Who Would You Like the President to be?

[Kohr]

It's no secret that many people (myself included) aren't fans of Donald Trump, and don't look forward to his presidency. My question is simple: If you could place anyone in the oval office for the next four years, who would it be? Feel free to be creative and pick dead people, non-Americans, or fictional characters! For those of you who aren't Americans, who would you like your next Head of State/Government to be?

I'll start, be boring, and pick Bernie Sanders. I've been reading his book Our Revolution and I support most of the ideals he discusses. Hopefully he would make the term "Socialism" seem less imposing during his time in office.

How about you?

[Mefpan]

Charles zi Britannia.

[Collectivist Germania]

Ron Paul. Man, that guy should've won in 2012.

[Community Values]

Gary Johnson, he got an unfair rep from the news, but his policies were solid.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Ron Paul for maximum happenings.

[SUNTHREIT]

Obama, for a third term.

[SUNTHREIT]

Gary Johnson, he got an unfair rep from the news, but his policies were solid.

The guy doesn't know what Aleppo is.
10/10 foreign policy, guaranteed.

[Community Values]

Gary Johnson, he got an unfair rep from the news, but his policies were solid.

The guy doesn't know what Aleppo is.
10/10 foreign policy, guaranteed.

Better than Hillary's no-fly-zone and Trump's own version of madman theory.

[Collectivist Germania]

The guy doesn't know what Aleppo is.
10/10 foreign policy, guaranteed.

Better than Hillary's no-fly-zone and Trump's own version of madman theory.

Not knowing what Aleppo is... Somehow better than helping fight terrorism.

Ok.

[Nariterrr]

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Keith Elison, the trinity of progressives on Capitol Hill; one of them. If not, Hillary Clinton, but that's the past.

[Community Values]

Better than Hillary's no-fly-zone and Trump's own version of madman theory.

Not knowing what Aleppo is... Somehow better than helping fight terrorism.

Ok.

Flinging the threat of nuclear weapons around is not a good idea. Ever.

And if I may add, how does a no-fly-zone help fight terrorism? At least Johnson's plan didn't revolve around America being the policeman of the world.

[Jamzmania]

Ted Cruz.

[Collectivist Germania]

Not knowing what Aleppo is... Somehow better than helping fight terrorism.

Ok.

Flinging the threat of nuclear weapons around is not a good idea. Ever.

And if I may add, how does a no-fly-zone help fight terrorism? At least Johnson's plan didn't revolve around America being the policeman of the world.

North Korea, India and Pakistan have been flexing their capabilities for years and - news flash - nobody bothers them, with the exception of the annual war games exercise in Asia. US leaders have thrown threats of the same manner throughout the 20th century I might add.
And for the record, helping Syria and Russia helps fight terrorism. I don't support the funder of radical islamic groups or her no-fly-zone. Policeman of the world or not, the problem won't vanish by sticking your head in the sand and saying the weather is fine when really there are storm clouds gathering. Sure, non-interventionism is good in more conventional wars but not in this situation.

[Ethel mermania]

MEl brooks.

[Galloism]

I'd pick myself. I've always gotten along with me, generally been in agreement with my policies, always really liked me, and I've always been honest and trustworthy to myself.

[Community Values]

Flinging the threat of nuclear weapons around is not a good idea. Ever.

And if I may add, how does a no-fly-zone help fight terrorism? At least Johnson's plan didn't revolve around America being the policeman of the world.

North Korea, India and Pakistan have been flexing their capabilities for years and - news flash - nobody bothers them, with the exception of the annual war games exercise in Asia. US leaders have thrown threats of the same manner throughout the 20th century I might add.
And for the record, helping Syria and Russia helps fight terrorism. I don't support the funder of radical islamic groups or her no-fly-zone. Policeman of the world or not, the problem won't vanish by sticking your head in the sand and saying the weather is fine when really there are storm clouds gathering. Sure, non-interventionism is good in more conventional wars but not in this situation.

There's a big difference between those countries and America. For one, America is a lot stronger and has a lot more nuclear capability. If America threatens nuclear war, it's going to be a a lot more of a deal than if DPRK did.

We shouldn't help the Russians or the Syrians. They're authoritarian, kleptocratic, and backstabbers. We've tried to normalize relations with Russia since Bush, what makes this time any different? We have Putin's lotion boy in charge now?

You're right, intervention will stop terrorism. That's why Russia is going to stop it while we sit back and focus on domestic issues.

[The Blaatschapen]

Mark Zuckerberg.

Kanye West as vp.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd pick myself. I've always gotten along with me, generally been in agreement with my policies, always really liked me, and I've always been honest and trustworthy to myself.

I would also pick me.
Though of those mentioned thus far, you get my vote.

And, truthfully, I suspect i'd get on better as a shitlord congressman or senator.

[Collectivist Germania]

North Korea, India and Pakistan have been flexing their capabilities for years and - news flash - nobody bothers them, with the exception of the annual war games exercise in Asia. US leaders have thrown threats of the same manner throughout the 20th century I might add.
And for the record, helping Syria and Russia helps fight terrorism. I don't support the funder of radical islamic groups or her no-fly-zone. Policeman of the world or not, the problem won't vanish by sticking your head in the sand and saying the weather is fine when really there are storm clouds gathering. Sure, non-interventionism is good in more conventional wars but not in this situation.

There's a big difference between those countries and America. For one, America is a lot stronger and has a lot more nuclear capability. If America threatens nuclear war, it's going to be a a lot more of a deal than if DPRK did.

We shouldn't help the Russians or the Syrians. They're authoritarian, kleptocratic, and backstabbers. We've tried to normalize relations with Russia since Bush, what makes this time any different? We have Putin's lotion boy in charge now?

You're right, intervention will stop terrorism. That's why Russia is going to stop it while we sit back and focus on domestic issues.

Yeah, that's exactly my point. If America threatens nuclear war, heads are pulled into line and all of a sudden people remember that we have fangs too. It's a deterrent, that's always how it's worked post-1947.

>implying that authoritarianism is inherently evil

Nobody's out to suck Russia's dick here but if we at least get out of the cycle of blaming everything on the reds who hide under our beds, it's a step towards peace. Who cares if they way of life is authoritarian, we aren't Russians. What're you going to do about it, drop freedom on their heads?

Last point is fair enough.

[San Lumen]

Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or Cory Booker

[Rahul Raghuraman]

w/ Democratic Congress: ELIZABETH WAREEN!!!!!!
w/o Democratic Congress: Michael Bloomberg (finally a centrist!)

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

A cat. Any cat. Or rather, my cat. She would be a great POTUS.

[Risottia]

Elizabeth A.M. Windsor.

[Savoy-Habsburg]

Myself. Obviously

[Khornatenreich]

Amon Leopold Göth with Otto Adolf Eichmann as VP.