The only obvious choice in these desperate times is: Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpfHBicjQk
I voted for Cain. My preference would be in this order: 1. Cain 2. Gary Johnson 3. Paul 4. Romney 5. Gingrich 6. Bachmann 7. Perry Many of those are unelectable in all likelihood. I think Romney wins the nomination and the election. I can live with that.
I won't argue too much with that, but that's that's pretty much true of all nations in recent years. Can you name any country with 11 consecutive leaders who were all honest, fiscally-responsible statesmen?
That is the achilles heel of democracy it seems where every idiot's vote counts the same as a carefully considered one. I would like to see the Upper House elected by the over 50s. They have had time to mature a bit.
Not only "every idiot", but every greedy little bastard who wants to vote himself money and benefits out of someone else's pocket.... and politicos who pander to exactly that to get elected.
Herman Cain turned two businesses around, from least to most profitable. He is the man to fix the economy and is definitely gaining more traction now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cain was assigned in the 1980s first to analyze and ultimately to take the reigns of Burger King, which at the time was a Pillsbury subsidiary, where he managed 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under Cain's leadership, his region went in three years from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable. This prompted Pillsbury to appoint him President and CEO of another subsidiary, Godfather's Pizza. Aiming to cut costs, Cain over a 14-month period reduced the company from 911 stores down to 420. As a result of his efforts, Godfather's Pizza finally became profitable. Before his business career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics as a civilian employee of the United States Navy
Humpy, I believe we got it wrong, or possibly even backwards, when we said if eighteen-year-olds are old enough to fight and die for their country they are old enough to vote. In fact, this is an example of absurd reasoning that my sound logical but is not. What we should have said was that eighteen-year-olds are too young to fight and die for their country and also too young to vote. Then we would have fewer wars and better election outcomes. (Even giving eighteen-year-olds the vote but keeping them out of wars would have been more logical than what was actually done!)
Paul, Cain. Romney sounds like a used cars salesman. I can see him in the back pocket of his big donors for sure.
lulz at whoever chose Obama. If the last two and a half years can't convince them, they truly are braindead. No perfect candidate. I chose Romney for his turnarounds of the Olympics and at Bain. He also has the connections and gravitas to command the office. Cain and Perry are fine people; but neither is as electable as Romney and I don't think their backgrounds make up for their lesser electability. There was a poll that put Romney behind Obama by only two in CT. Romney is the only one who's consistently competitive with Obama. The most important thing is to get Obama out. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
As a "foreigner" you'd likely be interested in knowing the "W" , who it turns out was not elected to his first term but simply declared the election winner by the Supreme Court (appointed if you will), would never have been President had the Court adhered to the Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which deals with the case where an election outcome is uncertain by the time the Next President is to be inaugurated. Under those circumstances the House is supposed to agree on who shall serve in the interim until the mess can be sorted out. The correct action by the Court when asked to intervene would have been to politely decline and then send a zerox of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the speaker of the House, and suggest that they get busy as January 20th was fast approaching. I suppose the Court is embarrassed, in retrospect, by their action -- I refuse to believe they could have been ignorant of this obscure section of the Constitution--and that must be why members of the Court carefully avoid the subject. And why Gore didn't challenge on the basis of the 20th Amendment is another mystery. That no one likes a sore loser, the usual explanation, does not hold water. As it turned out, when all was said and done, Gore had won both the popular vote and enough electoral college votes to become President. The fact that Gore went off with his tail between his legs suggests he'd have been an ineffective President. But that was, in any case, a dismal choice (Gore v. Bush). Sadly, there was no slot marked "neither" on the ballots that year. A few years later, after failing with the WMD bit, Bush was zipping around extolling the virtues of bringing Democracy to Iraq, and I was thinking to myself: maybe if you were to tryout democracy yourself you wouldn't think it such a good idea.