Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

Ok, so I know this is geared to a specific region, but I'd like to start a debate on this: Who, out of the current citizens running, would make the best U.S. president/vice president and why. Everybody, no matter their country of origin can/should post. DEBAAAAATE!

Patrick Stewart. Ooh wait!! He's not a presidential candidate. Errm, I don't know.  :whistling:

Jeri Ryan :)

She would make the way of leading a country much more....efficient :D

Resistence is futile  :borg: :innocent:

So, I have to choose a current running citizen then. I choose Janeway. By that I mean, Obama.

Most of the time but its not a gritty that a candidate that dose not make the cut for the party's rep becomes the VP candidate on both sides.

this might be offensive, but eh, i am pretty out of it right now.

Obama? or Osama!

well im hopeing for Newt Gingrich but if all else fails GO Chartlin heston!!!

Bush '08

lol, im with crazyjoe  :D

That is a racist comment  I will ask you to edit your post! Show a little integrity for decency be for posting again.

And Bush cant serve a 3ed term look look up the facts win it the your government...

Alas, nobody has touched the "and why" segment of my thread :crybaby:
Oh well, I guess I'll carry on with this style: I suppose my own opinion would be Obama and Hillary ... though I am anxiously waiting for more information on the two, as they both have some unsavory characteristics.

I am wondering why you think Obama and Hillary have unsavory characteristics? Please elaborate.

All politicians have unsavoury characteristics, one of which being a lust for power. Obama and Hilary are not exceptions. You don't think these guys run for president out of the goodness of their hearts, do you? The world would have half as many problems if the people in power were humble and self-sacrificing, but this situation will never happen. It's the main case for divine intervention, not that I believe that will happen any time soon. There are many good people in the world, but you won't find them in the senate or in parliament. They're hidden away from society because they do not draw attention to themselves, nor do they wish attention for themselves. It's a sad fact of life that the people best suited to bringing peace and prosperity to our planet want nothing to do with politics, by definition.

Darn, that pretty much sums up what I wanted to say Doc.
...but also, it seems to me that occasionally each person caves to the demands of the opposition, even when it runs contrary to their own core beliefs and statements. Similarly, each candidate appears willing to dodge important yet difficult questions at times (like any good politician), such as health care, gay rights, abortion, yadadyadyyadyadyd. I must say, though, that it appears that each does this less frequently than any of the other candidates. I will end by saying that I do understand that in order to be elected it is necessary to be flexible and to be, to an extent, a "shapeshifter". If neither had at least some capability to do so, I doubt they would appeal to a great number of people. (So the lesson here is that it pays to have two sets of values?) Oh how I would hate to be in the public's eye.

I'll just briefly touch on the key contenders:

Clinton?  No third terms!
Romney?  Hahahaha!  no.
Obama?  The race has barely begun and he's already slipped up.  He'd never handle the presidency.
McCain?  Don't make me laugh.
Edwards?  He's a hypocrite who sways the way the wind goes.  Besides, he's going up against a woman and an african amirican, whereas he's a white male.  He doesn't stand a chance in hell.
Guliani?  Well, his personal  life sucks.  But, out of all the candidates (aside from Bill Richardson, but he's not gonna get the nomination) Guliani is the only one who's actually ran a government of any kind, much less ran a government in a crisis situation.

I may not agree with Guliani on much, but he's the only one who won't run us into the ground.

Do you think it is necessary to have run a government before to be a competant president? (I can't help thinking of our current president in terms of this... not to mention all the others who had experience and failed miserably)

Could you explain to me how Obama could never handle the presidency? I'm very curious (this is NOT meant to sound sarcastic, in all earnestness).

Likewise, could you give a valid reason for Clinton (I get the joke, but...)? If any of this sounds sarcastic it is not meant to, it's just very difficult to ask these question in an online format.

Well their is a limit of 2 terms a president can run. so at this time thare is no one how has the experience of running a country how is eligible for president.

Red: one Clinton has served too terms the other has not had one.
Brock slipped up please elaborate?
Edwards has bean stone fast in his views and has never changed them as far as I know. Well Edwards is a strong advocate of the pore seeing he came from a pore back round he uniquely qualified and is a very strong supporter of New Orleans. Plus Edwards was VP candidate in the 04 race.
I agree with you about Guliani and Richardson all throw I don't see why Richardson should or even should not get the nomination.

Well, with Clinton I'm referring to political influence.  You don't think Hillary had significant impact in Bill's regime or that Bill will have impact in Hillary's?

As for Obama, he's against the war yet he says that he's willing to invade Pakistan... dumb move.  He also whined about Clinton's neckline.  Dumb.

Perhaps that is only my opinion on Edwards.  It matters not though, since he can't beat Obama or Clinton unless they both do something incredibly stupid.  With Obama, that might happen, but Hillary is too politically savvy to screw up like that.

As for Richardson, he simply can't win, because Obama, Clinton, and Edwards hold so much clot.  Unless all three of them + all other secondary candidates do something retarded or die in a massive plane crash or something equally unlikely, Richardson hardly even qualifies as a black horse candidate.  More like a sick and limping horse candidate.

Oh well, time to go paste a Guliani '08 sticker to my bumper to get it over with.  :(

Well the bush faliamy has had 4terms but your woryed about the Clintons?

Well Pakistan is about to fall to al-kida in all likely hood. smart go after the enemy that attacked us.

Edwards humm well all the candidates rung are not all running for president he may be aiming at VP again.

Well like I said not all the candidates running for president for aiming for president of both sides.

Well out all the republicans running I think he not my favorite but hes not my worst nightmare aether. Go for it.

First off, the elder Bush only has one term, so thats three, not four.  Second, first lady (or gentlemen) holds way way way way WAY more influence than being he president's some (or daughter).  Do you honestly think that Jenna Bush is helping her daddy make policy decisions?


Perhaps.  But when you've already flaunted being against war, you simply do not go around talking about getting into more wars.  Face it, Barok is a political novice.


That may happen.  But only if Clinton and Barok don't decide to join forces, which is much more likely that Edwards jumping on the bandwagon.


If neither Clinton nor Obama nor Edwards get the vp choice, maybe.  It's still not very likely.


Well, with the absence of truly effective politicians on either side, I'm afraid that may very well be what I must do.

Gorge H W Bush served 1 terms Gorge W Bush served 2 terms my mistake. No but daddy Bush helped Jr Bush allot even more then mises Clinton helped if she help much at all in his husband presidential terms so it evens out. The reason why I say she may not have helped much is because her method of governing is much different then mister Clinton's.

I am agents one war not all wars.

Well politics has all ways bean a crap shout.

again its a crap shout politics is very unpredictable.

Well we look at different criteria. For me I need to know it a candidates stain st1 then if his or her choses in life are logical 2ed if he or she shares my morels and concerns 3ed I look to see if they are electable.

Giuliani or McCain.

Actually, I have heard surprisingly little on the subject.  If you could provide some (preferably unbiased) articles on the subject, that would be nice.


That, you see, is not the problem.  The problem is that it just invites someone to accuse you of hypocrisy.  If he's already making dangerous slip-ups like that, the presidency will eat him alive.


Indeed it can be.  But this time, I fear, the likely end is rather clear cut.


All of them are important, but a candidate has to possess all three qualities to be worth it.

Well all you have to do is look at the to people when B Clinton ran he forested on the bugest and  soshal ishows if I can remoiber.

Hiallory is not as good a speaker is focusing on reforming the helthcare systion. I can go in to to much dentals I am preparing for sugary to moro with is taking up most of my time.

Politics is all out spring thing in to things their not. Some Politicians do more spring than others.

Not true if that was true you could tall be how will be the republican and democratic reps will be.

True and it all comes down to what you think is in portent. I think this elections could be the most inportent election in human history. Thares so much at stake Iraq is only a small part.

That is true.  He inherited Reagan's economic improvements and continued to build upon them.


Good luck with your surgery, man!  B)


Well, yes.  That's not the issue here.  The issue is that Obama has already compromised himself in a way that would kill him in the presidency.


Clear-cut does not always have to mean final certainty.  I believe that it's pretty clear who the final contenders will be, but after that it's a toss-up.


Perhaps.  But I feel that the next elections will be seen as even more important.  It will just be a continuous cycle like that if things keep going like they are.

.

Thank you.

I don't see that I see him  as a very strong candidate that offers true change more so then any other candidate from aether party that has a chances for the white house.

Well how do you thing and we will see if you are right.

Well if we don't make the a good chose that will be very like the end of the human race. Global worming is a real threat that is push aside well the timer is winding down. The tools bush has put in to our democracy threatens the democracy at its core. Our role as wold power is in real jeapordy. The gap between rich and pore is bigger then it has in along time and if its not changed you will see more and more the people at the bottom having less and less of a say. The dolor is failing like a rock my frind in CA is thinking that the balance between the candeon dolor and Us dolor is changing. and if we do not change cores soon you will see more and more problems pop up faster and faster.

I vote for.. Laura Roslin.. :thumbsup:

I find it strange that so many people in the US are willing to have faith in god but when the their are facts showing the end to easy going climet they seem to think its just made up....

It's easier to believe something when it only requires faith about something omnipotent.... but when you have to read and interpret something as mundance as climate change, it's well, too boring and "unbelievable". True life is often stranger than fiction, plus, haven't you heard, the climate is immutable here on planet frickin earth. Just kidding.  :(

Yep, there are two types of belief; one requires evidence, and the other requires faith. The latter is much easier as you say. Take this fictional conversation:

Agnostic: Where did parasitic nematodes ("worms") come from?

Creationist: They developed, by adaptive mechanisms from harmless nematodes after the fall from grace in the garden of eden.

Agnostic: So, you're saying that intestinal worms, and other parasites and predators, evolved from different life forms in the space of a few thousand years at most?

Creationist: No, evolution is defined as happening over millions of years. What I'm talking about it adaptation to one's environment. This happens over a much shorter time scale.

Agnostic: So you're saying that it's all about defintions, and that the difference in the definitions of evolution and adaptation is one of time?

Creationist: That's right.

Agnostic: But, I read in a biology book the other day that evolution occurs when a lifeform develops new features, sometimes even anatomical, in reponse to their environment. So really, evolution is defined in terms of change, not time. Therefore, I am well within my rights to define your worm adaptation as "evolution". The change is as big as anything scientists claim. The change is even bigger if you consider lions and funnel-web spiders. God didn't give them lethal killing features, so they must have developed them in response to their environment.

Creationist: But those things you describe, you've thought all along that it was evolution. I'm telling you that in reality, it's adaptation not speciation. Species reproduce according to their "kinds". Dogs always remain dogs, cats cats, worms worms.

Agnostic: But that means God designed "kinds" that were exclusively predatory. If you look at a tiger, did it adapt from a grass-eater after eden? This is how we define evolution, except that no scientist would claim that it could happen over a mere thousand years or so. If you see a poisonous spider on a desk, you have two choices. It either a/ evolved from simpler life forms of untold millions of years or b/ it adapted according to its kind from a species that God created. What species did God create that became a Sydney funnel-web spider? All spiders are venomous predators even if they are harmless to us.

Creationist: Aaah, but you're forgetting one thing. God's spirit was with creation in Eden. When he withdrew His holy spirit, the normal adaptive forces ran crazy, and led to bad forms of creation. The lack of food led to predators and parasites developing by adaptation.

Agnostic: First, if they needed "normal" adaptive forces in the first place, then God's creation was imperfect, or the environment was. Secondly, God's adaptive forces had a deadly fault, that can, via natural forces lead to bloodshed. Thirdly, you clearly still don't understand that your "adaptation" is more extreme, more rapid, and involves more significant change than aything in evolution (we call it "speciation"). Finally, your premise is the existence of God's holy spirit, a concept that comes from the bible. You must prove your premises before forming a logical argument. You must first prove to me that God exists, then that the holy spirit exists, before even beginning to address the other points.

Creationist: OK, you've made some valid points, but this is where my faith comes in. I see the things around me, and I know they could not have come from nowhere, so I have faith that God made them, and that he knew what he was doing. I also have faith that the holy spirit will correct and calm nature after Christ's presence. The bible says that only the righteous can have faith, and the wicked cannot, so I'm luckier than you as I have God's favour.

Agnostic: Firstly, you've insulted me by saying I'm unrighteous because I didn't make your leap of faith, but don't worry I'm used to it. Secondly, basically you're saying that when you don't understand something, such as how we got here, where the universe came from etc, you just "have faith" that God took care of things and will do so again. This is a leap of faith, and to me is lazy thinking. You're faith is so "strong" that it allows you to believe that viscious predators and disgusting parasites somehow fit into God's purpose. I cannot believe this. If a God exists, He is not the God you speak of, but much much different.

Creationist: Well, fine have it your way. What I know is that God loves me, and I love God. I won't allow inferior human reasoning to rob me of my relationship with Christ or my place in heaven. I have a future more wonderful than you can imagine, and you can't take that way from me. My faith gives me comfort and purpose in life, and makes me happy.

Agnostic: Fair enough, I wouldn't want you to be unhappy. You're still wrong though.

Creationist: Whatever.

Agnostic: See you later.

I love how we went straight from pres. elections to this! Yea Fleet Ops forum members!
But seriously Doc, I was laughing for a good amount of time. Too bad it's true though.

It's a good thing the subject diverted 'cos I don't know too much about US politics.

How are Brit politics then; my uncle has been telling me 'orrible stories from the island.

I'm not too clued up about that either, even in my own country! I can't be sure, but it's difficult to tell exactly what agenda British politicians have. That's why I tend to stay neutral really. Although, having said that, I'll support any Prime Minister that pours money into science, which is the lifeblood of any developed nation in the new knowledge economy, especially with competition from China and India. I think Brown understands that, however the problem with labour is often "spin". British politics is not all that bad, but our leaders could convert our trillion dollar economy into a thoroughly world class one, had they the will. And as you can tell, I don't know much about politics generally  :blush:

or Canadian politics.

:Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys.
:Kitten-Drowning Inhuman Monster.

Canadian politicians actually attack each other in the open, and not subtly undermine each others policies.
they say what they mean, and actually follow through with their campaign promises.

canada rox

I love Canada too, mainly because of Shania Twain. I'd beam her to my ready room any day. Also, did you know that Riker is from Canada? No! Actually he grew up in Alaska. Well, they both get a lot of snow...  :ermm:

It's not like there's a fence in the northern rockies saying where the border line is..

I'm in Canada atm.

And regarding our politics, we are very open.
But most of our parties suck.

Liberals: Don't know how to fucking manage their money and waste it on personal salaries.
Conservatives : Not moderate enough, although Harper is a decent PM
BQ : Facist French Faggots. Imo. Dirty Separatists. (I have nothing against the french btw, just quebec)
NDP: Will never win, our socialist base is too weak.

Chretien even got a stroke that broke his face, from all the insults.

I vote Clinton though.

Because when the tides change...go with a winnar!

Maybe in canida is the republicans here how have bean having problems with bugeits.

Here the moderits have left the republicans can come to the democrats.

Cunooks, caddies, I have nothing agisted canida. In fact I will be in BC tomorrow.

..

Bush, Bush, clention, what comes next?

Saddam '08?

Yep...the leader of a country shows the stupidity of the people that live in it (or the wisdom...unfortunately stupidity is increasing).

Well don't be so quick to judge all in many cases is ceruption that leads bad people to power not dumb people. Example the Germany Dering and after WW2 two completely different places from the deps of depravity and brutality to the hiets of sucity and a world leader.