Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Poll: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election?


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 324 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

To Vote, simply *favorite* one of the *Two* posts below:

.

POLL: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election ?

.


33 people marked this as a favorite.

Democrats


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Republicans


9 people marked this as a favorite.

================ END OF CHOICES ====================

.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I vote for the Green Party.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Tensor beat me to it. :(


According to the time stamps, you beat her by two minutes.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Grand Magus wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* one of the *Two* posts below:

POLL: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election ?

Democrats or Republicans

WRONG! [/Dana Carvey as McLaughlin] The correct answer is the Corporatist Party. Next issue:

Grand Magus wrote:
================ END OF CHOICES ====================

WRONG! Have you learned nothing from your time on the intertoobz?


I vote ME! come on everyone, Fueldrop for dictator... i mean president :p


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Grand Magus wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* one of the *Two* posts below:

POLL: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election ?

Democrats or Republicans

WRONG! [/Dana Carvey as McLaughlin] The correct answer is the Corporatist Party. Next issue:

Grand Magus wrote:
================ END OF CHOICES ====================
WRONG! Have you learned nothing from your time on the intertoobz?

.

You are supposed to *favorite* the Democrats post or the Republicans post.

If you are unhappy with this particular poll, than make your own.

And/Or ∅ this thread.

.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Grand Magus wrote:

You are supposed to *favorite* the Democrats post or the Republicans post.

If you are unhappy with this particular poll, than make your own.

And/Or ∅ this thread.

Yeah, I figured out the directions. I was just attempting to inject a bit of humor to delay the inevitable trench-warfare hyper-partisan grar-fest all political posts on Paizo inevitably degenerate into.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I was just attempting to inject a bit of humor to delay the inevitable trench-warfare hyper-partisan grar-fest all political posts on Paizo inevitably degenerate into.

The proper tool is the smurf...but...yeah.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grand Magus wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* one of the *Two* posts below:

.

POLL: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election ?

.

Neither one. Both parties are full of crap. Until the two-party system is destroyed, I will continue to vote 'No Ticket'. The last decent president this country had was well before I was born - Lincoln. Everyone after that has been garbage plain and simple.

Andoran

22 people marked this as a favorite.

The winner is irrelevant. The loser will be the American people either way.


houstonderek wrote:

The winner is irrelevant. The loser will be the American people either way.

Well said.

Andoran

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gendo wrote:
Grand Magus wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* one of the *Two* posts below:

.

POLL: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election ?

.

Neither one. Both parties are full of crap. Until the two-party system is destroyed, I will continue to vote 'No Ticket'. The last decent president this country had was well before I was born - Lincoln. Everyone after that has been garbage plain and simple.

Lincoln was an accident of history. He gets props because of the slavery issue being ended under his watch, but he probably would have been a horrible peacetime president.

You're forgetting the best president we've ever had, period. Teddy Roosevelt. He was the first, last and only president to take on corporate America and slap that b$+!! in the face. He was our only truly Progressive president (Wilson was a joke, and Teddy's nephew was, really, the closest to a dictator we've ever had - another accident of history that he is so highly regarded). The next three on the list are probably the first three (Washington, Adams and Jefferson, any order), then after that you can start the "worst" list. And I'd probably put Clinton down as the best of the worst.


Gendo wrote:
Grand Magus wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* one of the *Two* posts below:

.

POLL: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election ?

.

Neither one. Both parties are full of crap. Until the two-party system is destroyed, I will continue to vote 'No Ticket'. The last decent president this country had was well before I was born - Lincoln. Everyone after that has been garbage plain and simple.

Do you really think neither will win?

And everyone since Lincoln was garbage? And I assume most before him weren't any good either. That's a pretty extreme view. You do realize that no system can rely on getting someone like Lincoln every time. You have to be able to work with lesser mortals.


Most Presidents, for good or ill, were accidents of history. Either in the right place at the right time or inversely the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that the union is still together and that this country is not much worse off is a very great blessing. I may not be a fan of all things concerned with the current administration, nor do I like certain new policies. However I am just as concerned with the few options the opposing side has garnered lately. I wish there was a third choice. Unfortunately there is not one at this time.


Well, Gendo's opinion probably is extreme, because Lincoln's the only one I like, too. Actually, I also like Ulysses S. Grant as well, but he was a terrible president.

Anyway, I have no idea who's going to win the next election. If it's anyone other than Paul, it's just going to be business as usual, i.e., pick fights and bully small countries all over the world, tax breaks for the rich, further immiseration for the toiling masses, etc., ad nauseam. And, even if Paul miraculously wins it probably won't be any better--just different.

Also, voting is for ninnies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The one that's like that other one.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, Gendo's opinion probably is extreme, because Lincoln's the only one I like, too. Actually, I also like Ulysses S. Grant as well, but he was a terrible president.

Anyway, I have no idea who's going to win the next election. If it's anyone other than Paul, it's just going to be business as usual, i.e., pick fights and bully small countries all over the world, tax breaks for the rich, further immiseration for the toiling masses, etc., ad nauseam. And, even if Paul miraculously wins it probably won't be any better--just different.

Also, voting is for ninnies.

So shall we just give up on democracy as a bad idea then? If voting produces such horrible results, should we just give it up and find ourselves a dictator?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You're asking me?!?

International proletarian socialist revolution now!! Here, read these pamphets...


Yeah, I get that.

Worked so well the first time, didn't it? But that's off-topic.

While I actually agree with you about a lot of things and think the US needs to move a long way left, I think revolution is far less likely to get any good chance than elections are. And I think elections aren't very likely to. :)

Socialist democracies seem to be a much better system for the people that live in them either the more capitalist nations or the products of communist revolutions. The question is, how to get there from here?


You guys do realize that Lincoln, while not necessarily a bad president (he DID keep the Union together, after all), didn't particularly care about the Constitution? He ignored it more than once. He was what we needed in the Civil War, but I wouldn't want him right now. I would, however, want FDR or Teddy. Either would be awesome. FDR may have been the most dictatorial president ever (except maybe Lincoln), but he got things done.


thejeff wrote:

Yeah, I get that.

Worked so well the first time, didn't it? But that's off-topic.

While I actually agree with you about a lot of things and think the US needs to move a long way left, I think revolution is far less likely to get any good chance than elections are. And I think elections aren't very likely to. :)

Socialist democracies seem to be a much better system for the people that live in them either the more capitalist nations or the products of communist revolutions. The question is, how to get there from here?

+1

A violent revolution will just open the door to more and frequent violent revolution whenever one group feels elections went the wrong way.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You guys do realize that Lincoln, while not necessarily a bad president (he DID keep the Union together, after all), didn't particularly care about the Constitution? He ignored it more than once.

Yeah, I'm kind of curious what criteria someone's using to like Lincoln but despise everyone since.

Since the usual argument against FDR and some of the others is "expansion of federal power", it's hard to see how Lincoln gets off.


thejeff wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You guys do realize that Lincoln, while not necessarily a bad president (he DID keep the Union together, after all), didn't particularly care about the Constitution? He ignored it more than once.

Yeah, I'm kind of curious what criteria someone's using to like Lincoln but despise everyone since.

Since the usual argument against FDR and some of the others is "expansion of federal power", it's hard to see how Lincoln gets off.

I don't necessarily despise anyone else, or even Lincoln. I'm just pointing out that the man had his faults. He still saved the Union.

As for FDR, he was the most dictatorial president ever. The thing is, he accomplished a lot of good things. I wouldn't be opposed to having another FDR right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:


A violent revolution will just open the door to more and frequent violent revolution whenever one group feels elections went the wrong way.

And that's the good outcome of a violent revolution.

More often you wind up with no or only sham elections. One party governments: to preserve the gains of the revolution, of course.


And just to answer the original question: I think Obama will win.

It's not at all guaranteed and if the Republicans had a halfway decent candidate, he'd be in a lot of trouble. But the Republican primary process seems guaranteed to weed out anyone who might be electable in the general.

Obama, for all of my problems with him on policy issues, has damn good political skills. When he goes fully into campaign mode, he's very impressive.

The economy is, slowly, getting better. That gives him a huge boost. If it starts to collapse again, possibly due to a crisis in Europe or to rising fuel costs, then he'll have a harder time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unless there's a horrible scandal with pictures of all his gay sex in Chicago bathhouses, I think Obama will win by a comfortable margin. The Republicans have swung so far into right-wing Christian Taliban land, they'll turn off the moderates. Their low turnouts in the primaries are evidence they already have.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Want to change the system?
Invent something, invest in a growing company, start your own business or otherwise become wealthy.
Vote with your cash to canidates or things you believe in.
Use the ambition you have to change things, and really change it.
Do it yourself, for yourself. Or run for office yourselves.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Want to change the system?

Invent something, invest in a growing company, start your own business or otherwise become wealthy.
Vote with your cash to canidates or things you believe in.
Use the ambition you have to change things, and really change it.
Do it yourself, for yourself. Or run for office yourselves.

Won't work. If you aren't a corporate executive, you have no say in politics in America aside from voting for the president and the odd referendum. Want to really change things? Pressure the judiciary to start prosecuting congress for all the corporate bribes they take.


Worked for Buffet, Gates, Steve Jobs (RIP), Hollywood elites, and any other fithly rich Liberal and Conservative out there.

While I agree with you that there is some serious conflict of interest issues with congress, they can be voted out of office.


Only to be replaced with people who will also take bribes. We don't need to vote them from office, we need to prosecute them to show that this won't be tolerated any more. We also need to cap how much money a campaign can legally spend.


Well, that's a risk you take with any public official.
Yes, and I agree. But a better bet, and less costly I would imagine, is to not vote for d-bags in the first place.


thejeff wrote:

Yeah, I get that.

Worked so well the first time, didn't it? But that's off-topic.

Spoilered for off-topicness:

Spoiler:
While, indeed, off-topic, I'll just point out that, imho, the reason it (and by "it", I'm guessing we mean 1917) failed is that, despite the Bolsheviks' best efforts, it was merely a Russian and not an international proletarian socialist revolution.

As for the Lincoln love, well, I can't speak for Gendo, but, yeah, it's pretty much the whole freeing of the slaves thing. It was pretty cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Well, that's a risk you take with any public official.

Yes, and I agree. But a better bet, and less costly I would imagine, is to not vote for d-bags in the first place.

The problem is, you can't tell which are and aren't going to take bribes, and bribery is so rampant that it needs to be stopped. Right now, America is a Corporatocracy. That needs to change before we get completely screwed over for corporate benefit. They WILL run the economy into the ground and keep starting wars so long as it makes them money.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You guys do realize that Lincoln, while not necessarily a bad president (he DID keep the Union together, after all), didn't particularly care about the Constitution? He ignored it more than once.

Yeah, I'm kind of curious what criteria someone's using to like Lincoln but despise everyone since.

Since the usual argument against FDR and some of the others is "expansion of federal power", it's hard to see how Lincoln gets off.

+1 I detest Lincoln passionately.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You guys do realize that Lincoln, while not necessarily a bad president (he DID keep the Union together, after all), didn't particularly care about the Constitution? He ignored it more than once.

Yeah, I'm kind of curious what criteria someone's using to like Lincoln but despise everyone since.

Since the usual argument against FDR and some of the others is "expansion of federal power", it's hard to see how Lincoln gets off.

+1 I detest Lincoln passionately.

Well, you have to consider the situation he was put in. I don't think he was infallible, and I wouldn't want to live under him, but I don't detest the man.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

JOHN JACKSON: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far!

JACK JOHNSON: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!

</futurama>


Well, the answer, apart from becoming a billionaire and gaming the system for good, is to get involved.
Support good local officials. Pay attention to what they're doing. Get involved in primary campaigns, not just the extravaganzas that are the presidential primaries, but your Congressman and state officials. Getting good people into the system at lower levels where you can actually have influence means having good people ready to move up to higher office.
For all the money and all the ad campaigns and mud slinging, they still need votes.

Democracy can only work if the populace is informed and involved. That's a really high bar to reach, but I don't think any other system can work at all.


houstonderek wrote:

Lincoln was an accident of history. He gets props because of the slavery issue being ended under his watch, but he probably would have been a horrible peacetime president.

You're forgetting the best president we've ever had, period. Teddy Roosevelt. He was the first, last and only president to take on corporate America and slap that b*$@% in the face. He was our only truly Progressive president (Wilson was a joke, and Teddy's nephew was, really, the closest to a dictator we've ever had - another accident of history that he is so highly regarded). The next three on the list are probably the first three (Washington, Adams and Jefferson, any order), then after that you can start the "worst" list. And I'd probably put Clinton down as the best of the worst.

And that, Derek, is one of those posts I was talking about agreeing with you.


I haven't read up yet, but I voted that I think the Democrats are going to win. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for the Democrats, though, just so we're clear. Don't want anyone seeing that I favorited that post and thinking I'm going soft as we get closer to the election.

Break with the Democrats!

Vive le Galt!


Kryzbyn wrote:

Worked for Buffet, Gates, Steve Jobs (RIP), Hollywood elites, and any other fithly rich Liberal and Conservative out there.

While I agree with you that there is some serious conflict of interest issues with congress, they can be voted out of office.

If you're not rich, it's your own fault! LOL!


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You guys do realize that Lincoln, while not necessarily a bad president (he DID keep the Union together, after all), didn't particularly care about the Constitution? He ignored it more than once.

I don't think this statement is accurate or true.

Lincoln violated the Constitution many a time, true. But he had a very thought-out legal explanation about why he could do so. Whether you agree or not, he certainly never ignored the Constitution.

In fact, if he had, the whole Emancipation Proclamation would have played out differently. The whole argument about the hypocrisy of Lincoln outlawing slavery where the Union army had no power and continuting to protect it where it did ignores that the President had no Constitutional power to end slavery, EXCEPT, by seizing it is as enemy contraband in times of war. Or something.

I, of course, don't much care about the Constitution. In fact, I solidarize more with William Lloyd Garrison, the abolitionist who used to get mauled and beaten on the Boston Common for burning it as a contract with slavery.


Suspending habeus corpus. Even a judge told him it was unconstitutional. Granted, I'm not convinced that the constitution should even apply during an all out war, but this isn't about what I think, it's about what he did.

I don't think he was a bad person. I'm just pointing out to others some of what he did.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

Suspending habeus corpus. Even a judge told him it was unconstitutional. Granted, I'm not convinced that the constitution should even apply during an all out war, but this isn't about what I think, it's about what he did.

I don't think he was a bad person. I'm just pointing out to others some of what he did.

Article 1: Section 9 wrote:
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

That seems pretty clear cut to me. I'm not sure what that judge's argument was, but on the face of it, I don't see a constitutional problem.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
You guys do realize that Lincoln, while not necessarily a bad president (he DID keep the Union together, after all), didn't particularly care about the Constitution? He ignored it more than once.

Yeah, I'm kind of curious what criteria someone's using to like Lincoln but despise everyone since.

Since the usual argument against FDR and some of the others is "expansion of federal power", it's hard to see how Lincoln gets off.

+1 I detest Lincoln passionately.

Boo! Lincoln rocked!

Srly, though, let's hijack this thread. Tensor's poll is at the top and there's all this space down below, just sitting around doing nothing.

Who's Your Favorite President? Just For Fun

So, we've got:

Lincoln--Gendo, me
Teddy--HD
Ben Franklin--Sebastian, Comrade Del Espada
FDR--Mama Kelsey
Ronnie--Kryzbyn
TJ--BT and Mr. Negri

Who else? Comrade Jeff? Citizen Kryzbyn, BT and all my Fawtl Refugee Peeps?


The thing is, the judge's argument is how it is, regardless of whether the judge is in fact correct, because the judge is the lawful authority on this matter, not the president.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I vote for FDR as my favorite.

1 to 50 of 324 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Poll: Which Party Will Win the Next Presidential Election? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.