So Stephen Colbert has announced that he's running for presi

[Sinue_v2]

I can't really see him being serious with this effort, but on the other hand - I can really see his popularity and charisma taking him far in the presidential race among those who are fed up with the lack-luster crop of current candidates. A poll on my local News Channel is telling, with almost 90% of responders saying they would vote for him.

If he wins the South Carolina primary and actually runs with this rather than just turning into one big mock of politics - would you vote for him?

http://www.news.com/8301-13577_3-9798943-36.html
http://www.comedycentral.com/

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinue_v2 on 2007-10-17 15:31 ]</font>

[Dre_o]

Uhh...reading that article...I'm not sure whether it's a joke or not....but...I..I can see him winning....oh god....

[Turambar]

Would I say I'd vote for him? Of course. Would I actually do it? No. And lets not forget the rather large voting population that aren't exactly avid Comedy Central watchers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Turambar on 2007-10-17 15:43 ]</font>

[Sinue_v2]

I don't know... I'd give him a few debates before completely writing him off. Like he told Larry King, there's two Colbert's... the real Colbert, and the pundit Colbert. On the Larry King show, he seemed rather comfortable switching between the roles. He really is rather intelligent and level headed, and I could see him debating the hard issues - but his quick wit and sarcasm makes him a devastating opponent capable of tearing the other candidates down pretty effectively.

He may just be a comedian, but Regan was just an actor. A senile one at that.

[Blitzkommando]

Who is he? Oh, a comedian that I've never heard of...

No, I wouldn't vote for him. I frankly wouldn't trust what he says his stances are on issues because of his comedic background. We already have enough people to flip-flop between positions, no need to add a comic to the list.

[Randomness]

Anyone who makes a mockery of the current system and also believes it needs mocking CANT be bad for this country.

[DurakkenX]

I'd vote for Colbert... seriously he's the only realistic choice for a rational thinking person given the political system which is really quite sad, but you know he has the most vote getting power simply because of his show, people know what he thinks or at least what he semi thinks because of his show and really both him and john stuart pretty much tear apart most of the people that come on their shows with ease. I really don't see a better candidate up there, not that i couldn't think of a better one, jsut that he's the best there is if he is running at this moment given what he has said and the influence he has had thus far.

Here's thing though...wouldn't it be great if the president had his own daily Tv show? I mean seriously think about that for a moment.

[Split]

he's not going to, he was just kidding

[Sord]

On 2007-10-17 16:27, DurakkenX wrote:

Here's thing though...wouldn't it be great if the president had his own daily Tv show? I mean seriously think about that for a moment.


Roosevelts fire side chats all over again. But last I checked, those did some good.

Regardless, I can't see Colbert wining Presidential election even if he were serious about running. I know we American's may not be the smartest political people at times, but surely we're not dumb enough to elect someone who hasn't even held a public office (at least as far as I know he hasn't.)

Certainly, I love satire as much (probably more so) as others do. Especially Colbert, but I honestly can't see him being President.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sord on 2007-10-17 17:07 ]</font>

[DikkyRay]

Aye. I do love Colbert, but i dont think hes serious at all.
Anyone ever see Man of the Year? Its kinda like that.

[Skuda]

As goofy as Colbert is, I can actually see him sitting down and doing this. I've had discussions with friends about this countless times, and I feel he'd do a bang up job.

Colbert for Favorite Son!

[Solstis]

I doubt that Colbert could handle the challenges of office. I also hope that a lot of the people that claim that they would vote for him can't.

[DizzyDi]

On 2007-10-17 17:47, Solstis wrote:
I doubt that Colbert could handle the challenges of office.


Same thing I was thinking. I'm sure if Colbert was really running for prez he'd have great ideas for the country but it takes a lot more than ideas to get shit running properly.

If only he had any real political experience. Truthfully I still wouldn't vote for him, I don't like or trust the American system, no matter who is running it.

[EphekZ]

On 2007-10-17 18:25, DizzyDi wrote:

If only he had any real political experience. Truthfully I still wouldn't vote for him, I don't like or trust the American system, no matter who is running it.



Haha! So you'd rather not vote? You really have no place to say anything if you don't atleast try and choose someone you feel is the most "trustworthy", in your case.

[ABDUR101]

Shit-sandwich and a Douchebag? I'd go Colbert merely to have a change, lets be realistic; it's not like he can do much worse than what we've already had. Fuck it I say, put someone like Colbert in and see what happens.

[Moo2u]

I think Colbert will be surprised with how many people will actually vote for him...

I know if I was in the US, I'd vote for him!

[Powder Keg]

It's just like Arnold....he'd get votes because he's popular.

[ljkkjlcm9]

he'd never win, he's completely a younger person candidate. No serious voters would vote for him

THE JACKEL

[DizzyDi]

On 2007-10-17 20:15, ljkkjlcm9 wrote:
he'd never win, he's completely a younger person candidate. No serious voters would vote for him

THE JACKEL



He'd bring a lot of people to the polls, but you're right he probably wouldn't win.

[DurakkenX]

Perhaps the problem isn't him then but the nation in general... it's pretty sad that were so democratic that we're 175th (if memory recalls 100%) in actual voter turn out v.v

[omegapirate2k]

I'd vote for him, fuck all you naysayers.

Unfortunately I'm Canadian.

[PJ]

On 2007-10-17 20:38, omegapirate2k wrote:
I'd vote for him, fuck all you naysayers.

Unfortunately I'm Canadian.



Seconded

[Dj_SkyEpic]

I can't tell if it's actually a joke or a true goal he's putting forth.

[Dhylec]

On 2007-10-17 21:07, Dj_SkyEpic wrote:
I can't tell if it's actually a joke or a true goal he's putting forth.


Pick one. ;]

[Dj_SkyEpic]

On 2007-10-17 21:15, Dhylec wrote:
Pick one. ;]

So it's the latter.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/10/17/video-stephen-colbert-to-run-for-president/

Sounds interesting. He will definitely appeal to the younger generations that vote, that's for sure.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dj_SkyEpic on 2007-10-17 21:26 ]</font>

[BlaizeYES]

he'd never be able to gain the popularity of older voters, regardless of his popularity in 18-25 year olds. and i wouldn't even want him to run anyway, because if anything, it'd take votes away from barak obama.

younger people that see obama end up loving him for whatever reason. for being a black candidate, for being a recovered crack addict, for his naturally goofy personality that is loveable, or for his awesome sounding name. i dont even care if he would make a good president or not, because to me theres no big difference. the decisions that he would make himself would go through an entire administration and congress, so its not like he would have our country self-destruct anyway. plus it'll be nice saying we had a black president, because then it will help balance out a race issue. i want to see an obama in office.

even if colbert somehow ran under his own party, it would still take away votes from baROCK and we'd end up having some other old republican in office that has strong christain beliefs and thinks the "war on terror" is a great thing. like rudi gulliani, who thinks that just because he was beloved for taking the actions any normal mayor would do of new york city during 9/11, he deserves the presidency. you know for a fact that he would keep pushing for more military involvement in the middle east.


colbert would be responsible for continuing the war in iraq, probably iran, and america would continue their downward spiral to nothingness. and yes, i am a republican

[Dangerous55]

He will probably take a hell of a lot of votes from the Democrats, that can't be a bad thing. If he won, I wouldn't mind. It would be a nice change. The system is just about at the point where it can't fix itself.

[Sinue_v2]

There's no way Barak is going to win the primaries. Sorry, but Hillary has this one tied up already. On the Republican side, Guliani is really the only candidate that stands out ahead of the pack - but even so things are much less certain there.


plus it'll be nice saying we had a black president, because then it will help balance out a race issue.

I can't agree with this, because it sound like affirmative action applied to the highest office of the United States. The job should go to the best candidate, and if Barak wins then more power to him. But I no more want to see him get elected on the color of his skin as I would want to see Hillary elected based on the lack of dangly bits between her withered legs.

Personally, I see no real difference between any of the front-runner candidates - and no chance in hell of winning for anyone who has a unique voice.

I have no party affiliation, and I feel a great deal of contempt for anyone who rides into office by towing the party line rather than standing by one's own convictions. As it stands right now, I almost see Colbert as the ideal candidate simply because he is a complete outsider to the standard political process. As you said, his cabinet and advisors, as well as congress and the senate would keep his lack of experience from sending this country spiraling out of control - and his charisma and wit I think would go a long way to helping restore relations not just with other world leaders - but with the American people as well.

Again, look at Regan who was nothing more than a washed up and senile actor before he ran for President. And he's generally considered the best thing to have happened to the GOP since Lincoln.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinue_v2 on 2007-10-18 14:02 ]</font>

[Sord]

well, I got on the bus today, and for whatever reason that is beyound me, my busdriver had the radio on a talk show of sorts. They said apparently he is runing, but only within the state of California. One of the guys talked about how perhaps the fact he is out of government up 'till now could be a good thing, which some people seem to agree here as well.

Personaly, I have my doubts, though some of you raise a good point about no one seeming that great anyways, and whomever mentioned having a good cabinet to help Colbert. But then that goes into the question, who would his cabinet be, and how much influence would they have on him?

[Sinue_v2]

South Carolina, actually. He's running as a native son. And you raise a good point, in that while Colbert is a fresh new face to the game, his cabinet may not be - and his inexperience may leave him vulnerable to leaning on his cabinets advice a little too heavily, making him a pushover and puppet president. Much the same way people think Bush has been having his strings pulled by the Neo-Cons and Dick Cheney.

Still, I can't really see him seriously run. He may just shake things up a bit for the laughs - and at most perhaps running as a VP to another presidential candidate. I think Huckabee offered Colbert the job, which he had backed up on other news interviews - assuming it's not a running gag.

[BlaizeYES]

i dont really take the presidential race all too seriously. people are easily swayed, and the most ideal candidate usually will not win. hilary may be the democratic runner, but nobody will ever vote for a woman president. i'm sorry, but the democrats have a better chance in barak obama of winning.

i'm not trying to be sexist, i'm just trying to be a realist. the good majority of men will not vote for her, regardless of her qualifications... a few guys may say they will, but the majority of people out there will not, primarily because shes a woman.

i know more women that say they want barak obama as a president than hilary, even girls that are racist have said the same because they think barak obama is "so adorable." and they are registered voters, so it shows you the qualifications needed for a beloved president.

and yes, i think the race thing will be good morale for alot of people. the presidency is nothing more than an image to people. i dont really take politics seriously, i dont really follow it at all, because i dont really care. but i think it'd look better to have barak obama as president, it wouldnt be as if he is assigned the position. it'd be more like a bunch of southerners that would view it that way.

[AC9breaker]

As much as I love The Colbert Report. He'd have to out due Rudy Giuliani for me to vote for him.

[DurakkenX]

Hey look, I can't emmulate Barrak Obama
"Well I think person A has some good points and person B has some good points, but I think we should do the same thing person A and B said and thus this is why I am better than both of person A or B"
He's an idiot who know rhetoric and that's about all he is from what I have seen of him...

there are a few people that are actually making points, but they are laughed at as if they are dumb. In fact one of the debates I was watching had the former preacher dude or whatever sit up there the entire debate and he wasn't asked a single question unless it was adressed to the whole panel which like only one or two were and the first one was something to the affect of what part do you think religion has on politics and he had an awesome answer which i can't remember, but he pretty much destroyed the other canidates within a single sentence in my eyes, but at the same time just looking at him he doesn't have a presidential feel to him even though he prolly one of the better canidates.

Basically anyone who would be good as president is laughed at for anything they try as far as I have seen and Colbert is prolly the only one that could get past that... further more If you think any president will be regulated after this you are pretty much someone that shouldn't be voteing. The rules were pretty much rewritten in the last term and Bush if he wanted to could remain in office indefinitely and according to the law it would be completely his right.

Oh and as for the notion that this world is run by old is just what the old want you to think and is precisely why most young people do not vote. If Everyone who could vote did vote there would almost be no question that Colbert would win and further more there is no way that Bush would have ever gotten into office originally.

Though one thing that most of you are missing is a simple fact that even if Colbert isn't being serious he is planting the seeds and showing the process in a bit more detail than most are privy to ever see and he's teaching the youth some very great things that those rich old folks don't want the common person to know.

The fact is whether Colbert win or not or whether he is serious or not, you can not deny the implications of what he is doing. After all if the highest office in the land can be made a mockery of and be infiltrated by the likes of him shouldn't what you hold value be looked at a bit more closely?

[Skyy-hacylon]

Whoever said that Juliani is a viable candidate.... that just makes me laugh. He's just slightly better at public speaking than our current president is.

Did you all actually watch the Republican debates? Anybody who did can tell you Ron Paul is -the man-! Anybody who is seriously voting for ANYBODY, look over where he stands on the issues, and go to youtube or something and watch those debates, and see how silly he makes everybody else seem. He's straight to the point and he knows what he's talking about. No BS. Ron Paul FTW!!

Here's a great rundown on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Seriously, look where he stands on everything, and then seriously try to tell me there's a better candidate. There's isn't. Plain and simple.

[Solstis]

There is a better candidate. Hilary Clinton.

Or should I say, Darth Clinton. If she wins, we will have the best despotic regime ever.

[PhotonDrop]

On 2007-10-18 20:38, BlaizeYES wrote:
i dont really take the presidential race all too seriously.

My apologies in advance. I stopped reading at this sentence. Have you ever wanted something to be done so that life could be easier for you? Have you ever thought "Gee, I wish I didn't have to pay so much in taxes" or "The streets seem a little crusty, why aren't people out here fixing that pot-hole?" ? You better start taking the presidential seriously if you want things to go your way. Granted that the guy you want might not get elected, but while you and other tools are voting for somebody for novelty value or a cute face, you just shunned your chance at a better life.

To vote for somebody based solely on skin color and gender is completely stupid. What difference does it make? If the person that gets elected does his or her job RIGHT and just so happens to not be Whitey McMan then more power to them. Voting for Obama/Hillary just because he's black/she's a woman is more of an insult to him/her and to yourself than not voting at all.


Personally I do not watch the Colbert Report, hell I barely watch any TV at all, but if his stance on the issues matches with mine then hell, he's got my vote.

There's no fucking way you're going to catch me voting for him based on "LOLOL I LIEK HIS SHO"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PhotonDrop on 2007-10-20 20:54 ]</font>

[Sinue_v2]

Just a short addendum to PD's post. The only "wasted" vote, is the vote you cast in the name of a candidate you don't fully support. Even if you're the only person voting for that candidate and they don't have a chance in hell of winning - you're exercising your right that so many people have fought and died for. Even if you chose not to vote at all, it's still your CHOICE, and a choice that was won through blood and battle. A betrayal of your convictions, and voting for a candidate you don't support just to spite another candidate is foolish.

You have a choice, so excercise it. But make it yours.

[AC9breaker]

On 2007-10-20 06:03, Skyy-hacylon wrote:
Whoever said that Juliani is a viable candidate.... that just makes me laugh. He's just slightly better at public speaking than our current president is.

Did you all actually watch the Republican debates? Anybody who did can tell you Ron Paul is -the man-! Anybody who is seriously voting for ANYBODY, look over where he stands on the issues, and go to youtube or something and watch those debates, and see how silly he makes everybody else seem. He's straight to the point and he knows what he's talking about. No BS. Ron Paul FTW!!

Here's a great rundown on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Seriously, look where he stands on everything, and then seriously try to tell me there's a better candidate. There's isn't. Plain and simple.





Actually I didn't watch the debate and I haven't made an effort to stay informed. But after reading your post I decided to do research. (http://www.google.com) After watching several youtube videos I see why he's your man. As was so poignantly expressed in one youtube comment, hes a breath of fresh air. The comment also conveys some sort of discrepancy with Ron Paul which I seem to share, he's certainly too extreme. In particular, his opposition to the pro-choice and issues of immigrants. But when it comes to foreign policy, internet neutrality, he's straight on the mother fucking money.

I also decided to look into Guiliani and my resolution into casting my vote for him has weaken. My opinion of him really bringing about change in NYC seems to be that of him just being at the right place at the right time. But at the same time I'm quite suspicious of the information I'm finding. In particular because I'm having intuitions of the Ron Paul campaign having a strong influence on the internets.

So in short I see Ron Paul as a broodwich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broodwich)

While I see Rudy as some dood who's trying to take advantage of the situations presented to him.

Edit: But this whole thing has definitely made me want to do more research. The coming election will no doubt be a significant event in our Nations history. Especially with the situation in which our country is in.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AC9breaker on 2007-10-21 01:10 ]</font>

[BlaizeYES]

On 2007-10-20 13:11, PhotonDrop wrote:

My apologies in advance. I stopped reading at this sentence. Have you ever wanted something to be done so that life could be easier for you? Have you ever thought "Gee, I wish I didn't have to pay so much in taxes" or "The streets seem a little crusty, why aren't people out here fixing that pot-hole?" ? You better start taking the presidential seriously if you want things to go your way. Granted that the guy you want might not get elected, but while you and other tools are voting for somebody for novelty value or a cute face, you just shunned your chance at a better life.

To vote for somebody based solely on skin color and gender is completely stupid. What difference does it make? If the person that gets elected does his or her job RIGHT and just so happens to not be Whitey McMan then more power to them. Voting for Obama/Hillary just because he's black/she's a woman is more of an insult to him/her and to yourself than not voting at all.


Personally I do not watch the Colbert Report, hell I barely watch any TV at all, but if his stance on the issues matches with mine then hell, he's got my vote.

There's no fucking way you're going to catch me voting for him based on "LOLOL I LIEK HIS SHO"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PhotonDrop on 2007-10-20 20:54 ]</font>



lol. get used to the fact we're never going to have a president that actually deals with "issues." every nation goes through a cycle, and we hit a peak in the 50s during our golden age. we're a young country that is on a downward spiral as it is. get used to "image," because as much as you hate to believe it, thats what influences most americans. and regardless of the presidency, it will still go down the same path. image is the only thing that matters at this point. i dont follow politics because to believe that 'someone will make a change' is retarded. nothing will ever change.

goodnight

[AC9breaker]

On 2007-10-21 04:05, BlaizeYES wrote:
i dont follow politics because to believe that 'someone will make a change' is retarded. nothing will ever change.

goodnight



With cynicism like that, of course it won't.

[PhotonDrop]

On 2007-10-21 04:05, BlaizeYES wrote:

lol. get used to the fact we're never going to have a president that actually deals with "issues." every nation goes through a cycle, and we hit a peak in the 50s during our golden age. we're a young country that is on a downward spiral as it is. get used to "image," because as much as you hate to believe it, thats what influences most americans. and regardless of the presidency, it will still go down the same path. image is the only thing that matters at this point. i dont follow politics because to believe that 'someone will make a change' is retarded. nothing will ever change.

goodnight



Get used to it? Excuse me, this is AMERICA, god damnit. A country founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Common sense dictates that if you don't like something, you do something about it. If your apartment is dirty, you clean it. If your shirt is torn, you get a new one. You don't like the way your government works, you should do something about it.

They say opinions can't be wrong but damn if your post isn't pushing it. Yes, lets vote for the guy in blue because he looks better. While we're at it lets also go to work late, do a half-assed job, and then leave early. Why stop there? Let's go get lunch and give no second thought about the ketchup stains on our shirts. Obviously things are only going to get worse if nobody does anything about it.

Why am I even discussing politics with somebody that is probably not even old enough to vote?

[Dangerous55]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Thomas "TJ" Jefferson

[Sinue_v2]

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." - Alexander Hamilton.

[Sgt_Shligger]

On 2007-10-21 04:05, BlaizeYES wrote:

On 2007-10-20 13:11, PhotonDrop wrote:

My apologies in advance. I stopped reading at this sentence. Have you ever wanted something to be done so that life could be easier for you? Have you ever thought "Gee, I wish I didn't have to pay so much in taxes" or "The streets seem a little crusty, why aren't people out here fixing that pot-hole?" ? You better start taking the presidential seriously if you want things to go your way. Granted that the guy you want might not get elected, but while you and other tools are voting for somebody for novelty value or a cute face, you just shunned your chance at a better life.

To vote for somebody based solely on skin color and gender is completely stupid. What difference does it make? If the person that gets elected does his or her job RIGHT and just so happens to not be Whitey McMan then more power to them. Voting for Obama/Hillary just because he's black/she's a woman is more of an insult to him/her and to yourself than not voting at all.


Personally I do not watch the Colbert Report, hell I barely watch any TV at all, but if his stance on the issues matches with mine then hell, he's got my vote.

There's no fucking way you're going to catch me voting for him based on "LOLOL I LIEK HIS SHO"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PhotonDrop on 2007-10-20 20:54 ]</font>



lol. get used to the fact we're never going to have a president that actually deals with "issues." every nation goes through a cycle, and we hit a peak in the 50s during our golden age. we're a young country that is on a downward spiral as it is. get used to "image," because as much as you hate to believe it, thats what influences most americans. and regardless of the presidency, it will still go down the same path. image is the only thing that matters at this point. i dont follow politics because to believe that 'someone will make a change' is retarded. nothing will ever change.

goodnight



So your saying that America is composed of nearly 300 million babbling, lazy, neglectful persons who pay no attention to ideals, morals, and opinions but instead rely on sight and imagery alone?

[Solstis]

Did you say that the fifties were the golden years? For who(m)? Definitely not blacks (lol lynching) or homosexuals (lol police state).

Way to exude generic teenage angst. Oh man, life sucks, and it will always suck, but it was really cool before I was born. Yeah man, times were so good back in the *insert decade*'s.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-10-21 16:54 ]</font>

[BlackHat]

I'd vote for him.

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

This discussion has run its course and is no longer entirely about the Cable TV comedian running for office. Contact your local congressman or woman with your questions/ideas/reform suggestions and so on then use your vote.

Locked.