Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Atheists' preferred president?
Show More
Loading...
Flag steven_guy April 15, 2012 10:15 PM EDT
I was curious about the political opinions of atheists here. 

Who do you think should be should be the next president?
Who do you think will win the next presidential election?

In Australia, almost everyone is barracking for Obama, even though we're not too keen on the increased American military presence in our region.  The Republican candidates seemed to be a bunch of duds, every single one of them is a worthless human being. So it's Obama be default.

But how do atheists and anyone else here feel?
Flag mountain_man April 15, 2012 10:47 PM EDT

Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:

I was curious about the political opinions of atheists here.


Well.... you know.... I'm not one to freely give my opinion.


Who do you think should be should be the next president?


Bernie Sanders.


Who do you think will win the next presidential election?


Someone not good for the country or the American people.


In Australia, almost everyone is barracking for Obama, even though we're not too keen on the increased American military presence in our region.  The Republican candidates seemed to be a bunch of duds, every single one of them is a worthless human being. So it's Obama be default.


"By default" is not a good way to elect a president and move forward.


But how do atheists and anyone else here feel?


Sick. Until we get the money out of politics we will not have a government responsive to the people. We are heading towards fascism and it doesn't seem there's much we can do about it.

Flag Ken April 15, 2012 11:14 PM EDT

Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:

I was curious about the political opinions of atheists here. 

Who do you think should be the next president?


Nobody. I think we should dissolve the union, repeal the Declaration of Independence, and submit ourselves humbly to the British Crown. If we're very, very good, we may be allowed some measure of self-government in a few decades.

Flag JCarlin April 15, 2012 11:14 PM EDT

As per my other post Obama by default. I assume that the Religious right will continue to self-destruct and the reasonable red states will come to their senses and send good people to congress.  Hillary will continue to run the country while Obama cuts the ribbons and goes to the conferences.  The only really interesting question is whether it will be Hillary or Chelsea in 2016.

Flag JCarlin April 15, 2012 11:22 PM EDT

Apr 15, 2012 -- 11:14PM, Ken wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:

I was curious about the political opinions of atheists here. 

Who do you think should be the next president?


Nobody. I think we should dissolve the union, repeal the Declaration of Independence, and submit ourselves humbly to the British Crown. If we're very, very good, we may be allowed some measure of self-government in a few decades.


If nobody could get on the ballot hesh would win in a landslide.

Flag mountain_man April 16, 2012 12:09 AM EDT

Apr 15, 2012 -- 11:14PM, Ken wrote:

Nobody. I think we should dissolve the union, repeal the Declaration of Independence, and submit ourselves humbly to the British Crown. If we're very, very good, we may be allowed some measure of self-government in a few decades.


I don't know.... haven't we pretty much proven we are incapable of self-governance?

Flag cptspith April 16, 2012 1:00 AM EDT

Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:


I was curious about the political opinions of atheists here. 




As a side note, I'm sure you're already aware that the "political opinions of atheists" - as a group - is about as coherent as the "political opinions of left-handed people" or the "political opinions of people who wear blue."


Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:



Who do you think should be should be the next president?
Who do you think will win the next presidential election?




I am certain that the current office-holder will get a second term. As to who SHOULD be the next president, I would have to say that the best candidate (so to speak) is someone that nobody has ever heard of.


In an ideal representative democracy, I would dearly love to see two sweeping changes. Actually, one sweeping change, and one return to the original plan.


1) EVERY ballot for every political race should contain the option of "None of the Above." If the "None of the Above" votes get a majority, that race must be re-run, with all participants in the first race banned from participation (an entirely new field of candidates.


2) The presidential race needs to return to the method defined in the constitution; ALL candidates rune in ONE election (none of this "Primary Election" and Choose-Your-Running-Mate bullshit), and the winner of the election becomes the president, and second place gets vice-president.


Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:



The Republican candidates seemed to be a bunch of duds, every single one of them is a worthless human being. So it's Obama be default.

But how do atheists and anyone else here feel?




Given the current options, I would have loved to see Santorum get the Republican nomination and have to dabate an intelligent, well-spoken opponent. I would have been able to enjoy the entertainment values of the debates with no real concern that Mr. Theocrat might ever win.

Flag steven_guy April 16, 2012 1:12 AM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 1:00AM, cptspith wrote:


As a side note, I'm sure you're already aware that the "political opinions of atheists" - as a group - is about as coherent as the "political opinions of left-handed people" or the "political opinions of people who wear blue."




Oh, I agree. But in view of the apparent rabid theism of all the Republican candidates, I wondered if this may have united atheists a little more than they are usually united. 


Perhaps atheists who generally support the political right may be tempted to vote for Obama this year?


Thanks for your other comments.

Flag Blü April 16, 2012 2:49 AM EDT

The choice will be Obama and Romney.  Both have freight. 


Obama's had successes, including with the economy, but not all of them have been popular successes.  His foreign policy has been good, often very good, and he's reversed a lot of the Bush anti-US feeling in Europe and more broadly, but most voters won't care.  He's also had failures and disappointments - the biggie for me has been very little movement on rolling back Bush's attack on civil rights and keeping Guantanamo.  But an overriding fault is the sense of his lack of political presence day to day, both with problems and with initiatives except when he's on the stump.


Now the unspeakable Santorum has withdrawn (all puns intended), Romney's at liberty to move more towards the center with his campaign statements, where he needs to be to take on Obama.  Mormon is not cred, and the sheer volume of money he's flushed down the primaries has turned off people in the center.  He may or may not have a bomb or two ticking in his tax and business affairs.


But the main game's yet to come, and there the atmosphere's always very different. If Obama wins - the proposition that he's the default liberal choice will be tested - it will be in no small part because he's again been a brilliant campaigner.


Flag steven_guy April 16, 2012 3:16 AM EDT

Thanks for all the comments.

Flag Eudaimonist April 16, 2012 12:12 PM EDT

Who do you think should be should be the next president?


I'd like Gary Johnson to win.


Who do you think will win the next presidential election?


It's too early to say.  Possibly Ron Paul, which wouldn't be ideal, but would be better than any of the other guys except for Gary Johnson.


But how do atheists and anyone else here feel?


Obama is taking the nation in a bad direction.  But then so would Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich.


Ron Paul isn't perfect, but I think he is mostly headed in the right direction.  Gary Johnson is at least 90% headed in the right direction.


 


eudaimonia,


Mark


Flag farragut April 16, 2012 1:21 PM EDT

i'd prefer Frank Lovell, but he doesn't have a chance.

Flag mountain_man April 16, 2012 2:23 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 12:12PM, Eudaimonist wrote:

Ron Paul isn't perfect, but I think he is mostly headed in the right direction.  Gary Johnson is at least 90% headed in the right direction.


Ron Paul's foreign policy is alright. His naive economic policies would make the predictions in the movie "Metropolis" come true. The same for Johnson.

Flag Ken April 16, 2012 3:56 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 1:21PM, farragut wrote:


i'd prefer Frank Lovell, but he doesn't have a chance.



The only Frank Lovell I've heard of is a Trotskyist who died in 1998.

Flag farragut April 16, 2012 3:59 PM EDT

Wrong one. Frank is the epitome of a reasonable atheist conservative, and a scientist by occupation.

Flag redshifted April 16, 2012 4:23 PM EDT

Most libertarians I run into don't seem to care much about the environment. They all seem to think global warming is a hoax, along with their republican cousins. That's the main reason I would never vote for them. Although, the democrats haven't done much about climate change either. 

Flag Ken April 16, 2012 6:18 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 4:23PM, redshifted wrote:


Most libertarians I run into don't seem to care much about the environment. They all seem to think global warming is a hoax, along with their republican cousins. That's the main reason I would never vote for them. Although, the democrats haven't done much about climate change either. 



They needn't bother. It's already too late.

Flag redshifted April 16, 2012 6:50 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 6:18PM, Ken wrote:


They needn't bother. It's already too late. 




It's probably already too late to stop certain horrible consequences, but we could still do something to quell really horrible consequences. 

Flag steven_guy April 16, 2012 7:08 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 6:50PM, redshifted wrote:


Apr 16, 2012 -- 6:18PM, Ken wrote:


They needn't bother. It's already too late. 




It's probably already too late to stop certain horrible consequences, but we could still do something to quell really horrible consequences. 




I am thinking of moving to Svalbard. Longyearbyen looks rather pretty in summer.

Flag mountain_man April 16, 2012 8:04 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 3:59PM, farragut wrote:

Wrong one. Frank is the epitome of a reasonable atheist conservative, and a scientist by occupation.


Not really. He's a Libertarian and would bring about the ruin if this country a bit sooner than the Republicans would.

Flag farragut April 16, 2012 8:48 PM EDT

On the 24th, Frank will be debating the president of the National Atheist Party on whether we should have such a political party.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook