presidential elections, who would it be and which party would they head? I'll start...Barry Goldwater...libertarian. Now you...
2006-12-19 05:22:41 · 13 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
First I have to state, I do not want to come off as a "hater," because I am not. I do not agree with most of your opinions, but I respect your arguments.
Though, I must say Heidi I am surprised by your choice. I know you claim to be a libertarian, but judging by the questions and answers you post, you are far from being one. You are definitely liberal, but your view points are certainly not libertarian.
I 100% agree with your selection, I think the biggest travesty of 20th century US politics was Barry Goldwater not being elected President in 1964. LBJ led the country down the path to socialism, and Goldwater's defeat allowed the Christian Right to take over the Republican Party, forcing out or mitigating the influence of social liberals.
Just to give you one example why your views are opposed to Barry Goldwater's positions, I will use your view on Affirmative Action (see the link below to your answer to a question last week). Barry Goldwater was not only against Affirmative Action, he was against the whole 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, he was not against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he was racist; quite the contrary. He supported the NAACP, and was in favor of limited government support to end segregation. The reason why he was against the Civil Rights Act was because he believed that such legislation was not the domain of the Federal Government, and the passage of such an act clearly went beyond Federal Government's mandate as specified by the 10th Amendment.
Goldwater's viewpoint to end segregation and racism in the south was the same as what Martin Luther King's position was to end segregation on the Montgomery Bus System, a boycott. Goldwater believed that the way to end segregation and discrimination was to not patronize businesses that supported these practices, such a boycott would have financial implications that would make these businesses willing end segregation; as opposed to having the Federal Government force them to end it. If the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott is any indication of how successful such punitive economic measures are, then his plan could have been as effective, if not more so, than any legislation the Federal government could enact.
I will include the link to Goldwater's Wikipedia entry. Though this is just a brief synopsis of his politics, If you read the third paragraph under his Political Career, it will clearly show his stance on 1964 Civil Rights Act.
2006-12-19 06:33:17 · answer #1 · answered by TheMayor 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To fix the treasury's checkbook - Ross Perot.
To talk staright to the country - Ross Perot.
To have a President the entire country can love - Ross Perot.
To have a president who thinks of America first - Ralph Nader.
Among the dead, I can go back to Regan for his sense of humor.
Man, all my choices start with "R"! Is it a coincidence that this country is currently in a "R"otten shape and it needs to be "R"escued from the current "R"ascals on the "R"oster of the Congress?
2006-12-19 05:31:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
computing gadget experts: -properly acceptable with more beneficial classes -exceptionally time-honored and used -low in value computing gadget Cons: -a lot of Viruses -volatile -Vista -upkeep -in effortless words lasts 3-4 years (if treated properly) Mac experts: -more beneficial consumer pleasant -less demanding to administration -Runs smoother -next to no Viruses -minimum blunders -minimum upkeep Required -Lasts 5-7 years (if treated) -Can run abode windows (Bootcamp) Mac Cons: -no longer properly acceptable with some software -value i exploit both, I favor my Mac. the in effortless words element I desire may be diverse is software for it. yet to sparkling up that difficulty I actually have a 500GB not undemanding force that has 100GB with BootCamp operating abode windows. learn shows that Mac computers run abode windows more beneficial than the different pc.
2016-11-27 20:15:03 · answer #3 · answered by desantiago 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Theodore Roosevelt
2006-12-19 05:26:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Dr. Martin Luther King as an independent. His peaceful policy could even bring peace at last to the Middle East. Not to mention he graduated first in his class at Harvard University,None of our past presidents can say that.
2006-12-19 05:31:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
None. Too much confidence in man. All American politics, starting at about a hundred or so years ago carries with it the distinct odor of being in collusion with elements that shouldn't exist.
2006-12-19 05:28:39 · answer #6 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He would require some education on the modern world, but I'd almost consider violating my principles against voting to cast a ballot for Thomas Jefferson.
2006-12-19 05:27:33 · answer #7 · answered by Zombie 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ralph Nader.
2006-12-19 05:31:10 · answer #8 · answered by cannonball 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe JFK-since his term got cut short I would like to see what he could done, I think Martin Luther king would be a good leader or Teddy Roosevelt-they were fantastic leaders in their days
2006-12-19 05:26:30 · answer #9 · answered by Annie 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Elvis
2006-12-19 05:28:03 · answer #10 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋