Post by: throwingks on January 07, 2008, 04:34:00 PM
For a nonpartisan list of candidates, look here:
http://www.vote-smar...n_president.php
I like Gravel the most, if I could pick anybody. Kucinich or Paul if I could get the chance. I don't think any of my 3 will get the opportunity though.
My "anti-vote" would go to Giuliani or Clinton. If either of them get the nomination, I am voting for the top contending competitor. It doesn't matter who it is. If they face each other, I don't know what I will do.
I am starting to think more and more that it is no longer Republican vs. Democrat, but Corporation vs. Citizen. The proof to me is the fact that none of my 3 (2 Dems and 1 Repub) are getting much coverage in the news, and they all share the same anti-corporate, power to the people viewpoint. Yet, I feel my "anti-votes" (1 Dem and 1 Repub) will do anything to get into office, even if it means delivering more power to corporations. And, they are always in the news. Regardless of the type of press, they get press.
Post by: damam on January 11, 2008, 10:02:00 AM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Jan 7 2008, 01:10 PM) 
My "anti-vote" would go to Giuliani or Clinton. If either of them get the nomination, I am voting for the top contending competitor. It doesn't matter who it is. If they face each other, I don't know what I will do.
add Mccain and Edwards in there and i am in the exact same boat. probably vote libertarian if that is the case. not because i necessarily want a libertarian in office (save paul), but to let both parties know where i stand politically.
QUOTE(throwingks @ Jan 7 2008, 01:10 PM)
I am starting to think more and more that it is no longer Republican vs. Democrat, but Corporation vs. Citizen. The proof to me is the fact that none of my 3 (2 Dems and 1 Repub) are getting much coverage in the news, and they all share the same anti-corporate, power to the people viewpoint. Yet, I feel my "anti-votes" (1 Dem and 1 Repub) will do anything to get into office, even if it means delivering more power to corporations. And, they are always in the news. Regardless of the type of press, they get press.
i would say (Corporation && totalitarianist or elitist) vs. avg. Citizen
Hillary is part of the Carroll Quigley academic group. bubba clinton actually said quigley was one of his bigest influences in his whole life. So she's not really a global corporationist, she's a progressive which is just another name for rich totalitarian elitist.
hmmmm, the i only person on that page I have never heard of is this Alan L. Keyes person. Maybe ill look into him.
Post by: SICKdimension on January 19, 2008, 05:16:00 AM
Since I am afraid if I vote for Kucinich, my vote will be wasted, since he will most likely get <10% of the votes, I am voting for Obama, simply to hinder Clinton's run.
If any of the republicans other than Ron Paul become president, I might just have to leave the country.
Post by: gronned on January 22, 2008, 12:42:00 AM
Post by: damam on January 23, 2008, 01:30:00 PM
QUOTE(gronned @ Jan 21 2008, 09:18 PM)
. . . since I'm sure a black guy still can't get enough votes when it's about electing the president, I rather vote Clinton.
i would not be so sure about that. If it is Mccain Vs Obama, atleast at the moment, I am planning on voting obama. And I am not the only right leaning person murmuring this sort of sentiment. sadly colour may affect some of his numbers, but not a lot. Most of those people (racists) dont vote anyways. I would not discount him based on race at all. As a matter of fact it may even help him, white people seem to be enamoured with the idea of being able to "prove" they are not racist by voting for him. Kind of funny really.
another interesting thing that I am hearing is billary's whispering's among democrats that obama is a closet muslim really seem to be taking hold among my democratic friends. i really have to sit back and laugh at the irony of my "open minded" liberal friends. I guess that saying, "society does not get less tolerant, they only change targets" might be true.
a question i have is if we do elect a black person, can we finally say that we no longer need affirmative action? Or does he not count for some reason.
Post by: Reaper527 on January 24, 2008, 03:36:00 PM
i am most likely to end up voting for mitt, as i feel he has a strong financial background, and he comes across as the most intelligent during debates. i might not always agree with him, but he does what he believes in.
for what its worth, Massachusetts resident, 21 years old
Post by: melongstrike on January 25, 2008, 05:26:00 PM
Post by: spiffyville on January 25, 2008, 08:15:00 PM
Post by: Vfreitas on January 26, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Post by: gcskate27 on January 26, 2008, 02:55:00 PM
sure if 'enough people' decide to make a stand he could win, but really how likely is that? better to start slowly than throw a vote essentially for the party you dont want to win...
naturally im voting for whatever dem gets the nod... were still a 2 party country and that will not change anytime soon... idealism isnt the smart move...
Post by: lostboyz on January 26, 2008, 09:11:00 PM
gcskate: you make the argument from the ralph nader days, at least ron paul is on the republican ticket, and has beaten guliani in every primary thus far yet gets no media coverage. Its true I doubt he will be elected but most conservative people my age are voting for him. I think our generation is sick of the typical politician (clinton, edwards, romney) who come off to me as polished pieces of shit.
I think the media needs to truly revamp their coverage to a more balanced system. That and most of the "debates" thus far suck, I want to watch to learn about the candidates grounds on policy not a bitchfest of their past votes or something they said 5 years back.
If Hilary wins I am leaving the country, not because she is a woman, but I do not agree with any of her policies and I can not forget her connection to corruption, that everyone seems to forget.
Post by: gcskate27 on January 27, 2008, 08:06:00 AM
Post by: melongstrike on January 27, 2008, 05:12:00 PM
Clinton just flew in/out of the airport at which I am a fire fighter at in FL.
I am going through my citizen process as I type. I have been here in the states for 22 years (25yrs old) from Jamaica.
It never crossed my mind to become a citizen because there wasn't anything I wanted or needed that my Permanent Resident Alien status prevented from doing.
As of lately (3-4 years) I have become more into politics and would kill for the opportunity to voice my decision on the next prez.
Hopefully... we'll see how long the process takes.
Post by: Dark_Raider99 on January 29, 2008, 11:58:00 PM
Post by: lordvader129 on February 02, 2008, 11:39:00 AM
i highly doubt ill be voting for ron paul (the dems would have to field someone even worse than clinton for that to happen)
the reason is other than opposing many of his policies i feel he isnt concerned with doing whats right, hes more concerned with not doing whats wrong, it seems to me hed rather sit on his hands and do nothing than do something he might not like (see PM chamberlains policies toward nazi germany in the 1930s)
another thing is i feel he shares the same character flaw as george bush, he is unwavering from his opinions, despite changing circumstances, by the end of a term as president i woul dbet paul will be as unpopular and ineffective as bush
and lastly, the executive and legislative branches of the government must be on the same page for anything to get done, who would you vote into congress to complement paul?
Post by: mkjones on February 11, 2008, 10:02:00 AM
http://www.englandforobama.com/
Post by: underworlderZer0 on March 30, 2008, 12:32:00 AM
Post by: SICKdimension on May 01, 2008, 10:52:00 PM
Post by: tlamb on May 02, 2008, 02:54:00 AM
Post by: Arvarden on July 28, 2008, 07:25:00 AM
QUOTE(sicknasty413 @ Jul 28 2008, 08:25 AM)
What's everyone thinking? I'm def going Obama (and I'll be turning 18 in October, so I'll be able to vote!)
Jumping out of the fire into the frying pan springs to mind.
Post by: Mikesshunk on July 28, 2008, 10:18:00 AM
Post by: Movax on July 28, 2008, 10:21:00 AM
The only thing good about Obama is his public speaking skills.
Post by: lordvader129 on July 28, 2008, 11:00:00 AM
QUOTE(Movax @ Jul 28 2008, 08:57 AM)
Write in Ron Paul.
The only thing good about Obama is his public speaking skills.
the only good thing about ron paul is....
...sorry, i couldnt think of a way to finish that sentence (see post #16 above)
Post by: Movax on July 28, 2008, 11:42:00 AM
Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and bring back the gold standard. Did Bush ever propose anything that dramatic? Bush is a puppet and a stumbling buffoon. I don't know how he got elected..oh wait..election fraud.
Post by: Reaper527 on August 03, 2008, 02:54:00 PM
QUOTE(sicknasty413 @ Jul 28 2008, 03:25 AM)
Bump!
It's now almost 3 months later. What's everyone thinking? I'm def going Obama (and I'll be turning 18 in October, so I'll be able to vote!)
now that the dust has settled since this thread was started back in january, i'm voting McCain.
Obama's policies are abysmal enough, now you have to toss in the fact he is flipflopping on everything. the only change he brings is what he says today versus what he said a week ago. (his latest flipflop is offshore drilling. while i support offshore drilling, absolutely NOTHING has changed between obama's support for it the other day, and him condemning McCain for it a few weeks ago.)
McCain has his problems, but at least he is straight forward. he said he wouldn't support ethanol subsidies when he was in rural america, proving that he will say where he stands as opposed to what he thinks will get him elected.
Obama on the other hand changes his platform based on who he is speaking to. the only thing that doesn't change is that he is going to give everyone a massive tax hike. (not just the rich as alot of his supporters seem to think)
QUOTE(Movax @ Jul 28 2008, 02:18 PM)
Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and bring back the gold standard. Did Bush ever propose anything that dramatic? Bush is a puppet and a stumbling buffoon.
vader never compared ron paul's policies to bush's. he compared a part of their personalities. he said the following:
QUOTE
another thing is i feel he shares the same character flaw as george bush, he is unwavering from his opinions, despite changing circumstances, by the end of a term as president i woul dbet paul will be as unpopular and ineffective as bush
i do agree with vader that ron paul knows what he wants to do in the whitehouse, and he wouldn't be willing to take any conflicting opinions into consideration.
Post by: throwingks on August 15, 2008, 12:17:00 PM
QUOTE(CF01 @ Aug 7 2008, 06:59 AM)
im not quite sure who is going to get my vote yet there is still alot to learn about the candidates so we can make a good decision so you dont regret it later on down the road .
Shhh...
The Olympics are on.
Post by: Reaper527 on August 16, 2008, 01:09:00 AM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Aug 15 2008, 02:53 PM)
Shhh...
The Olympics are on.
good point, kerry walsh/misty may have my vote
Post by: throwingks on August 16, 2008, 02:39:00 AM
http://wbztv.com/pol...e.2.796143.html
Via drudgereport.
That would at least be pretty interesting.
I hate voting for the less of 2 evils though. I am still undecided with Obama's new flipflopping, (plus potentially Kerry's old flipflopping), and McCain's "staying the course."
Walsh / May 2012 <--- Please be Libertarian!
Post by: Infamous Ob on August 24, 2008, 08:02:00 PM
Post by: lordvader129 on August 29, 2008, 12:06:00 PM
QUOTE(sicknasty413 @ Aug 23 2008, 09:43 AM)
Obama picks Biden. Whatcha guys think?
I think I would have preferred he pick Kaine, but that's probably because I live in Virgina
heh, i just got home from virginia, i was working in culpeper
Post by: ILLusions0fGrander on August 29, 2008, 12:14:00 PM
QUOTE(Infamous Ob @ Aug 24 2008, 10:38 PM)
Well Im going to keep my Answer disclosed until I see some better ideas from the Canidates.
you mean undisclosed? heh.. same here.
Post by: damam on September 08, 2008, 12:52:00 PM
on fence bob barr or palin
i will vote for one of the two.
the more i learn about barak, the more i cant believe i ever considered him. . . And thanks to the backwards press that we have here in america, I know more about palin than i do about barak still. I even know what bristols boyfriends tattoo's look like!!! For cripes sake, how absurd is that?
Post by: BoNg420 on September 08, 2008, 07:31:00 PM
Post by: Just a Shadow on September 08, 2008, 07:44:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Sep 8 2008, 02:28 PM)
still dont think i can vote for mccain, but Palin definitely makes the medicine more palatable.
I really dont see why the VP would make a person more inclined to vote for mccain...
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Sep 8 2008, 06:44 PM)
McCain may as well have conceded defeat by declaring Palin for vice president. In fact because of the consistent blundering by the present president, the Republican party is doomed at this election no matter what he does. The only way McCain will win is if he bribes, kidnaps, clones and kills Hilary Clinton.
Barak has got this one bagged and tagged.
Half of obama's supporters know nothing about who he is or what he's trying to accomplish, they just keep hearing the word "change" and healthcare in every one of his speeches.
Im not a very political person, and I really hate trying to have conversations about politics with friends and family or anybody for that matter. Its because everyone has their own personal opinions on what they think they want, need or should get.
My vote (If I vote) will definetely be for Mccain (I dislike both also but...). If you people can't see past baraks inexperience and bullshit well then I dont know what to tell you. At least Mccain has served his country and I believe he is the better of the canidates (you have to pick one...)
Just my 2 cents.
Post by: BoNg420 on September 08, 2008, 07:49:00 PM
Post by: lostboyz on September 10, 2008, 11:20:00 AM
QUOTE(BoNg420 @ Sep 8 2008, 09:25 PM)
We just need to do the smart thing and overthrow our govt
agreed
republicans are now liberals, and liberals are socialists
time to start over
Post by: gcskate27 on September 10, 2008, 01:58:00 PM
QUOTE(lostboyz @ Sep 10 2008, 12:56 PM)
agreed
republicans are now liberals, and liberals are socialists
time to start over
thats a scary thought... these are reps being liberals??!?!?!
Post by: lostboyz on September 10, 2008, 02:58:00 PM
Good example, both sides claim that they are the ones responsible for higher mileage cars being created. They may have been apart of a bill that told car companies they had to make these cars, but it was the market that told with high gas prices that they needed to be made. It always takes a politician to take the credit of an engineer.
When even republicans start bashing on "big" business thats when its all down hill. Big business is what makes this country money.
Post by: Reaper527 on September 10, 2008, 05:05:00 PM
QUOTE(lostboyz @ Sep 10 2008, 05:34 PM)
When even republicans start bashing on "big" business thats when its all down hill. Big business is what makes this country money.
the difference is that the democrats want to fuck small business over too. the tax increases obama proposes will shut down an unthinkable amount of small businesses.
Post by: lordvader129 on September 12, 2008, 03:21:00 PM
QUOTE(aCardboredBox @ Sep 12 2008, 10:26 AM)
I vote for overthrowing the government plan. Maybe a loose confederation of smaller countries would serve us better... Don't like the policy in one country, move to another!
you can do that now
Post by: twistedsymphony on September 12, 2008, 03:36:00 PM
QUOTE(aCardboredBox @ Sep 12 2008, 02:26 PM)
I vote for overthrowing the government plan. Maybe a loose confederation of smaller countries would serve us better... Don't like the policy in one country, move to another!
That's how the US was originally to some extent...
the "UNITED STATES"... think about what that means, Most laws were independently determined and governed from state to state and the federal government only served as a broad set of base guidelines for the states as well as managing the inter-connectivity of the states (eg: money, highways, military, etc.)
unfortunately at this point the federal government as grown to the point where it makes all the detailed laws and then LITERALLY BULLIES the states into compliance.
I live in NH... we do not have a seatbelt law here, if you're over 18 you don't need to "click it"... do you realize that law costs NH MILLIONS every years. Because we don't completely comply with the federal seatbelt regulations they deny us our share of highway funding... There are countless examples of this the way the current government is set up. "You do it OUR way OR ELSE"
hearing about garbage like "national health care" is such a monumental step in the wrong directions it's not even remotely funny.... the last thing we need is more overbearing federal regulations telling people what they can and can't do.
The problem is people think we need someone "experienced" in office... experience will never = change, because experience = status quo. Think of all presidents in history who are honored decades after their term... Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc. ... NONE of them were career politicians.
The fact of the matter is the greatest presidents in this countries history, the ones the left the biggest positive mark on the country, are those who came from humble beginnings and said "I want to make a difference".
The only politician who will make a difference at this point is someone who knows what it's like to work for a dollar, and understands the need to return power to the states where it belongs....
Post by: damam on September 12, 2008, 06:20:00 PM
QUOTE(Just a Shadow @ Sep 8 2008, 03:20 PM)
I really dont see why the VP would make a person more inclined to vote for mccain...
palin governing style has been that of a moderate libertarian. You can argue all you want about her oppinions, but what she has actually done is moderately libertarian. being a libertarian myself, the idea that palin is "just one heart beat away" gives me hope that she will be president. thats why i could stomach say 2 years of mccain, for 10 years of palin.
nice post twistedsymphony
i agree bring power back to the states.
Post by: chorizo1 on September 12, 2008, 08:38:00 PM
Post by: lordvader129 on September 13, 2008, 09:28:00 AM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Sep 12 2008, 02:12 PM)
I live in NH... we do not have a seatbelt law here, if you're over 18 you don't need to "click it"... do you realize that law costs NH MILLIONS every years. Because we don't completely comply with the federal seatbelt regulations they deny us our share of highway funding... There are countless examples of this the way the current government is set up. "You do it OUR way OR ELSE"
the mere fact that a state is even allowed to reject federal seatbelt regs should tell you something, and denial of federal finding should mean nothing, you want a small federal government anyway, its always amused me how people want a small, weak government when they are being told what to do, but a big strong government when it comes to funding and handouts
i agree that the federal governemnt oversteps its bounds way to often, but youll never see an end to it because people want to have their cake and eat it to, they want more power to the states, but when they screw up they look to the fed to bail them out, state governments just want to pass the buck one more step up the ladder, so whats the fed supposed to do? wouldnt you want to do things your way if you had to eat it everytime something goes wrong?
Post by: lostboyz on September 13, 2008, 03:28:00 PM
I agree with twisted, there are tons of things today where the government on every level is growing. States or cities are banning smoking indoors when it should be the bar owners choice. There is a place in springfield, MO thats called ziggie's and it had a fairly regular crowd where most smoked, they banned smoking indoors so the guy opened a new place across the street called ciggies and jumped through hoops to make it a dedicated smoking lounge/bar.
When you think you are going to pass a law that will help most of everyone and just put off a select few then you should probably let it go to a lower governing body to decide.
Its the same thing with the marijuana dispenciaries (sp?) in california, where dea agents are still raiding state legal facilities because they have a problem with it.
YAY for socialism though, because its fair for you to work your ass off to pay someone elses welfare, with no motivation to go find a job.
Post by: damam on September 14, 2008, 03:23:00 PM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Sep 12 2008, 11:12 AM)
I live in NH... we do not have a seatbelt law here, if you're over 18 you don't need to "click it"... do you realize that law costs NH MILLIONS every years. Because we don't completely comply with the federal seatbelt regulations they deny us our share of highway funding... There are countless examples of this the way the current government is set up. "You do it OUR way OR ELSE"
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Sep 13 2008, 05:04 AM)
the mere fact that a state is even allowed to reject federal seatbelt regs should tell you something, and denial of federal finding should mean nothing, you want a small federal government anyway, its always amused me how people want a small, weak government when they are being told what to do, but a big strong government when it comes to funding and handouts
the problem with that response in this particular example is that one of the only intended responsibilities of the fed government was to provide interstate infrustructure to allow for trade between states. NH pays into the fed coffers with the expectation that they will provide the basic infrustructure for trade as do we all. Now here i am in another state, and if i want to do business with NH, or i want to do business with a state surrounding NH I am being punished as well because of this violation of the social contract by the federal govt. They should either provide the basic infrustructure needed, or give the money back.