Negative Presidential Poll [Archive]

JeepNude

03-02-2008, 10:33 AM

Why is everyone always so negative? That can't be healthy.

Can you find nice things to say about ANYBODY? I am sure that all 3 of the people mentioned have at least one good thing about them you could discuss.

Maybe it is my conservative nature, I just can't lower myself to namecalling and negative mudslinging about anyone running for office. Also, I get called names and have hate thrown at me here on this forum because of my viewpoint, yet I will not attack my attackers in the same way because it is disrespectful. So, why do this?

How about we all just examine the voting records of each candidate and on voting day, choose the person that you most agree with and NOT throw feces at the others? That would be a nice change of pace!

NakedTao

03-02-2008, 10:48 AM

I thought that this was a very smart poll. You listed only the viable presidential candidates and left political bias out of it by simply asking which one would be the worst.

I voted for McCain in the poll because I firmly believe that the US cannot survive another Republican presidency - especially one that is willing to continue the nonsense in Iraq indefinitely.

Besides - and feel free to Google this sometime - Republicans are also notoriously anti-naturist.

jon71

03-02-2008, 11:00 AM

Also wanting to keep us in Iraq for a hundred years is pure evil.

LeoNJ

03-02-2008, 09:02 PM

I agree with Jeepnude this pole is very negative.

I did not vote on this poll either as in my opinion CLinton & Obama I feel are not right for the job of representing this country on a global scale. As for MaCain I am not really sure about him either but between the three of them I feel Mc Cain is the best of the three. However, this Pole seems to have forgotten the fourth canidate that has recnetly entered the race. Ralph Nader is once again tossed his hat in the ring and running as an independant. Now I do not know much about him yet but he is worth looking into again and with all what the two parties have done to this country thus far having an independant canidate in office may be a breath of fresh air. But lets see how things run out but lets also all do our research on all the canidates. In the end chose who you feel is the best for the job and as long as you have voted but make your vote an informed vote.

LeoNJ

naturistoftheyear

03-02-2008, 09:46 PM

Politics are notoriously unpredictable.
Any of the three might preside over an economic boom and a largely uneventful time, or an economic bust with rising unemployment and high inflation, and lots of disasters and terrorist attacks.
Based on their personalities, I don't like Hillary all that much, and I think the US should take a break from Bushes and Clintons for a couple of decades, so I voted 'for' Hillary.
But as I said, she might be voted in and preside over a great 4 or 8 years, who knows.

Skinview

03-03-2008, 11:23 AM

This is a very relevent poll. The perception of who would be the worst can be a rational consideration when voting, and its also interesting to know what others think. Myself, I think Obama would be the worst. I considered him to be the worst before the primaries started. He has almost no experience, and he is the most far left Senator that we have.

Nudeinbama

03-03-2008, 11:34 AM

I voted clinton, but have to say that obama was a very close second choice.Neither seem right for the job and I'm not real sure on Mc Cain either but that will be my presidential choice.
Nudeinbama

Centauri4

03-03-2008, 04:05 PM

I do not think there is anything "wrong" with the poll, but I do find it to be a bit vague. The word "worst" by itself could be interpreted so many ways because the "worst humanitarian" may not be the "worst economic visionary" just as the "worst international diplomat" may not be the "worst terrorist negotiator" and there may be many characters who can be the worst at all of these together.

I do not like Hillary Clinton because it seems fairly clear she has no original ideas and is simply a perpetuation of existing political "parties". She has all the personality of a hopping bag without even offering a choice between Paper or Plastic!

John McCain is a wonderful human being I am sure, but he seems old for the job and I cannot help but ask myself what took him so long to run? Was it the earlier competition that seemed to challenging? Was it funding? Or did he simply not "feel" ready to sit in the Commander's seat? Yes, he is a war hero and set a damn fine example for today's young officers to learn from, but who is pulling his "strings" or putting the wind in his "sail"? It seem as though John McCain has run his race, done his job, had his day and should be an adviser to the President, not the man himself.

The best thing I can say about Barak Obama is he definitely has "potential" or "stored energy". Sure there are certainly people pulling his strings and acting as the wind at his back, but he seems to present himself well and project a fair amount of energy into any setting.

My wife and I watched Mike Huckabee on Tyra's show the other day and we quite impressed with nearly everything he had to say. Ten and a half years as governor, from dirt poor roots, solidly grounded morals and ethics and a strong, cancer-surviving wife who now takes on all challenges (sky diving & bungee jumping for example). Beyond all the statements he simply came across as a "down to Earth" person and fairly humble about his good fortune in politics.

That's my current take.

Croydon

03-03-2008, 04:47 PM

Myself, I think Obama would be the worst. I considered him to be the worst before the primaries started.
And I am willing to bet a lot of money that like the many people who say "Obama has no experience", you have not actually done one single research of Obama's career not only in politics but his career in law, teaching, and considerable time as community activist for the working poor in Chicago and New York.

Baron Lake

03-03-2008, 05:08 PM

McCain on this poll for his (mis)perception of what is really going on in Iraq. Not that C & O seem much better; but they haven't taken the opportunity to go shopping for a prayer rug in Baghdad yet.

b.l.

Skinview

03-03-2008, 05:30 PM

And I am willing to bet a lot of money that like the many people who say "Obama has no experience", you have not actually done one single research of Obama's career not only in politics but his career in law, teaching, and considerable time as community activist for the working poor in Chicago and New York.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that will help him deal with Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.

Skinview

03-03-2008, 05:41 PM

John McCain is a wonderful human being I am sure, but he seems old for the job and I cannot help but ask myself what took him so long to run? Was it the earlier competition that seemed to challenging? Was it funding? Or did he simply not "feel" ready to sit in the Commander's seat? Yes, he is a war hero and set a damn fine example for today's young officers to learn from...

John McCain ran for President in 2000, and Bush beat him.

Baron Lake

03-03-2008, 06:10 PM

Maybe THAT'S what he meant by that Mission Accomplished business.

b.l.

nacktman

03-03-2008, 08:20 PM

McCain would be the "worst" in every conceivable category. I used to like some of the things he said and did but he has ever proven to be just another right wing-nut just when you thought he might actually be human.

Clinton would not be much better, her only legacy would be the first woman president and that's it ... at least she has some wits about her whereas McCain is looneytunes.

Obama would do the better job of the three on the poll and the results are showing that is the prevailing opinion as well. His "lack" of experience is of little concern because it is non-existent - he has experience ...more and far better experience than the current squatter hijacking the people's house had before the coup and even more than the shrub has after these past 7 plus years of unmitigated disaster(s).

None of the above are the best candidate for the job but of the three Obama is the best choice

Naturist Mark

03-04-2008, 04:37 PM

Why no Lyndon Larouche?

Sanslines

03-04-2008, 04:59 PM

Why no Lyndon Larouche?

You forgot to mention Ralph Nader too.

nakeduni

03-04-2008, 06:42 PM

Great poll. Mccain is just another tired version of bush. Obama gives good speeches, and Hillary is smarter than both of them, harder working too.

nacktman

03-04-2008, 07:37 PM

Great poll. Mccain is just another tired version of bush. Obama gives good speeches, and Hillary is smarter than both of them, harder working too.

Not too sure about Hillary being smarter than Obama if she was she would not be trailing him in the polling ... more intelligent, maybe, smarter ... I don't know.

Both she and Obama are both smarter and more intelligent than is McCain.

KirkOntario

03-04-2008, 07:40 PM

Both she and Obama are both smarter and more intelligent than is McCain.

Source? I seem to recall that Bush has a higher IQ score than John Kerry.(Which is why Kerry refused to release his military records until after the election).
Did that make you a Bush supporter last time around?

usmc1

03-05-2008, 06:26 AM

Why no Lyndon Larouche?
Damn Mark, is the Admiral still around? I thought he died in prison.

nacktman

03-05-2008, 06:50 AM

I seem to recall that Bush has a higher IQ score than John Kerry.

Yet, another ignorant statement.

An IQ score does not indicate a high intelligence level nor how smart a person is - which are two different and distinct things - it measures the process of information level.

A higher IQ score does correlate with high intelligence most of the time but does not have a symbiotic relationship.

Albert Einstein's IQ test score(s) were abysmal yet he is recognized as one of the most brilliant and intelligent minds of the last century.
The shrub is recognized as one of the dumbest (if not the dumbest) the planet has ever seen, so his "higher" score proves the point.

Oh, and no I did not nor would I ever support the shrub in anything except maybe his prosecution for High Crimes against the United States and I would Support him right into his cell and forget where I put the key after slamming the door on him and locking it.

nakeduni

03-05-2008, 09:12 AM

Source? I seem to recall that Bush has a higher IQ score than John Kerry.(Which is why Kerry refused to release his military records until after the election).
Did that make you a Bush supporter last time around?

After seven years of bush, I would have to guess his IQ is barely above 2 or 3 on a good day. I don't believe he had a good day.

Boreas

03-05-2008, 10:21 AM

I seem to recall that Bush has a higher IQ score than John Kerry

If that is true, too bad he could not have put it to better use.

Like Nacktman said: Yet, another ignorant statement.

An IQ score does not indicate a high intelligence level nor how smart a person is - which are two different and distinct things - it measures the process of information level.

I will be interested in how Bush is seen in the history books. From this perspective, he has done an abysmal job of things down there.

Are you still a big Bush supporter Kirk, or have you come to your sense?

KirkOntario

03-05-2008, 01:19 PM

Also wanting to keep us in Iraq for a hundred years is pure evil.

I don't particularly like John McCain and I think his statement was over the top (typically John McCain) but this is exactly what he said. He said he supported it as long as Americans are not being injured or killed and he compared it to U.S. troops being in South Korea and Germany where they are there for strategic reasons and to keep the peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

KirkOntario

03-05-2008, 01:23 PM

Yet, another ignorant statement.

An IQ score does not indicate a high intelligence level nor how smart a person is - which are two different and distinct things - it measures the process of information level.

A higher IQ score does correlate with high intelligence most of the time but does not have a symbiotic relationship.

Albert Einstein's IQ test score(s) were abysmal yet he is recognized as one of the most brilliant and intelligent minds of the last century.
The shrub is recognized as one of the dumbest (if not the dumbest) the planet has ever seen, so his "higher" score proves the point.

Yup, as you say...
"A higher IQ score does correlate with high intelligence most of the time..."

Oh, there may be ways to explain an IQ score and you can give examples of false scores but the fact remains Bush scored better than John Kerry. That must be really annoying for those suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)

chuckincville

03-05-2008, 01:59 PM

oops

Just posted to the wrong thread-:o
had some difficulty posting here ended up posting my reply to this poll on the Clinton or Obama topic

If you want to you could read it there - hope you like my politics better than my lack of computer savy.

Chuck :o

nacktman

03-06-2008, 05:49 AM

Oh, there may be ways to explain an IQ score and you can give examples of false scores but the fact remains Bush scored better than John Kerry. That must be really annoying for those suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)

Do you know what an idiot you come across as?

My wife's Jack Russell Terrier scored higher than the shrub did and in his case he is a helluva lot smarter than the shrub will ever hope to be, whereas my friend's five month old son scored well below the shrub but is still far smarter than the shrub and will only get smarter as he grows.

This thread is about who we deem would be the worst president of the three candidates listed. Hands down it is McCain who is viewed to be the worst, both on the accompanying poll and in the real world.

Get a clue.

Naturist Mark

03-06-2008, 07:10 AM

George Bush is renowned for his intellectual incuriosity and his slacker ways as a student - neither of which is an indication of low IQ ... indeed he comes from a family of above average intellects, so it would be unusual if he didn't inherit the same natural intelligence - his measured IQ may very well be quite high.

Entirely unrelated to IQ, there is considerable evidence that George W. Bush suffers from some sort of neurological deficit that causes intellectual and emotional impairment: How Ill is George W. Bush? (http://bluehorde.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-ill-is-george-w-bush.html)

Boreas

03-06-2008, 09:36 AM

Bush Derangement Syndrome.....hmmmmm....that must be the label for people who still believe that GWB has been a good president in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. This syndrome can be found both under Axis I as a delusion, psychosis and Axis II - personality disorder.

KirkOntario

03-06-2008, 03:09 PM

Entirely unrelated to IQ, there is considerable evidence that George W. Bush suffers from some sort of neurological deficit that causes intellectual and emotional impairment: How Ill is George W. Bush? (http://bluehorde.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-ill-is-george-w-bush.html)

Youtube now offers 'evidence' of medical or psychiatric conditions? Most doctors actually meet and perform tests on patients before offering a 'diagnosis.' It's called 'science.' Interesting.

nacktman

03-06-2008, 04:43 PM

EricNY

03-06-2008, 11:48 PM

Do you know what an idiot you come across as?

Get a clue.

This what we talked about. Disagree all you want, post all you want, but once you direct your words toward your opinion of another member, that is where you are wrong

KirkOntario

03-07-2008, 04:32 AM

usmc1

03-07-2008, 06:04 AM

ErcNy, good point. Why can't reasonable people disagree about the merits of various politicians without resorting to name calling? I worry that people get turned off these forums due to this sort of behaviour.

Yeah right! We all should engage in innuendo, nitpicking and inference and hide behind a moderator? No thanks. Sometimes a spade is no more than a dirty shovel and needs to be called such.

Dang, what's going on with all this red cropping up all of sudden...beyond me!:sneaky:

usmc1

03-07-2008, 06:25 AM

This what we talked about. Disagree all you want, post all you want, but once you direct your words toward your opinion of another member, that is where you are wrong

Look, I understand your point, but sincerely believe your request misses the point.

If I write that GWB is a marvelous, compassionate human being, bestowed with humanity, wisdom, and intelligence and another writes that GWB is a war-criminal lacking in any human value, then my judgment and opinion has been challenged. One simply can't disagree with another without bringing the other's opinion into question.

here's a subsequent example of that, wherein Skinview opts to pass judgment and characterize me with demeaning comments such as belittling, uncivil and unproductive. Now, please understand, I can handle that, and do not need intervention from anyone.

No, it serves no purpose and does not further the conversation to belittle someone.

Well I guess that is the root of the problem. Some people can't differentiate between an attack on their opinion and an attack on themselves, and respond by making a direct attack on the challenger, rather than his facts or argument. Its uncivil and unproductive.

I think that using ad hominem device in political and policy disputation can be distracting, but it can also be very effective, ie. the swift boating of John Kerry.

It just seems to me that from time-to-time, those of us with strong, committed views, who fight back against the innuendo, the inferential, the nit-picking, with strong rhetoric draw a disproportionate level of attention from you.

Snideness and innuendo prevail, direct speech fails.

For example when Nacktman says that another comes across as an idiot that draws your negative attention. But, Skinview's claim of a desire to take a gun and kill a former president escapes unscathed.

I just think that as a matter of proportion one is much more detrimental than the other.

I guess this will get me another red mark? If I get two, can I trade them in for swats? I can't do detention, coach says I have to be at practice.

Skinview

03-07-2008, 06:38 AM

Skinview's claim of a desire to take a gun and kill a former president

Not "former president", a DEAD president.

Skinview

03-07-2008, 06:40 AM

Sometimes a spade is no more than a dirty shovel and needs to be called such.
No, it serves no purpose and does not further the conversation to belittle someone.

If I write that GWB is a marvelous, compassionate human being, bestowed with humanity, wisdom, and intelligence and another writes that GWB is a war-criminal lacking in any human value, then my judgment and opinion has been challenged.Well I guess that is the root of the problem. Some people can't differentiate between an attack on their opinion and an attack on themselves, and respond by making a direct attack on the challenger, rather than his facts or argument. Its uncivil and unproductive.

nacktman

03-07-2008, 07:20 AM

Yet again this topic has been diverted by the same one attempting to divert every thread they post on and now with the added assistance of a moderator.

The topic accompanying the Poll entitled "Negative Presidential Poll" on this thread is 'Which of the three candidates listed do you consider would be the worst president and why?'.

The of the majority feels McCain would be the worst given the poll respondents responses.
Clinton is also deemed 'worst' by the majority of those who do not think McCain would be worse.

The last time I looked the numbers were running about McCain 5, Clinton 3
and Obama 2 out of 10 as to who would be worst.

boatsteve

03-07-2008, 07:37 AM

This what we talked about. Disagree all you want, post all you want, but once you direct your words toward your opinion of another member, that is where you are wrong

Which would apply to Kirk when he said "That must be really annoying for those suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)"

That was pointed directly at those who post against him here. And if you really want to nitpick let's take nacktman's statement "Do you know what an idiot you come across as?" and notice it's not directed at any person. He is saying that a particular statement causes one to consider the poster as an idiot which isn't the same as a personal attack, calling him an idiot.

KirkOntario

03-07-2008, 11:11 AM

Yeah right! We all should engage in innuendo, nitpicking and inference and hide behind a moderator? No thanks. Sometimes a spade is no more than a dirty shovel and needs to be called such.

Dang, what's going on with all this red cropping up all of sudden...beyond me!:sneaky:

Let's do what moderator says. They make the rules and it's for the good of this community....or are you saying you refuse to abide by the Term of Use for this forum?

KirkOntario

03-07-2008, 11:15 AM

Well I guess that is the root of the problem. Some people can't differentiate between an attack on their opinion and an attack on themselves, and respond by making a direct attack on the challenger, rather than his facts or argument. Its uncivil and unproductive.

Excellent post and this is the heart of the problem. Some people just can't do it so they should really stay out of it or get some practice in something like the Oxford Debating Society where you are forced to argue whether Hamlet was mad and learn to make your points, get your polite jabs in (in a very gentlemanly fashion) and not take it personally even if you are bested in the fray.

usmc1

03-07-2008, 11:18 AM

Let's do what moderator says. They make the rules and it's for the good of this community....or are you saying you refuse to abide by the Term of Use for this forum?

Get over it! I don't answer to you. And, you do not speak for the forum nor its moderators.

EricNY

03-07-2008, 11:19 AM

Yet again this topic has been diverted by the same one attempting to divert every thread they post on and now with the added assistance of a moderator.

How dare you sir! How could possibly say that I am assisting anyone to divert threads. I am trying to keep you, KirkOntario, and other ON topic.

I suggest you get that straight, and start acting in good nature. I will act in good nature and not ban you for your attempt in throwing mud on my name.

KirkOntario

03-07-2008, 11:20 AM

Not "former president", a DEAD president.

Say how do you kill a dead president anyway? Might be disrespectful and over the top to suggest such a thing but unless his descendants post here I can't see how it is abusive or wrong to say it. (I wonder if our friend was offended by the Hollywood film that featured a sitting president being assassinated. Did he speak out about that?)

EricNY

03-07-2008, 01:24 PM

One simply can't disagree with another without bringing the other's opinion into question.

here's a subsequent example of that, wherein Skinview opts to pass judgment and characterize me with demeaning comments such as belittling, uncivil and unproductive. Now, please understand, I can handle that, and do not need intervention from anyone.

Let me clarify I did not mean that you could not bring up the opinion of another member. The point I was trying to express is that we need to keep our negative personal opinions of other members out of the conversation. The old if you can't say anything nice about someone.....

As far as you not needing intervention; I realize you are very capable of handling things as they refer to you, however everyone needs to abide by the TOS.