Why are you voting for McCain / Obama?

[Marie in Oh]

I need to know the full ticket.

 

I likely wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, but it sounds like it might be Obama/ Biden, and if that is the case then NOWAY! I do not like Joe Biden at all.

 

If McCain goes with Romney I am not sure. I wasn't a big Romney fan. I can't remember who else they are speculating about.

 

I sort of feel like when the choices were Clinton and Dole. Those weren't great choices either, but I was too young to think that I should not vote or write someone in just to make a point, so I voted anyway. I know better now.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

My heart is with the progressives who fought for women's right to vote and own property, workers' collective bargaining rights, child labor laws, safe working conditions, reform of mental institutions, basic stipend for elderly and orphaned, abolition movement, equal rights for minorities. And the progressives are leading the long tiring fight for fair treatment for nonheterosexual peoples and for universal access to healthcare. In short, the progressives historically have sought to reduce human suffering.

 

Could not have said it better myself.

 

My main reason for my vote though, is that dd will be in the booth with me, and if I vote for John McCain she will never speak to me again. lol.

 

Also, considering what is going on with Russia right now, I want Obama.

[laylamcb]

I got this VA voter poll call the other day. This is very exciting for us Virginians because normally no one cares what we think. But apparently this year we're a battleground state. Woohoo!! So anyway, this lady asked me a series of questions, and here were two of them (I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but I think I've captured the gist):

 

1. Which of these statements best represents your view: a) I want us to get out of Iraq as soon possible when the country is stabilized and we've met our objectives to defeat terrorism; or b) I want us to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to stabilize the country and meet our objectives to defeat terrorists.

 

:001_huh:

 

2. Which of these statements best represents your view: a) I want a president who can and will change things in Washington; or b) I want a president with experience in Washington.

 

:001_huh:

 

To the first I answered, "Um, aren't those the same thing?" To the second I answered, "Um, C? All of the above?" What kinds of choices are THOSE?!

 

 

Is it me? Or do the pollsters, pundits, and politicians think we're idiots? Or...are we idiots? ACK!

[CLHCO]

My heart is with the progressives who fought for women's right to vote and own property, workers' collective bargaining rights, child labor laws, safe working conditions, reform of mental institutions, basic stipend for elderly and orphaned, abolition movement, equal rights for minorities. And the progressives are leading the long tiring fight for fair treatment for nonheterosexual peoples and for universal access to healthcare. In short, the progressives historically have sought to reduce human suffering.

 

I have to say that with as nice as this sounds, my problem with this is that it suggests non-"progressives" are into watching children suffer. I'm not a progressive but I am all for doing something about suffering where I can.

 

I look at it differently. There are many areas I would suggest that progressives have, in their rush to do good, caused more harm. Many also do not know their history. It just sounds good to be "progressive".

 

I know the left progressives like to believe the origins of their current political party sprang out of such things as abolition, but when you look at the history, you find in many cases the beginnings weren't so lovely. There is a line of continuity from the republicans of Lincoln's time to todays, just as there is a line leading from the elite of the social management of the progressives from the early last century, to today.

 

The progressive and liberal roots fall far more into an ideology that reflected abortion to limit the "undesirable races" from producing too much (Margret Sanger of Planned Parenthood) along with other "progressive" ideas like eugenics, etc. Even much of the feminist movement comes directly from the Communist Manifesto and Marxist thoughts. Slave to no man but slaves to the government. I'd rather women progress without the government, if given my choice.

 

Even areas that certainly need attention, such as poverty and rights for the handicap or minorities can backfire when you rush in the name of good without looking where you're going. One could argue that some of the laws to protect minorities and the handicap backfire because they make it very hard for an employer to fire a poor worker to the point where some avoid hiring them where they can get away with it. It's a law of unintended consequences.

 

Universal Healthcare sounds just wonderful to me but I have some serious alarms that go off in my head over those unintended consequences. Just because something sounds fair, doesn't mean it won't be a larger disaster at the end of the day.

 

I don't mean to quibble on every subject here. There is certainly good that has come from many of these movements. I'm pretty conservative but I am very glad my daughters can establish their own line of credit and attend a university if they choose. There are aspects of the civil rights as well that really needed fighting, and in that area, I am more than willing to look at some of the "conservatives" at the time that needed a very harsh finger pointed at them.

 

My caution is simply to avoid a sweeping line of allegiance to an ideology, instead taking things point by point and considering when it is wiser to divide when necessary, even where you believe in an individual cause.

[tibbyl]

Cheryl, I purposely omitted mention of any political party because both the major parties in our country have had progressive members.

[Heather in Neverland]

I am not impressed with either one, but I will never vote for a candidate who supports abortion so McCain gets my vote.

 

ditto

[CLHCO]

Cheryl, I purposely omitted mention of any political party because both the major parties in our country have had progressive members.

I'm sorry, I did make assumptions. However, it is today's liberal left who consider themselves the "progressives" and not any modern conservatives. It's a title that has been specifically aligned with many of the left movements to make it sound like they care to move forward against human suffering, and on toward some evolved enlightenment, and we don't. My caution is that the very same unintended consequences of the past can haunt us with the current areas they are waging war.

[tibbyl]

I have to say that with as nice as this sounds, my problem with this is that it suggests non-"progressives" are into watching children suffer. I'm not a progressive but I am all for doing something about suffering where I can.

 

I look at it differently. There are many areas I would suggest that progressives have, in their rush to do good, caused more harm. Many also do not know their history. It just sounds good to be "progressive".

 

I know the left progressives like to believe the origins of their current political party sprang out of such things as abolition, but when you look at the history, you find in many cases the beginnings weren't so lovely. There is a line of continuity from the republicans of Lincoln's time to todays, just as there is a line leading from the elite of the social management of the progressives from the early last century, to today.

 

The progressive and liberal roots fall far more into an ideology that reflected abortion to limit the "undesirable races" from producing too much (Margret Sanger of Planned Parenthood) along with other "progressive" ideas like eugenics, etc. Even much of the feminist movement comes directly from the Communist Manifesto and Marxist thoughts. Slave to no man but slaves to the government. I'd rather women progress without the government, if given my choice.

 

Even areas that certainly need attention, such as poverty and rights for the handicap or minorities can backfire when you rush in the name of good without looking where you're going. One could argue that some of the laws to protect minorities and the handicap backfire because they make it very hard for an employer to fire a poor worker to the point where some avoid hiring them where they can get away with it. It's a law of unintended consequences.

 

Universal Healthcare sounds just wonderful to me but I have some serious alarms that go off in my head over those unintended consequences. Just because something sounds fair, doesn't mean it won't be a larger disaster at the end of the day.

 

I don't mean to quibble on every subject here. There is certainly good that has come from many of these movements. I'm pretty conservative but I am very glad my daughters can establish their own line of credit and attend a university if they choose. There are aspects of the civil rights as well that really needed fighting, and in that area, I am more than willing to look at some of the "conservatives" at the time that needed a very harsh finger pointed at them.

 

My caution is simply to avoid a sweeping line of allegiance to an ideology, instead taking things point by point and considering when it is wiser to divide when necessary, even where you believe in an individual cause.

 

Actually, when I made that post, I guess I had the mistaken notion that this was a rebuttal-free thread. I am not one who is averse to positive social reform because we may not get it exactly right the first go round.

 

And, yes, I do have a basic familiarity with history of progressive movements including certain political and philosophical underpinnings. As I was writing that, I briefly considered inserting qualifiers but I made the assumption that readers could naturally discern that I made generalizations for sake of brevity.

 

A positive social movement that shares some common thought with communism or Marxism does not, to me, automatically invalidate it. After all, early christians were communistic.

[CLHCO]

Actually, when I made that post, I guess I had the mistaken notion that this was a rebuttal-free thread.

 

Sorry, I didn't get that impression. If so, I'll end the subject here. You likely do know your history and were simply being brief. However, my experience is that most declaring this alignment, do not. It was my mistake to assume this and try to expand the conversation.

 

A positive social movement that shares some common thought with communism or Marxism does not, to me, automatically invalidate it. After all, early christians were communistic.

 

I would certainly argue against the early Christians as communistic, just because they believed in voluntarily sharing with those within your body of believers, more like family and community shares. However, that would require a rebuttal and I don't know if either of us appear to have the energy to go into combat right now so I'll let it die.

[Catherine]

and I believe Obama will, and I want health care reform. I worry also about McCain's temper and what it may indicate about his ability to control it when the chips are down or when provoked. For me the VP choice is also critical, given McCain's age. I can't imagine him choosing someone I'm likely to support, because I think he's likely to choose someone more conservative than himself.

[Alenee]

 

A positive social movement that shares some common thought with communism or Marxism does not, to me, automatically invalidate it. After all, early christians were communistic.

 

I can see where you *might* at first think early Christians were communistic. However, communism or socialism are laws made by the government and you have to obey them. Christians gave to all who had need out of their hearts, not because they were obeying the government. It was a choice.

[nakitty]

I'm voting for Obama because I believe in Civil and Human rights...and in the Constitution and Bill of Rights....and the enviornment...and foreign relations....and compassion...and agriculture....and social services... hmmm...kids keep interrupting me... I cannot keep my train of thought so this will have to do.:D

[EKS]

Obama. The last thing this country needs is four more years. I believe that Bush's presidency will be considered a turning point in history--a place where we could have gone one way and prospered as a society but instead went another way that led to the decline of our civilization. I am actually quite pessimistic about whether we can recover from his policies even without a Bush clone in the White House.

 

I'm voting for Obama happily because he seems to understand on a deep level, a well considered level, the problems this country faces. I am actually excited about him as a candidate and not just voting for him because he is a Democrat.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm voting Obama. I'm hoping he will temper his ticket with someone with more experience, especially in military matters such as Wesley Clark.

 

But, Obama is older than JFK was when he became president and he has more experience in national politics than our last several presidents have had.

 

As far as Obama being pro-choice McCain has said he doesn't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. So, I don't think the pro-lifers have a horse there.

 

But, I'll never vote for someone who believes the Constitution should *ever* be used to *take away* rights.

 

Mainly? I think given the political situation (never mind the environment) getting our nation OFF oil should be our nation's *number one* priority. As long as we're pouring money into the middle east to support our oil habit we'll be there in one form or another to keep the peace. I'm tired of seeing our (and by "our" I mean mine and my husband's, not a generic our) friends and loved ones die for this reason. Let me be clear, I don't believe the GWOT is all about oil but the terrorists are funded with oil dollars from Saudi, from Oman, etc.

[Danestress]

Very interesting. I wonder why. Is it a, "I just want to go home" thing, or do you think that the military itself has more liberal members now then in times past. Or are their wives doing the check writing?

[ereks mom]

1) He has more experience;

2) I tend to agree with his foreign policy views (Iraq, etc.);

3) I tend to agree with his domestic policy views (economy, etc.);

4) on social issues -- which is usually the clincher for me -- he is more conservative (abortion, gay "marriage", etc.).

[Kimber]

Deep down inside I really wanted to see Obama or Hillary elected president. It would really be a beautiful thing to see a female or a minority running this country; however, I simply cannot vote pro-choice. I will be voting for McCain.

 

I think change is absolutely needed in this country, I just want a different kind of change than what Obama is pushing.

 

And you know with what's been happening with Russia and Georgia and Poland in the news, McCain has been on target from jump in how to deal with Russia. It's frightening to see things become so strained between us and Russia. If things go bad, I would feel much better with McCain in the white house than Obama.

 

Kimberly

[ereks mom]

I'm voting for McCain...

If another candidate is elected, I won't like it but I will support that person as our President. I think the endless throwing of tomatoes at our elected officials is hurting our country in major ways and preventing any progressive movement forward...

 

:iagree:

[Danestress]

And if I have to see McCain everyday with that freaky looking wife, I don't know if I can take it:)

 

but seriously ...... waiting to see who the vice presidential nominations are but feeling more aligned, with a couple of exceptions, with Obama's policy proposals than McCain's.

[Mrs Mungo]

Very interesting. I wonder why. Is it a, "I just want to go home" thing, or do you think that the military itself has more liberal members now then in times past. Or are their wives doing the check writing?

 

I think it's because many members of the Army feel the Republican administration did *not* follow the military's plan for Iraq and the military is paying the price. I know a LOT more people who are voting Dem this time. Of course, those people never would have voted for Kerry.

 

eta: as far Obama being better looking, can you imagine if Clark is on the ticket? Best looking ticket, EVER. ;)

[ereks mom]

Obama? Pro-life? Not trying to "stir the pot", but I thought he was pro-choice/pro-abortion. :confused:

[Johanna]

Mccain: Prolife (voting for him)

Obama: Not Pro-life (NOT voting for him)

[Johanna]

He is NOT pro-life.

[5kidsforME]

I got this VA voter poll call the other day. This is very exciting for us Virginians because normally no one cares what we think. But apparently this year we're a battleground state. Woohoo!! So anyway, this lady asked me a series of questions, and here were two of them (I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but I think I've captured the gist):

 

1. Which of these statements best represents your view: a) I want us to get out of Iraq as soon possible when the country is stabilized and we've met our objectives to defeat terrorism; or b) I want us to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to stabilize the country and meet our objectives to defeat terrorists.

 

:001_huh:

 

2. Which of these statements best represents your view: a) I want a president who can and will change things in Washington; or b) I want a president with experience in Washington.

 

:001_huh:

 

To the first I answered, "Um, aren't those the same thing?" To the second I answered, "Um, C? All of the above?" What kinds of choices are THOSE?!

 

 

Is it me? Or do the pollsters, pundits, and politicians think we're idiots? Or...are we idiots? ACK!

 

Sounds like one of the questions I was asked right before the 2004 elections. Their last question was, "Would you consider yourself: A) Christian B) Born-Again or C) Evangelical :001_huh: I asked if there was a D) all of the above and she was like Nope you need to pick one. That is when I hung up.

[apond]

McCain the lesser of two evils. Obama seems fake and insincere

 

Annmarie

[astrid]

I'm voting for Obama because I believe in Civil and Human rights...and in the Constitution and Bill of Rights....and the enviornment...and foreign relations....and compassion...and agriculture....and social services... hmmm...kids keep interrupting me... I cannot keep my train of thought so this will have to do.:D

 

:iagree::iagree:

Astrid (kids, dogs and the phone keep interrupting me! What IS IT with today?!)

[astrid]

and I believe Obama will, and I want health care reform. I worry also about McCain's temper and what it may indicate about his ability to control it when the chips are down or when provoked. For me the VP choice is also critical, given McCain's age. I can't imagine him choosing someone I'm likely to support, because I think he's likely to choose someone more conservative than himself.

 

:iagree::iagree:

Astrid

[JudyJudyJudy]

I will be voting for Obama. First, we need to be out of Iraq. This so-called "war on terror" will never be won just as the "war on drugs" will never be won.

 

Also, I support candidates who don't talk out of both sides of their mouths. I can't support candidates who claim to be concerned about an unborn child, yet once the child is born, they don't care at all whether or not the child has healthcare, food, clothing, or shelter. I support candidates who fight against poverty and want to make sure that everyone is insured. The health of people should not depend on how much money they have.

 

I also support Obama because he is backed by Sam Nunn, a man for whom I have great respect. Sam Nunn is working with Obama on defense and foreign policy, and that means a lot to me. Sam Nunn has tremendous experience and is considered to be one of the nation’s preeminent experts in defense.

 

I support candidates for whom "family" means something. While McCain's treatment of his first wife after she was disfigured most likely wouldn't prevent me from voting for him if I agreed with him on other issues, I have no respect whatsoever for him after knowing what happened in that situation. This speaks for the kind of person he is and doesn't exactly support "family" like the Republican party claims to favor.

 

I support candidates who truly care about veterans and will work to help them. Obama has shown that he is more likely to help veterans than the other candidates will. McCain, while a veteran himself, doesn't have a good voting record in this area.

 

I support candidates who believe in humane treatment of others. Obama is in favor of closing Guantanamo, which is something I support.

 

I am totally against NAFTA and CAFTA. McCain is in favor of both and even supports extending free trade agreements even further, which would hurt our country even more. Obama is against both NAFTA and CAFTA.

 

Both Obama and McCain claim to support homeschooling, which is one of my biggest concerns. Good public schools are also important to me, though. I'm a former (recent) public school teacher, so I've read the views of various candidates in regards to education reform. It's obvious that neither of the major candidates has a clue in this area, so this area is not an area where I can make a decision in voting. However, I'm 100% against vouchers, so that is another strike against McCain.

 

Another area of concern for me is religious freedom. Bush has shown that he is dangerous in this area, and since McCain and he seem so closely aligned, McCain scares me in this area. I believe that Obama would be more likely not to be harmful in this area.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Very interesting. I wonder why. Is it a, "I just want to go home" thing, or do you think that the military itself has more liberal members now then in times past. Or are their wives doing the check writing?

The military generally has more conservatives in it. However, many have become disgruntled because they realize that they were lied to about this war. They no longer trust their commander-in-chief, and, thus, they are leery of supporting a candidate who aligns himself with the current one.

[nakitty]

He is NOT pro-life.

 

Hmmm.... I suppose that it may just be semantics....but I stll want to point out that I am sure that Obama is very much Pro-Life....he just also happens to be Pro-Choice...kinda like me.:D I actually think that MOST people (that are not anti-abortion) fall into this category....

[JudyJudyJudy]

Obama? Pro-life? Not trying to "stir the pot", but I thought he was pro-choice/pro-abortion. :confused:

Obama is pro-choice. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

[ereks mom]

Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

 

To me it does.

 

But maybe that's a major part of the issue -- how you define the terms.

[Elaine]

I'm with Elaine. I'll hold my nose, but probably vote for McCain. If not, I may write in Dy of Classic Adventures or perhaps Elaine - Elaine what's your last name? :tongue_smilie: Or perhaps Peek a Boo! :D

 

:lol: I second Dy!

 

I don't want to be the president, I want to be the Queen of England.:D

[nakitty]

To me it does.

 

But maybe that's a major part of the issue -- how you define the terms.

 

 

Yes I suppose it is. I define it as: human life is precious and that the freedom to choose is one of the basic human rights that we are all entitled. And that the choice is up to the individual and not up to people that have absolutely NO business in the decision. Furthermore, I always find it very interesting that the same people that *TEND* to fall into the "Pro-Life" category...are also PRO- death penalty....and ANTI- social services. So, apparently, they feel that the only life worth protecting is that of the unborn.... just an observation though....:glare:

 

I think that there are extremely few people that are actually pro-abortion...and I think that the idea that all or even most pro-choice people are also pro-abortion is ludicrous to say the very least. :glare:

[Elaine]

To me it does.

 

But maybe that's a major part of the issue -- how you define the terms.

 

Yep.

[kokotg]

 

I think that there are extremely few people that are actually pro-abortion...and I think that the idea that all or even most pro-choice people are also pro-abortion is ludicrous to say the very least. :glare:

 

I'd also point out that every study I've seen shows that the single strongest factor in a country's abortion rate is NOT the legal status of abortion in that country but the availability of contraceptives. I'm very interested in reducing the number of abortions in the US, and that's one of the reasons I'm wary of McCain, who has a long record of voting against measures that would make contraceptives more accessible. Plenty of people who are against abortion think a legislative path to reducing their number isn't the most effective one.

[HRAAB]

Yes I suppose it is. I define it as: human life is precious and that the freedom to choose is one of the basic human rights that we are all entitled. And that the choice is up to the individual and not up to people that have absolutely NO business in the decision. Furthermore, I always find it very interesting that the same people that *TEND* to fall into the "Pro-Life" category...are also PRO- death penalty....and ANTI- social services. So, apparently, they feel that the only life worth protecting is that of the unborn.... just an observation though....:glare:

 

I think that there are extremely few people that are actually pro-abortion...and I think that the idea that all or even most pro-choice people are also pro-abortion is ludicrous to say the very least. :glare:

 

I'm pro-life: anti-abortion (with a few exceptions), anti-death penalty, against the war, and all for helping those mothers with babies we don't want to see aborted, before and after the birth, pro-social services.

 

My family is full of pro-choice people, but I would never call any of them pro-abortion. I really have never met anyone that wants more abortions; they want to see a reduction in abortions, but have the option available. I guess there we differ.....

 

Janet

[Jennifer3141]

Yes I suppose it is. I define it as: human life is precious and that the freedom to choose is one of the basic human rights that we are all entitled. And that the choice is up to the individual and not up to people that have absolutely NO business in the decision. Furthermore, I always find it very interesting that the same people that *TEND* to fall into the "Pro-Life" category...are also PRO- death penalty....and ANTI- social services. So, apparently, they feel that the only life worth protecting is that of the unborn.... just an observation though....:glare:

 

I think that there are extremely few people that are actually pro-abortion...and I think that the idea that all or even most pro-choice people are also pro-abortion is ludicrous to say the very least. :glare:

 

:iagree: I totally agree but there's no sign for that one.

 

It matches my belief that these people are all about the "quantity" of life and care not one whit about the "quality" of life.

 

Why don't groups like Operation Rescue actually do something for babies after they are born? Because they don't care. Once that baby is here, their work is done. And society shouldn't help because they don't want their tax dollars going to social services programs. Oh no. That's giving the undeserving a free ride, in their eyes.

 

There are these groups for the begininng of life and the end and they care not a bit about consequences. They are all about numbers. :glare:

 

Jen

[Kelli in TN]

Furthermore, I always find it very interesting that the same people that *TEND* to fall into the "Pro-Life" category...are also PRO- death penalty....and ANTI- social services. So, apparently, they feel that the only life worth protecting is that of the unborn.... just an observation though....:glare:

 

:

 

 

Not always.

 

I am pro-life across the board. I am pro-life when it comes to unborn babies. I am pro-life when it comes convicted prisoners even though my flesh SCREAMS for revenge I pray hard against that urge. I am pro-life in that I think our men and women in uniform should be treated as a precious resource and their lives should not be squandered on vague causes. I am pro-life in that I think all members of society should have access to quality healthcare and not have to choose between medicine, food or rent. I am pro-life in that I think our nations financial treasure would be better spent making sure our bridges do not fall into rivers then blowing up someone else's bridges.

 

I am for strong public schools, voluntary preschool programs, healthy environments.

 

Now, who on earth is there for me to vote for with my wish list?

[Kelli in TN]

I'm pro-life: anti-abortion (with a few exceptions), anti-death penalty, against the war, and all for helping those mothers with babies we don't want to see aborted, before and after the birth, pro-social services.

 

My family is full of pro-choice people, but I would never call any of them pro-abortion. I really have never met anyone that wants more abortions; they want to see a reduction in abortions, but have the option available. I guess there we differ.....

 

Janet

 

I have to agree with you. My mom is pro-choice and you could not ask for someone who is more loving and concerned about people. We agree on the problem (women in hopeless situations) but we lovingly disagree on the right course of action. Needles to say, we don't talk about it with each other.:001_smile:

[Jennifer3141]

Kelli, I feel for people like you.

 

One of my closest friends is "pro-life" but very anti-this-war and very concerned about the environment. She has made her peace with the idea that she doesn't know how's she's going to vote until she gets in the booth.

 

I'm sorry that this year it's such a tough decision for a lot of moderates.

 

Jen

[PiCO]

He is NOT pro-life.

 

 

I don't think he's pro-capitalism either. He's the most liberal senator we have, and in my mind liberal = socialist.

 

Personally, I like his stance on abortion. I think it's very important to keep the health of the mother #1 when legislating abortion, and I appreciate the fact that he doesn't let that slip through the cracks.

 

Given my two opinions above, I have no idea who I'm voting for.

[SFP]

I can see where you *might* at first think early Christians were communistic. However, communism or socialism are laws made by the government and you have to obey them. Christians gave to all who had need out of their hearts, not because they were obeying the government. It was a choice.

 

From the O.E.D.:

 

communism:

 

1. a. A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.

 

b. spec. A political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and later developed by Lenin, seeking the overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution; = MARXISM-LENINISM. (Freq. with capital initial.)

 

2. a. Applied to any practice which carries out this theory in whole or part; e.g. that mentioned in Acts ii. 44 seq., as practised in the church of Jerusalem, or that prevailing in monastic communities. spec. The communistic social order established in Russia after the revolution of March 1917, and later in certain associated countries; = BOLSHEVISM. (Freq. with capital initial.) Also transf.

 

b. Co-ownership of land.

 

3. Community of feeling; the spirit of a community. rare.

[HRAAB]

 

Now, who on earth is there for me to vote for with my wish list?

 

If you figure it out, let me know.

 

Janet

[CactusPair]

Obama. I hope his intelligence & diplomacy can lead us away from armed conflict and unilateralism.

 

He seems he will make global environmental issues more of a priority than his opponent will or can bec. of party pressures:)

 

The war, the economy and the environment are the big issues I vote on.

 

I don't know who can fix the economy or how. If you have ideas, let the prez, whoever it is, know:D

 

As far as support for homeschooling goes, I have a feeling that the candidates say what they think the bulk of their supporters want to hear.

 

Call me naive, but I don't think that homeschooling will actually be high on the presidential list of issues to tackle. I do think it's more of a state issue, and as homeschooling continues to grow and prove itself as a successful choice, I doubt whether politicians will want to rough up the fur of a large voter bloc and be pounced upon. Tomato shield up and ready;)

 

 

 

:iagree: I agree with the statement celebrating the progressives.

[tibbyl]

increase in capital gains tax

 

The long term capital gain tax rate in 2007 (and for several years prior) was 15% as was the qualified dividend tax rate. In 2008, 2009, and 2010, it will be 0%, yes, zero. The Bush tax cuts expire after 2010.

[Cindy in C-ville]

When I first read the OP, I thought, "So, Obama is McCain's running mate. That would be interesting!"

[Brigitte]

Not really, cause with either one of them I think I'm going to need some alcohol in my beer.

 

Janet

 

Clearly then you need to vote for McCain, the husband of a beer distributor heiress! Jimmy Kimmel suggested to McCain that if he wanted to win by a landslide, he needed his wife to promise free beer to everyone. :lol:

[Johanna]

Ok, let me rephrase my answer to the OP's question so as not to offend Pro-choicers (not my intention):001_smile:

 

I am voting for McCain because He is AGAINST abortion (outrightly)

I am NOT voting for Obama because he is NOT against abortion.

[TravelingChris]

Very interesting. I wonder why. Is it a, "I just want to go home" thing, or do you think that the military itself has more liberal members now then in times past. Or are their wives doing the check writing?

 

 

No, It is against the military code to publicly support a partisan candidate or party. In our household, and I am sure, in most other military households, any money given to any candidate is donated by me. I don't even tell my husband until after the fact since I want absolutely no suspicion of his influencing me. Now we tend to agree on candidates. the military is not only allowed but encouraged to vote and they can be registered as a partisan for election purposed (registered Republican, registered Democrat, etc)

 

But there is a furher reason those studies are suspect. I do donate to candidates both in the past and this year. I have looked at various lists of so-called donors and I am not on anyone of them. I didn't just donate $10 either.