No, but you can choose both if that works for you.

I choose both then because I'm incredibly interested as to how that would work.

In a game of would you rather, I usually pick the one that gets me the most support, so Obama it is, but if Obama lived by Russian standards and Putin lived by American standards, they'd probably replace each other pretty cleanly.

I mean more in terms of personal traits/ideals/methods (not specific country-related ones I suppose).

Putin hands down. He's an actual *Leader* of his country, seeking what is best for his country with no apologies. You may not agree wtih everything he does/stands for, but I dont' 100% agree with anyone. the President is a leadership, and when is comes to Leadership, Obama is almost 100% absent.

Anyone that tries to equate Obama and Putin is simply ignorant beyond belief - that would be, *media sheep*.

I thought you loved Obama, krellin.

I'm thinking pretty much what krellin said: Putin is a great leader, objectively speaking. He's a strategical thinker, calm, doesn't care about artificial limitations, seemingly loves to think outside of the box...
He can be original and decisive, make up a good plan and implement it. Moreover, he recognizes a bad plan.
He seems highly intelligent and mysterious, in a good way.
Moreover, he either knows what he's talking about or he knows he doesn't know and makes sure he finds out if needed.

Obama on the other hand... He's got a nice oneliner and a lot of script writers I suppose. He's not really a politician, you know...

I'm not too informed about either though. Exactly why I'm trying to spark this discussion.
Webdip is an awesome way to gather information with many different perspectives.

Actually, Obama is the perfect example of a politician. The problem is he isn't really a leader or a statesman (barely 6 years at a national level and a total of 17 between state and national). Putin, on the other hand, knows how to lead and is a statesman, not just a politician.

Obama, for the same reason I'd prefer Bush over Putin, too--

I'd rather a flawed, bumbling world leader than one that can make the trains run on time...

Better to have lackluster leaders than fascists.

(Cue Putin33's outrage......)

And what happened, krellin?

All that complaining about Obama being a tyrant...

And now you're complaining he's not ENOUGH of a strongman with an iron fist?

@Obi - krellin actually complained all along that Obama wasn't strong enough in the world theater and was weakening the US's global domination. This is what happens when the cops all turn in their guns for nightsticks.

And I'd prefer Putin based on the OP's rules. He wouldn't be running a communist or socialist or fascist country. He'd be running the US and probably do a damn sight better than Obama (or W for that matter).

Putin, on condition that he would hypothetically be as loyal to America as he is to Russia.

As krellin pointed out, Putin is a real leader with real balls, a real vision, and really good idea of how to run his country.

As for accusations that Putin is a police-state fascist, I disagree. Putin doesn't like homosexuals or activist punk bands. Considering I am neither a homosexual nor an activist punk band, I'd have plenty of civil liberties under a man like Putin.

Well you are right that Putin is effective.... At looking out for himself. I wouldn't want Putin as my leader because he is ethically deficient, even more so than Obama. Why would I want an effective, evil man to rule me? Or rule anything?

I also think that Putin is a little less cunning and Obama a little more effective than the bulk of you appear to be estimating, but given the events of the last month I suppose I don't blame you.

Either way, Obama would do a better job taking care of the country and people who he governed, whereas Putin would do what he does best - use power for his own benefit, and damn the consequences.

This is kind of a ridiculous question, to be honest. Of course Obama isn't perfect but.... Vladimir Putin????

"As for accusations that Putin is a police-state fascist, I disagree. Putin doesn't like homosexuals or activist punk bands. Considering I am neither a homosexual nor an activist punk band, I'd have plenty of civil liberties under a man like Putin."


Hahahahahahaha... Coming from you, this is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

Like, this is a joke right? Or am I misremembering and you're not a libertarian after all?

Who you asking? But more to the point, we only have two choices from the OP. A iron fisted but effective neo-fascist and a socialist wolf in democracy-sheep's clothing who wants to transform the internal but doesn't have any experience on the international stage (he went straight from state senator - not even US senator or Governor or even Mayor - to President).

obama and socialist? did i miss something?

"He wouldn't be running a communist or socialist or fascist country. He'd be running the US"

Why the presumption that the US can't be communist, socialist, and/or fascist?

"obama and socialist? did i miss something? "

Yeah, it's called Obamacare and the individual mandate. That's socialism put into practice. Make the taxpayer fund a medical plan that includes subsidies for those who can't afford it and deny anyone who has insurance available to them via their employer access to it, despite their tax money funding it. Take from the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood socialism at work. And no, Robin Hood was never my hero.

@Tolstoy - Well, because the Constitution wouldn't allow it and if you throw out the Constitution, then we are no longer the United States, of America, but the Socialist States of America or maybe the United Socialist States of America. Either way, we would be a different country.

The Constitution doesn't allow the EPA to stop a local government from building a hospital to protect some endangered sand fly, either, but it happens. When the constitution is either ignored or "re-interpreted" to expand the power of the government whenever its limitations become inconvenient, how could it prevent any "isms" at all? America has already become a fascist/semi-socialist country anyway; you can't prevent what has already happened.

@ Tolstoy

"you can't prevent what has already happened."

Correct, but it is theoretically possible to undo the damage. It won't happen as long as we have the internet and cable news, but it could happen someday. I hope and pray for the day when we the people restore sanity to American politics.

Actually, it does stop just that. Problem is, it is ignored. The 10th Amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The problem is the court has errantly and repeatedly called this a truism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It clearly states "if this document doesn't give the feds power or prevent the states from doing something, the states rights supersede all". If it were a truism, the founding fathers never would have included it. But it isn't. We need a new SCOTUS that recognizes the federal government has little power and only those powers *explicitly* named. Until then, Congress and the Executive branch will continue to abuse the Interstate Commerce clause.

@ Thucy

"Like, this is a joke right? Or am I misremembering and you're not a libertarian after all?"

I am indeed a libertarian, but if I'm going to live under a despotic pseudo-dicator, I'd prefer to live under a competent and benevolently nationalistic one. Besides, Putin really isn't that bad. Especially compared to Obama.

@ Thucy

I simply answered the OP. I didn't cop out with "NEITHER!!! GOVT SUCKS!!!1!!"

"Actually, it does stop just that. Problem is, it is ignored. The 10th Amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The problem is the court has errantly and repeatedly called this a truism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It clearly states "if this document doesn't give the feds power or prevent the states from doing something, the states rights supersede all". If it were a truism, the founding fathers never would have included it. But it isn't. We need a new SCOTUS that recognizes the federal government has little power and only those powers *explicitly* named. Until then, Congress and the Executive branch will continue to abuse the Interstate Commerce clause."

^^^^ THIS! HEAR, HEAR!!!!

42

@draug: i admit that obamacare is a step towards socialism, yet nothing compared to europe.

@Obi - you are truly to dense to understand what the role of President is, aren't you? To understand how Obama can at once be both a global weakling, not only tearing down the authority and leadership of the United States and thus **endangering the entire globe** (which was unfortunately our role to police) while at the same time being an insidious Tyrant within the country, not by gun, not by force, but by bribery and manipulation of people (such as yourself) who are too stupid to understand your freedoms are being stripped away from you as you greedily stick you lazy fucking hand out for another government give-away.

A Tyrant lording over sheep can be a pussy and still win.

Moron.