yes, giving responsibility to the people instead of a monolithic government is a goofy concept. It's called freedom. We could do without it.

How is privatizing social security giving responsibility to individuals? It's giving all of our money to giant corporations. Not sure if you've noticed, but you're of a very unique group of people who really wanted Bush's plan to privatize shit like SS. Not just unique, but very very small.

I guess if you want the freedom to have all of your money stolen, empty your bank account and light it all on fire.

This is why Bob Barr and Ron Paul each got 40 votes in their candidacies. People across the country yelled in unison "are you fucking nuts?"


And why is it people who like Ron Paul's economic and foreign policy issues, are totally OK with his pro-discrimination, anti-union, and anti-abortion policies?

Civics lesson for blankfist: Our Democratic style of government is of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE. When we give parts of our country away to the super-rich, it does not make us any more responsible or any more free. On the contrary, it strips away freedom, transparency, oversight and control. What you suggest is feudalism, which is fine, if that is what you want to believe. Just don't mistake feudalism for freedom, you fucking serf. (the smiley means I'm not mad, mr. sensitive)

Here you go, blankfist, here are some words. You don't mind if I put them in your mouth, do you? We didn't hear you talk of feudalism or privatizing social security, but we just said it because, well, golly, this poll shows Ron Paul in the lead and that makes us darn angry.

>> ^blankfist:
Here you go, blankfist, here are some words. You don't mind if I put them in your mouth, do you? We didn't hear you talk of feudalism or privatizing social security, but we just said it because, well, golly, this poll shows Ron Paul in the lead and that makes us darn angry.


Words certainly wouldn't be the first thing I've jammed into your mouth.

So if you aren't defending Ron Paul's faith based economics, then what ARE you saying? Nice backtrack.

I'm very happy that Ron Paul has been voted president of videosift. Where were those 24 votes in November, when he really needed them?

^I didn't say I wasn't defending Austrian Economics (not faith based economics, whatever that is), but it's as if someone cannot bring up sound money policy and fiscally conservative ideas without the defenders of Obama swooping in like unabashed children, labeling all that oppose him as Republicans and then having a gross orgy in front of us while doing so!

I mean, yeah, you and NetRunner are tops, and that's cool for you two 'cause you're pitching in the orgy, but you think the rest of us like watching the two bottoms (volumptuous and rougy, obviously) get pummeled like that? No man's rectum should be worn as a hat!

But seriously, if you think my idea of restraining government and allowing them less right to our money is somehow analogous to feudalism, then I feel sorry for the chicken little fear-laden world you must live in where you fear your neighbor so much. And, here's a quick civics lesson for you: it's a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Feel free to read up a little bit about it and get back to me when you've learned a little something about this country you live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic#Purpose_and_scope

Blanky

We don't need to put words in your mouth when two of the five in the poll are libertarians.

And besides, your guy is a Republican and ran for POTUS as a Republican. Barr was a Republican until 2006, when he saw his brand crushed into a zillion ugly pieces. This also happens to coincide with when he saw the light of many other "freedoms" being stolen from us, most of which he was a fervent supporter of the destruction.

So please, out of this list here, other than the Dems, they are Republicans, so why wouldn't we, in this context, label those people as such?

Bring up sound money policy as much as you want. I do not and have never agreed with Obama or any Dems fiscal positions, nor do I agree with the scorched earth policies of Barr and Paul. I think the stimulus package is 50% bullshit, and 50% good. Paul and Barr (and Schiff) thinks it's 100% shit, but they do nothing in the way of telling us what they would do, other than nothing, which is nice if you're well-off, but horrible if you're the father of a few kids who just lost his job and all of their health insurance.

I guess that's why anyone who opposes the glibs are unabashed defenders of Obama


*meh



Here's what your awesome Libertarian is responsible for, and tell me again about how much he loves "freedom":

Defense of Marriage Act (authored and sponsored)
War On Drugs
Federal Prohibition of Medical Marijuana
Blocked legalization of medical marijuana in DC, of which passed by 69%
Patriot Act
For the Iraq Resolution
Proposed banning the practice of Wicca in the military
Clinton impeachment


So, anti-abortion, anti-drugs, anti religious freedom, pro-war, anti-clinton, anti-medical marijuana.

OHHH!!! But now he's sowwwy for all that. Yeah, vote for the most draconian laws to happen during my lifetime, jam the war on drugs down our throats with your buddy Newt, and invade Iraq over a pack of lies... and then tell everyone you're sorry and we'll all just forget.


uggh

>> ^volumptuous:
I don't understand this poll at all.
Each one of these people were in the POTUS race, and only one of them won. The rest barely got any votes whatsoever.


Actually, Ron Paul wasn't on the ballot in enough states to have possibly won the election (I think he was on the ballot in two), and both were the results of 3rd party actors, not Paul or his campaign.

Kucinich wasn't on the ballot anywhere.

And blankfist, we don't usually stuff words in your mouth, you stuff it in ours by accusing us of being opposed to freedom, because we want to perfect government instead of rail against its very existence.

Let's not get all snippy though.

I like Kucinich a lot, and I think he's got a lot of the right ideas. Problem is, he isn't very good at playing the political game. Like Ron Paul, he kind've just goes on these rants, and figures that because he's so self-evidently correct, people will flock to him. He doesn't understand that you have to appeal to people outside your camp in order to win 50% of the votes on election day, and more importantly, to win support from all the institutional dickheads in the Senate and House who might not like your irreverent ways.

Obama has managed to appeal to all camps, inside and outside of Washington, and in terms of long-range policy goals, he isn't very different from Kucinich. He mostly differs in that he realizes he needs to build support before you can enact real (wait for it) Change, and seems very well equipped to build that support.

So, I wouldn't pick anyone but Obama to be our President right now. However, I'd love to see Kucinich run for Senate in 2010.

>> ^volumptuous:

Fail. This is why you're a bottom. Ron Paul is against the War on Drugs, against prohibition of any drug (medicinal or otherwise), against the Patriot Act and against the war in Iraq. I'm not sure where you are getting your facts: Daily Kos? But, they're all wrong.

I guess if you say a lie long enough and loud enough those too ignorant to do research will just believe it, huh?

I'm not sure about Wicca in the military or Clinton's impeachment. I will go on the record as saying I just don't know where RP stands or stood on those.

but, let's be honest, if Obama was in the lead at the top of this silly poll all would be peaceful and quiet in here. Ron Paul isn't president, so chill out. Your guy won, dude. Take a deep breath. Enjoy it. No need to lie. It's just a silly poll.

>> ^NetRunner:

I'm not against government's existence. More delicious words. Om nom nom. I believe it limited government and follow the Jeffersonian principles of government.

^Volumptuous is clearly talking about Bob Barr.

^It's clear volumptuous is your bottom.

^What does that make you? ›•‹

^I'm the guy in the corner with my mouth open trying to catch whatever doesn't stick to anyone's back. Eeeeew. Yeah, I went there.

^A straw works better.

All those choices were either commies or libertarians in complete denial of the dangerous world out there. I could do a better job than all of them combined, with a Lite Brite that reads YOU ROCK! as my VP.

^I'd vote for quantumushroom, but everyone knows that it's actually his Lite Brite who'd be pulling all the strings and handing out no-bid contracts to all his Lite Brite cronies. Luck Fite Brite!

I sold my vote to an immigrant for a bag of cheetos and a neato hovering pen. It hovers!

I voted for Ron Paul

Ron Paul is aight, except for his desire to abolish every public work and every government assistance to the poor. Free markets are less efficient than governments in some areas because (among other reasons) services with high fixed costs and negligible marginal costs (i.e. economies of scale) are underutilized when billed on a per user or per use basis. Aren't you glad you don't have to pay a toll every 5 miles on the interstate to a different owner of a patch of highway? There's also the false dichotomy between individual freedom to create businesses and socialistic safety nets that a lot of people like him stupidly accept.

I voted supported Kucinich in the primary, but voted for Obama.

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

Thanks, Siftie.

This is a great example of where IRV, or a runoff, would completely change the outcome.