Blog Feedback: Presidential Election - Best Candidate for the Adult Industry

[Stoya]

This is a response to Presidential Election - Best Candidate for the Adult Industry

I was reading 'Presidential Election - Best Candidate for the Adult Industry' on Off the record and very hush-hush., and...

I know Joe Biden only has 4% of the polls right now, but he really is pretty rad. I may be revealing a bit too much of my dorky side here, but he took us on a behind the scenes tour of the senate when I was in TSA during my year in high school. From what I remember (this was 8 years ago) he's got a great sense of humor, is fairly in touch with reality and totally does use strong language whenever its appropriate.

[HushHushNate]

Biden is my guy as well. It sucks that he gets so little coverage. It kind of feels like he is keeping himself available for the VP by not engaging in the trash talking that the leading candidates are.

I just feel that in the world we live in today, with Bush creating such a mess in our foreign relations, we need a Prez that can cleanup that mess. Biden is incredibly strong in foreign relations. If Biden doesn't get the Democratic bid, whomever does would be wise to make him their VP.

Joe is real and down to earth. He gets grief for putting his foot in his mouth from time to time, but what President hasn't done that. I think Joe's integrity overrides any missteps he has in his speech.

[Emahevul]

I don't really know who would be the best candidate for the adult industry, as my political affiliations tend to lean in the, um, other direction.

LOL

[Shannon Nutt]

Actually, believe it or not, Ron Paul would be the best one...solely because of his libertarian "hands off" views when it comes to government.

Hard to believe a Republican would be the best option...not that Paul has a snowball's chance.

[Houstondon]

Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt

Actually, believe it or not, Ron Paul would be the best one...solely because of his libertarian "hands off" views when it comes to government.

Hard to believe a Republican would be the best option...not that Paul has a snowball's chance.

Ron seems like a good guy but his "Republican" status reminds me of the term RINO (Republican in name only). The GOP hates him, not just those religious extremists you're afraid of either but a lot of others that see his ideas as threatening to their version of how things "should be". I believe that the party will blindly sabotage any candidacy of his, a number having stated that they would rather suffer the consequences of the carpet bagger Senator from New York for 4 years than someone like him. Life sure is strange...

[KrAzY3]

I'd have to agree that Ron Paul would far and away be the best candidate for anyone that doesn't want censorship of any kind. As far as the Republican in name only part, Libertarians have long flirted with the Republican party in large part because the smaller government, fiscally conservative mentality many Republicans have tends to appeal to people that want well... smaller government. For the record a smaller government does less in all respects, including censorship so I'm all for anyone that doesn't make it part of their agenda to increase taxes, make more federal programs and generally act as though more government is the cure for every problem that society faces. I think Ron Paul is a bit too idealistic (like many Libertarians) but I think he brings a great perspective to political debates. The idea that no, the government doesn't have to do anything... as a matter of fact the government should mind is own damn business.

[Houstondon]

Originally Posted by KrAzY3

I'd have to agree that Ron Paul would far and away be the best candidate for anyone that doesn't want censorship of any kind. As far as the Republican in name only part, Libertarians have long flirted with the Republican party in large part because the smaller government, fiscally conservative mentality many Republicans have tends to appeal to people that want well... smaller government. For the record a smaller government does less in all respects, including censorship so I'm all for anyone that doesn't make it part of their agenda to increase taxes, make more federal programs and generally act as though more government is the cure for every problem that society faces. I think Ron Paul is a bit too idealistic (like many Libertarians) but I think he brings a great perspective to political debates. The idea that no, the government doesn't have to do anything... as a matter of fact the government should mind is own damn business.

The flip side of the Libertarian mindset (and I'm as much one as most) is that most people have some government program that they support that is not logically derived from the Constitution. Giving up the perks and benefits of government is the tough part for most that would otherwise be comfortable under the party from what I can see. I've been around long enough to know that governmental solutions tend to be bad solutions for all involved but people still want those problems covered.

As far as Ron's viewpoints that might irk a lot of people, Guns & Babies are the two biggies; many who think some gun control is a good thing would hate him and those who believe in the right to an abortion would hate him. Otherwise, while he thinks the feds should stay out of our lives more, he appears to believe that states should have more individual power too; not always a good idea given the way many think (if we overturned Roe V. Wade as Ron would like, a lot of states would legislate abortion out of existence).

[TimeandTide]

Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt

Actually, believe it or not, Ron Paul would be the best one...solely because of his libertarian "hands off" views when it comes to government.

Hard to believe a Republican would be the best option...not that Paul has a snowball's chance.

Ditto. He's my choice as well.

But realistically, Obama will probably get my vote if he gets the nom for the Dems.

[Houstondon]

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Do I prefer the party whose members think that pornography is, at best, the exploitation of women, and at worst pornography=rape?

Or do I prefer the party whose members think that pornography is, at best, indecent and needs to be suppressed, or at worst a sin that needs to be driven from the land?

If only there were a party which combined fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. And didn't want to sell off all overseas military bases, eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank, and make all Interstate highways private toll-roads.

Nick, I think the two major goals you have are reasonably deemed "mutually exclusive". Social liberalism is extremely expensive and a great many of Bush's detractors rail at all the cuts he's instituted to their pet programs (in fairness, many of them were continuations of Clinton's cuts, but why ruin their fantasies?). Fiscal conservatism "should" mean taxing less and spending it on programs mandated by the Constitution rather than act like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Still, as a fiscal conservative myself, there are a number of programs that I happen to like that the feds have no business funding in terms of social safety nets.

I think the best that can be hoped for are moderate candidates from either major party that realize most people seem to want porn for consenting adults left alone but even in my case (and I'm as much an advocate of the industry as anyone else) the major issues far outweigh ancillary topics like porn, however related it may be to personal freedoms.