Steven Colbert: Presidential Candidate

Lightknight · 10-18-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

Oh man, it would be amazing if he won in the primaries. Or at least in South Carolina's. I'd vote for him in the general election.

Yeah, it's funny, but this guy is a lot more on the ball than the other candidates. I think I could actually vote for him. I feel like that's the stupidest thing I could say (voting for a comedian for president), but I actually like this guy and he might actually become a much loved president were he elected. But, I doubt America will ever really have the choice.

Ax · 10-18-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art

It is not the plot of a movie, entirely. Robin Williams' character ran in more than one state.

Lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Yeah, it's funny, but this guy is a lot more on the ball than the other candidates. I think I could actually vote for him. I feel like that's the stupidest thing I could say (voting for a comedian for president), but I actually like this guy and he might actually become a much loved president were he elected. But, I doubt America will ever really have the choice.

Gavin, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I mean, where is he on any issue?

Daniel21TX · 10-18-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AXguitar

Gavin, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I mean, where is he on any issue?

It is hard to tell since he is almost always in character when we see him. What I do know about who he actually is (apart from his character), is that he is a devout roman catholic and that he is a sunday school teacher. He seems to stand up for what he believes in and is not afraid to go against the grain. I like him and I personally would vote for him. Running as a favorite son in the state of South Carolina, all he needs is 2.5% of the vote to obtain a delegate.

I think he has a decent chance.

Peatrical · 10-25-2007, 09:32 PM

Having looked at all the candidates, in a completely impartial manner I think Colbert is the only one who has demonstrated human like intelligence and is therefore the only suitable candidate. \

My thoughts, not yours.

OneHope · 10-29-2007, 07:35 AM

Here's a rare glimpse of Colbert out of character...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwSfa4IJFA

Lightknight · 11-05-2007, 06:58 PM

Colbert has dropped out of the race. The Democrats voted against him being able to run and the Republicans charged too much for applications.

+SEAL+ · 11-05-2007, 07:40 PM

JerryLove · 11-06-2007, 07:14 AM

So he's not a dem because they excersise too mcuh control, and he's not a republican because they charge. That's kinda neat.

Lightknight · 11-07-2007, 01:33 PM

Could it be that the dems were afraid of him? That'd he'd really take that state?

For a couple of reasons, I don't believe that the parties should have the final say on who gets on the ballot or not. I hate closely held ogliopolies like that.

JerryLove · 11-08-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightknight

For a couple of reasons, I don't believe that the parties should have the final say on who gets on the ballot or not. I hate closely held ogliopolies like that.

I don't see an alternative.. Personally, I'd like to see the government get out of the party system. I'm not saying that we should stop people from getting together in groups and advocating candidates... I'm saying that the government should have no involvement. No public primaries, no discal support, nothing.

I'll be the voice of "little government" here and say that the gov should get out of the parties.

normajean777 · 11-09-2007, 03:05 PM

I'm not sure if that would be a better alternative. If you are proposing that individuals represent themselves and only themselves than I think it could be bad (and possibly unlimited candidates), if not explain.

It could lead to higher voter apathy, because voters would care less, because there would be more choices and less fixed agendas (you don't really know what they support unless you research them, which few people actually do). Also having individuals represent themselves could lead to incumbents winning even more of the time, since the remaining vote could be split among the rest of the candidates (which all too frequently happens in municiple elections, especially where I live).

But then again where I live, the municiple election that just recently occurred had a turnout of 27% (of course thats only a lowly municiple but still. . . ). I doubt the States could have that much apathy.

JerryLove · 11-09-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

I'm not sure if that would be a better alternative. If you are proposing that individuals represent themselves and only themselves than I think it could be bad (and possibly unlimited candidates), if not explain.

I'm saying that the (for example) republican party is welcome to have a vote, pick a candidate, and recommend him to party members (and everyone else), but I don't think that the taxpayers should fund the vote. I don't think the government should regulate it.

It's a club picking who to endorse. It's a private activity.

Quote:

It could lead to higher voter apathy, because voters would care less, because there would be more choices and less fixed agendas (you don't really know what they support unless you research them, which few people actually do).

Most people don't know now... they just know who is raising the most money.

But I'm not advocating more candidates... besides, that would lead to a lack of majority and runoff-elections (which are common outside the US)

normajean777 · 11-09-2007, 05:08 PM

lol I just reread it. I didn't understand exactly what you were advocating.