Quantcast

Who should be President in 2016?

Not A Crybaby Richard <3Freedom! 2013/02/02 17:52:01
Joe Biden
Rand Paul
Hillary Clinton
Chris Christie
Gary Johnson
Rick Santorum
Jon Huntsman
Michael Bloomberg
Other Democrat
Other Republican
Other
You!
Add Photos & Videos
I think Gary Johnson should be the president as he made a good surplus as a governor!
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • kir 2013/02/02 18:13:08
    Gary Johnson
    kir
    +7
    Out of the options listed, based on the information available so far, Johnson seems like the best candidate for the job. Is he the one most likely to win? No. However I am not about to vote for someone just because they can win. They must support the same principals that I support. They must pass the "can I support this person" test.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • LayLady 2013/03/14 05:13:49
    Hillary Clinton
    LayLady
    Hillary
  • michael 2013/03/07 15:39:21
    Other Republican
    michael
    jeb bush would be a great president in my view--he is roman catholic who was a gov. of a Southern state and is married to a Mexican woman
  • Wohuz 2013/03/07 12:47:42
    Other
    Wohuz
    Neil deGrasse Tyson
    NGT
  • GoDucks5 2013/03/06 05:09:13
    Rand Paul
    GoDucks5
    I would vote for Gary Johnson too though.
  • Alacrity 2013/03/05 22:57:53
    Hillary Clinton
    Alacrity
    Hillary faces big problems to become the President--especially the Benghazi Attach which should have been prevented by having greater defenses.
  • Shifting Piece 2013/03/05 16:44:17
    Other
    Shifting Piece
    I should.
  • StupidGreedyRightWingButtKi... 2013/03/05 08:58:54
    Other
    StupidGreedyRightWingButtKisser
    I have no idea. I have had enough presidential elections for a while. Make them go away!
  • DJ Techzaz 2013/03/04 03:52:21
    Other
    DJ Techzaz
    Me.
  • thy-lady-x 2013/03/04 00:05:28
    Other Democrat
    thy-lady-x
    I think they're gonna run Chelsea Clinton. don't ask me why, its just a feeling.
  • Joker 2013/03/03 21:08:09
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2013/03/03 19:43:10
    Other
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    Too soon, way to soon. Personally Johnson leaves me cold - he can't even figure our if he is a republican or a libertarian or a weak democrat.
  • Ken 2013/03/03 19:42:36
    Other
    Ken
    Unless there is a significant change, we can expect the next president to be a Democrat. IMO, the odds of this prediction being correct increase the longer the sequester continues.

    The reasoning is this....
    1) The sequester will put the US economy into a recession by the fall of 2013. A recession in the fall of 2013 will be forgotten by 2016. A recession in the fall of 2013 helps assure the economy will be in recovery during 2016 and when the economy is in recovery the existing president's party retains the White House.
    2) Oil prices and hence gasoline will be in decline. Since other commodity prices are tightly coupled to the price of oil, they will be declining as well. This decline will keep inflation in check longer than should be expected from macroeconomic models which neglect the oil price cycle.
    3) The deficit will be falling rapidly as the improving economy increases federal revenues and reduces federal spending as unemployment declines. This will be supplemented with further reductions in the military budget as troops on foreign soil continue to be reduced. It is also probable that after the 2014 election, many of the tax loop holes for corporations will be closed as the public rises up against the cuts in Federal spending imposed by the sequester.

    Obvio...

    Unless there is a significant change, we can expect the next president to be a Democrat. IMO, the odds of this prediction being correct increase the longer the sequester continues.

    The reasoning is this....
    1) The sequester will put the US economy into a recession by the fall of 2013. A recession in the fall of 2013 will be forgotten by 2016. A recession in the fall of 2013 helps assure the economy will be in recovery during 2016 and when the economy is in recovery the existing president's party retains the White House.
    2) Oil prices and hence gasoline will be in decline. Since other commodity prices are tightly coupled to the price of oil, they will be declining as well. This decline will keep inflation in check longer than should be expected from macroeconomic models which neglect the oil price cycle.
    3) The deficit will be falling rapidly as the improving economy increases federal revenues and reduces federal spending as unemployment declines. This will be supplemented with further reductions in the military budget as troops on foreign soil continue to be reduced. It is also probable that after the 2014 election, many of the tax loop holes for corporations will be closed as the public rises up against the cuts in Federal spending imposed by the sequester.

    Obviously a lot can happen between now and 2016 so I will be watching and revising my predictions as needed....but at this point it is hard for me to imagine the Republicans getting their act together before 2021.

    And BTW, I like Gary Johnson as well.
    (more)
  • RezcrashGB 2013/03/03 19:41:35
  • clasact 2013/03/03 19:20:14
    Other
    clasact
    if I were forced to have to pick someone on this list I would pick Christie but I would prefer none of them.I hopr by the time the election rolls around we have some real chocies and not what we have had for the last 3 or 4 elections
  • KSJR362 - Not what you think 2013/03/03 18:48:33
    Other
    KSJR362 - Not what you think
    Well since the corporations, media and two major parties have made a joke of the whole process. (Not to mention the Electoral College)

    roseanne for president
  • Masaca 2013/03/03 18:40:54
    Other
    Masaca
    +1
    Rocky Anderson

    Rocky anderson
  • Mopvyzo 2013/03/03 18:37:53
    Hillary Clinton
    Mopvyzo
    Hillary Clinton For President 2016

    Hillary Clinton For President 2016 [group] http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
  • I NEED A HORSE 2013/02/24 01:47:02
  • sharkhead 2013/02/24 01:41:10
    Rand Paul
    sharkhead
    +1
    Him and Johnson.
  • Katfish 2013/02/05 20:13:40
    Gary Johnson
    Katfish
    +1
    I will consider Rand, but absolutely NO on the others.
  • Darnel 2013/02/05 03:38:39
    Other
    Darnel
    +1
    (chuckle)
    Lets try it w/o Repubs or Dems,.. I'd vote for a true Moderate in a heartbeat.
  • lucky 2013/02/04 04:06:40
    Other
    lucky
    I dont know yet but I sincerely hope its not a Republican or Democrat who has already ran before, Im tired of seeing the same people over and over again.
  • The Pale Man 2013/02/03 04:12:15
    Other
    The Pale Man
    Nobody.
  • GAC 2013/02/02 21:59:55
    Other Republican
    GAC
    +1
    marco rubio
    I have other preferences, but he is numero uno on the list.
  • Birthpangs 2013/02/02 21:53:43
  • BlytheSpirit~bn0 2013/02/02 21:01:49
    Other
    BlytheSpirit~bn0
    +1
    Gary Johnson would make a very good president. Jill Stein would make an even better one. Good question.
  • Heptarch 2013/02/02 20:45:03
    Other
    Heptarch
    Whomever the best candidate is.

    I have no idea who that will be.
  • 666_Maggots~I'm a female! 2013/02/02 20:40:57
    Rand Paul
    666_Maggots~I'm a female!
    +3
    Him or Gary Johnson would make me happy. ^_^ but if I had to vote between those two, I'd go for Rand.
  • Peewee ~PWCM~ 2013/02/02 20:33:46
    Jon Huntsman
    Peewee ~PWCM~
    +1
    I liked him before.
  • Razoreye001 2013/02/02 20:17:38
    Other Democrat
    Razoreye001
    +4
    Elizabeth Warren or Krysten Sinema, If third party candidates were viable I'd want the Green Party candidate to win.
  • BlytheS... Razorey... 2013/02/02 21:03:14
    BlytheSpirit~bn0
    +2
    Amen, Gregory! jill stein
  • Guru_T_Firefly 2013/02/02 20:11:37
    Other
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +2
    As far as I'm concerned, it can be anyone but another Republican.
  • Joves the Instigator 2013/02/02 20:03:59
    Other
    Joves the Instigator
    +1
    I would like to see a good Constitution Party Candidate get in. I am not Libertarian at all, they hold views in some respects that are just as bad as what we have. Such as Immigration, Defense, and Foreign Policy to name two of them. Now by defense I do not mean the current monster that we have now in almost every nation in the world, I speak of having an adequate force to keep our enemies at bay. This also means having the weapon systems that so scare others that they do not even entertain the thought of attacking us. Nuclear deterrence is a beautiful thing.
  • rdmatheny Joves t... 2013/02/03 02:42:59
    rdmatheny
    +1
    Foreign Policy

    The foundation of libertarianism is mutual respect. It is a principle that extends to our relationships with people throughout the world.

    In his first inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson cited the essence of a libertarian foreign policy, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." This echoed the advice of President George Washington that "the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

    The twin pillars of a sane foreign policy are:

    (1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and

    (2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on military non-intervention.

    Free Trade: the Foundation of World Peace

    While the economic benefits of trade are discussed constantly, more attention is needed to its role in producing peace. Europe experienced a remarkably long period of relative peace and prosperity that began in the mid-19th century and lasted for more than half a century. Key to this golden age was the decision by the British Parliament to repeal virtually all restrictions and tariffs on imports from other countries as of 1849, primarily in response to pressure from...



































    >
    Foreign Policy

    The foundation of libertarianism is mutual respect. It is a principle that extends to our relationships with people throughout the world.

    In his first inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson cited the essence of a libertarian foreign policy, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." This echoed the advice of President George Washington that "the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

    The twin pillars of a sane foreign policy are:

    (1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and

    (2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on military non-intervention.

    Free Trade: the Foundation of World Peace

    While the economic benefits of trade are discussed constantly, more attention is needed to its role in producing peace. Europe experienced a remarkably long period of relative peace and prosperity that began in the mid-19th century and lasted for more than half a century. Key to this golden age was the decision by the British Parliament to repeal virtually all restrictions and tariffs on imports from other countries as of 1849, primarily in response to pressure from British consumers suffering from high food prices. The other major nations of Europe virtually all followed suit in order to enjoy the same benefits, and the thriving international trade built friendship throughout the continent and kept military conflict to a minimum.

    Alas, politicians having motives that aren't always aligned with the public, a return to trade barriers began late in the 19th century, starting in Germany, and as French economist Frederic Bastiat warned, "when goods don't cross borders, soldiers may," with the decreasing trade being accompanied by increasing militarism and, ultimately, everyone taking sides in what is now recognized as one of the most pointless conflicts in history, World War I.

    Although America benefits enormously from being a gigantic free trade zone, US politicians have frequently been reckless in international policy. Perhaps the biggest tariff increase in history, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, was signed into law in 1930 by Herbert Hoover. Not only is it now considered by many economists to be a key factor in precipitating the Great Depression, but it led to massive retaliation by other countries and a trade war that virtually destroyed international commerce and, once again, was accompanied by an increasing militarism and an even more destructive world war.

    Since the end of World War II, there has been a more concerted effort to lower trade barriers throughout the world, although special interests have regularly interfered and turned what should have been simple mutual barrier reductions into complex trade agreements that typically added restrictions as well as removed them. Nonetheless, international trade has increased greatly over these decades and both the frequency and destructiveness of wars decreased to the point that the first decade of the 21st century had the fewest war deaths of any decade in the entire post-WWII period.

    Armed Neutrality: The Swiss Model of Defense

    Of course, it seems odd to describe the years since the start of the 21st century as a relatively peaceful time, but that is because, as Americans, we are living with a military-industrial complex whose financial future depends on keeping us as scared as possible for as long as possible. Our country, as a result, has been a laggard. And US attempts to choose winners and losers in other countries have been marked by repeated disasters: Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi all received military support from the US before they became US enemies.

    The military budget of the United States, conservatively measured at around $700 billion (but probably closer to $1 trillion once all security measures and veteran benefits are considered), is approximately equal to all of the military budgets of all other countries combined. If the US military budget were cut in half, it would still be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half again, it would STILL be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half a third time, reduced to only one-eighth its current size, it would STILL be the largest in the world. And that's using the conservative measure.

    Whatever motivates this enormous budget, it is certainly not for the defense of American soil. Indeed, when the Department of Homeland Security was created, this was a virtual admission that the Department of Defense had goals other than homeland security. No foreign army has the slightest capacity to invade the United States, and as North Korea has demonstrated, even the possession of a single nuclear weapon is enough to deter invasion.

    When the United States was founded, Switzerland was close to celebrating 500 years as an independent republic. Many founders expressed admiration for the Swiss model of defense, which historian Stephen Halbrook summarizes as "armed neutrality." Switzerland managed to stay out of both world wars as well as innumerable other European conflicts over the past seven centuries by a policy of non-interference in other countries combined with the mandatory ownership of firearms by every household in the country. Of course, libertarians oppose compulsory gun ownership as consistently as we oppose gun prohibition, and given that the United States is blessed with both geographical and population advantages the Swiss lack, merely respecting the right to keep and bear arms can provide a voluntary reserve militia sufficient to deter invasion.

    There is another Swiss tradition worth emulating. While the Swiss government has a strict policy of non-intervention, Swiss citizens have long been free to personally provide military and security services outside the country. In the past, Swiss individuals often chose to serve as soldiers in foreign regiments protecting neighboring countries, and to this day the Swiss Guard, a private group, protects the Vatican. In the 1930s, groups of Americans were concerned about fascism in Europe and tried to establish the “Abraham Lincoln Brigade” to fight that menace, but relentless harassment from the U.S. government for violations of neutrality laws prevented them from securing the funding and leadership that a free society would have permitted. As a result, American citizens were forced to do nothing until government officials decided otherwise. Private soldiers committed to taking on international bullies can act with organized efficiency without involving their neighbors. And so long as they are answerable for their actions, private soldiers shouldn’t be any more objectionable than private security guards.

    Dealing with Terrorism

    Criminal attacks on innocent civilians are not, properly considered, military issues, but policing matters. Having by far the largest military budget on earth obviously did nothing to prevent the bombing of an Oklahoma federal building in 1995 by American Timothy McVeigh or the 9/11 attacks by Al-Qaida. Preventing terrorism is a matter of intelligence, both in the sense of obtaining information and using our brains. So let's try both.

    Louise Richardson, in her book WHAT TERRORISTS WANT, identifies three basic motivations for terrorism: revenge, renown, and reaction. McVeigh made it clear that the purpose of his action was to avenge an FBI siege of a religious group's compound in Waco, Texas two years before (the Oklahoma bombing took place on the second anniversary of the fire that ended the siege). Al-Qaida stated clearly, even before 9/11, that their plan to attack Americans was a response to three ongoing US policies: (1) the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, (2) the embargo of food and medicine that had so far killed over a million Iraqis, and (3) support of Israeli persecution of Palestinians. Osama bin Laden also stated explicitly that his goal was to get a reaction from the United States government that would bankrupt the empire.[Note: like any good prosecutor, we are seeking the motives of the criminal right now, not justifying them.]

    Charles Kurzman notes in THE MISSING MARTYRS that there are remarkably few Muslim terrorists: less than 1 Muslim in 15,000 has even gone as far as attending a terrorist training camp, let alone engages in terrorism. Muslims have often provided the tips to arrest terrorists, and the intelligence needed to prevent or punish terrorists would undoubtedly be greater in a world where the US government didn't build up so much ill will. That is another sense in which current policy is unintelligent.

    We cannot indulge the ignorant desire to blame anti-American terrorism on a "hatred of freedom," "72 virgins," or other such nonsense. After a suicide truck bomber killed 241 US Marines stationed in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983, President Ronald Reagan wasn't justifying this massacre when he decided to withdraw American troops from the Middle East. He understood that people, all people, hate foreign armies on their soil. Unfortunately, his successor, George H.W. Bush, went back into the Middle East to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and his stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia after that war was specifically cited as the primary reason for Al-Qaida's declaration of jihad against America. Since then, of course, the US military has undertaken attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya. If you were a Middle Eastern Muslim, might you think of some reason to hate Americans other than not liking freedom?

    The best form of anti-terrorism insurance is to remove all troops from the Middle East, stop attempts to either preserve or change their current governments, and end all government-to-government aid.

    Choosing Peace

    It is time for American troops to come home, not just from the Middle East but from Europe, the Pacific, and everywhere else. At the same time, let’s drop all barriers to trade and travel and turn enemies into friends. Polls have long indicated that the rest of the world likes Americans far more than they like the US Government and admires America’s reputation as a land of opportunity and productivity. We have a great opportunity now to bring both peace and prosperity to our country and the world by restoring that reputation.

    As stated earlier, the globe has been turning toward trade and away from war. There is great cause for optimism, and we should make the choice to abandon international offense in the name of national defense before we are forced to do it. On top of killing or displacing millions of innocent foreigners and making Americans less safe, the massive US military budget is bankrupting the country. In the 1990s, when the fall of the Soviet Union resulted in a temporary decrease in the US military budget, people talked openly about the "peace dividend" the economy received. It's well past time for another, more permanent such dividend. ----> Read other policies here: http://www.lp.org/issues/fore...
    (more)
  • convex rdmatheny 2013/03/03 19:45:41
    convex
    +1
    The Constitution party is fairly authoritarian and protectionist.
  • RevJim 2013/02/02 20:01:19
    Gary Johnson
    RevJim
    +3
    I've voted for him twice, and I would vote for him again, if he ran. He did a great job as Governor of New Mexico, successfully fought the Federal Government on State's Rights issues, and implemented repeal of laws that were against individual freedom. This is the thing that should be emphasized in any Johnson campaign and was missed by many the last time around. Being active in the NM Libertarian Part from 1984 until 1993, I became acquainted with Gary, and I trust him to stand solidly behind his principles, and maintain his truth and honesty.
  • The Aging Yankee Liberal Do... 2013/02/02 19:59:46
    Other
    The Aging Yankee Liberal Douche
    +2
    Who knows.. But its too early for this talk. Obama has 4 more years
  • wildcat 2013/02/02 19:39:54
    Other Democrat
    wildcat
  • Peewee ... wildcat 2013/02/02 20:32:13
    Peewee ~PWCM~
    +1
    The Native American? That alone disqualifies her.
  • Kurt 2013/02/02 19:11:47
    Other
    Kurt
    +1
    Not sure which person all I know is we need a business person who wants to keep America safe.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/26 09:30:14

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals