Jump to content

Menu

Let it Fly! Who Are You Gonna Vote For in the 2008 Presidential General Election?


Recommended Posts

ok, I'm gonna try my hand at a poll. If the poll part doesn't show up, then DON't respond and someone PM me till i figure it out, lol.

 

 

per the wiki link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008

 

We have the following candidates still officially running:

 

Democratic Party:

Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel, Barack Obama

 

Republican Party:

Mike Huckabee, Alan Keyes, John Mccain, and Ron Paul

 

and several third Parties :)

 

or will you write in your choice regardless their "official" position?

 

So vote NOW, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refuse to vote for McCain. So I am considering my options. So far, the two options I can stomach are:

 

a) Writing in Fred Thompson, or

 

b) Voting for Hillary Clinton.

 

What's that crackling sound? ..........Is that Hell freezing over?

 

Except I don't know if I could really bring myself to vote for Hillary. I cannot vote for McCain. Right now I'm writing in either Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. Or my friend Nathan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised that homeschoolers would vote for someone who wants to enact a "Child Rights Act" which would make it illegal for a parent to teach a child that one religion is right, or would make it illegal for a parent to withhold certain media from the child. This does not sound like someone who would be PRO-homeschool. In fact, it sounds like this person thinks a child belongs to the state and not the parent. It seems I'm on the wrong board. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised that homeschoolers would vote for someone who wants to enact a "Child Rights Act" which would make it illegal for a parent to teach a child that one religion is right, or would make it illegal for a parent to withhold certain media from the child. This does not sound like someone who would be PRO-homeschool. In fact, it sounds like this person thinks a child belongs to the state and not the parent. It seems I'm on the wrong board. :confused:

 

 

Possibly, but probably not. We're a VERY diverse group. And your opinion is part of that diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

although I may go with McCain. I need to really study the candidates and their issues before I decide. I think it would be great to have a candidate who is a minority (although I wouldn't base my vote on that). I grew up around and know so many people who are outright bigoted that it makes my stomach turn to think of it. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the candidate that I believe will be the better commander-in-chief, who isn't afraid to cross party lines to get things done and who refuses to bring activist judges onto the Supreme Court. I've been disappointed in who we have to choose from, though, so saying this person is my first choice isn't saying much. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for the candidate whom I feel has the best chance at reaching across party lines and bringing Washington DC back together and focused on the ideals of the Constitution. And that person, in my mind, is Obama. IMHO, 1988-2008 is a long time to have two families running the country, though I like Hillary.

 

Don't forget, just because a candidate runs on a platform of promises (such as Hillary's "Child Rights Act") doesn't mean that the legislation stands a snowball's chance of being enacted as scripted by the candidate. In addition, whether you are for a candidate or not, it is always wise to seek out the facts of their campaign, rather than to rely on the reporting of the other side, which is more often than not pretty darn skewed, no matter which side you're on.

 

 

In any case, I am sick and tired of the fearmongering and deceit. I want peace and honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul. My neighbor summed it up well when he said, "I have come to terms with the fact that I will probably never again vote for the person who wins the presidency in this country." That's exactly how I feel, which is a big departure for me. I just. can. not. do. it. So, Ron Paul it is. I'll be looking for flying pigs in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting for Obama.

 

eta: I'm really surprised so many people are voting Ron Paul. Are you really in favor of the US pulling out of NATO and the UN? Ending federal income tax and the federal reserve? Removing all military bases from foreign soil? Or are you just voting against the other people in the race?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting for Obama.

 

eta: I'm really surprised so many people are voting Ron Paul. Are you really in favor of the US pulling out of NATO and the UN?

NATO - maybe, UN - yes.

 

Ending federal income tax and the federal reserve?
Almost completely and yes.

 

Removing all military bases from foreign soil?
For the most part.

 

Or are you just voting against the other people in the race?
Nope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I absolutly hate George Bush and between the top three we have replacing him, I'm really excited.

 

If McCain wis, he can spend 4-8 years restore the GOP into a respectable party in his image. McCain has been a big backer of clean government and has done his best to work with everyone in both parties. The Dems will hold control of Congress and he can keep them in check from going too crazy. I like divided government. I think we'd be in good hands. The downside is his subborn support of that dumb war in Iraq. We'll never get out of there with a Republcian president.

 

Obama and Hillary would do similar things, the difference between them is mostly style. What I really like here is the death kneel of all things Bush-related and a clensing/purge of incompetent Bush-hacks from the executive branch. They'll end that Iraq war and bring about a respectable decent foreign policy. My worry is that when one party controls both COngress and the Presidentcy, that's when bad things happen. I worry they'll be under pressure to push America too far left too fast and we'll have a big mess on our hands with huge new expensive government programs taht'll run way over budget, like the one LBJ drew up in the 60s.

 

So right now, in the poll, I voted for McCain. I'm going to see how things play out. I am open to voting for Obama or Hillary. But for the first time since '96 I am very excited with the choices this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you asked :-)

 

I'm really surprised so many people are voting Ron Paul. Are you really in favor of the US pulling out of NATO and the UN?

 

Oh. Yeah.

 

 

Ending federal income tax and the federal reserve?

You betcha. We didn't have it till 1913. works for me :-) Not sure if he could do this though.

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm

 

Removing all military bases from foreign soil?

 

For the most part, yes. I don't think that just because he WANTS to do all these things that he ultimately WILL. As Molly's mom said --what a candidate wants and what s/he can get are two different things :D I'd be thrilled if RP accomplished just a couple of things. he might also decide upon closer inspection as President that he DOES think we need to be doing something and that it DOES fall in line w/ Constitutional principles.

 

Or are you just voting against the other people in the race?

 

based on his history of honesty and consistency, I think the guy *deserves* my vote. he has proven himself over DECADES --John McCain was quoted as saying RP is the most honest man in Washington. i refuse to vote "against" someone or waste it on someone who does not deserve it. There are several things I disagree w/ him on, but I absolutely admire his principled decisions. He has handled himself w/ integrity. I'll be writing him in if he doesn't get the nomination.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

 

 

and if you want to, feel free to share what you like most about your own candidates --I'd love a link explaining the Child's Rights Act and Hillary and the US --the stuff I got on a google search didn't look applicable? or is it a part of the whole UN thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and if you want to, feel free to share what you like most about your own candidates

 

One thing I like a lot about Obama is that he hasn't been part of the Washington scene for all that long. I realize it counts against him for a lot of people. However, my husband has been active duty military for many years now. I know how political it is in the military. I know the people we've ticked off, the people who are on our side, the people we owe loyalties to. I can only imagine how Washington must be.

 

I am in favor of the living wage. I'm in favor of small-time offenders being sent to rehab instead of prison. I'm in favor of using trade agreements to improve working conditions, environmental standards and end child labor outside the US. I agree with him that NAFTA needs to be reworked. I'm in favor of ecouraging, even requiring the country to begin the switch to renewable energy sources. I agree with fighting for the right of workers to organize in a union. I agree with addressing predatory lending in the form of credit cards and mortgages. I agree with his ideas of publicizing policy-making and how government money is spent.

 

There are plenty of other things I agree with him on, those are just a few.

 

Oh, ETA

Volty said:

Obama and Hillary would do similar things, the difference between them is mostly style. What I really like here is the death kneel of all things Bush-related and a clensing/purge of incompetent Bush-hacks from the executive branch. They'll end that Iraq war and bring about a respectable decent foreign policy.

 

I don't necessarily believe that either one would be the death knell of all things implemented by GW Bush. They *will not* be able to exit Iraq quickly. I'd really rather they not claim that they will. It will take *years* to get all of our people and equipment out of Iraq. This is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My neighbor summed it up well when he said, "I have come to terms with the fact that I will probably never again vote for the person who wins the presidency in this country."

 

Yup, yup. I will write Ron Paul in if he doesn't appear on the ballot. There have been times when I could hold my nose and cast my vote for a so-so candidate who lined up with my views on one or two key issues. With the field as it is likely to stand in November, I just can't do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a tad bit confused. I made a comment about one of the candidates on a previous thread (that was closed two posts after mine) and was personally attacked by one of the posts. One of the posts alluded to the "rule" of not talking politics. So I went and read the board rules, again, and found there is no such rule and this thread confirms it!:) So does this mean I CAN give my opinion about public figures running for president? :confused: If so then my hope is renewed that we do live in a free country. :D I would caution ALL of us though, and I haven't seen it yet on this thread, to NOT attack eachother over our political choices.

I like Huckabee, as a person, I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, not everything and I would never vote for Obama due to his radically left ideas (voted most liberal senator) and lack of experience. I would challenge any one to name three things either Obama or Clinton have done to improve life in this country while in the Senate. I wish there was the perfect candidate but alas there is not.:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a tad bit confused. I made a comment about one of the candidates on a previous thread (that was closed two posts after mine) and was personally attacked by one of the posts. One of the posts alluded to the "rule" of not talking politics. So I went and read the board rules, again, and found there is no such rule and this thread confirms it! So does this mean I CAN give my opinion about public figures running for president? :confused: If so then my hope is renewed that we do live in a free country. :D I would caution ALL of us though, and I haven't seen it yet on this thread, to NOT attack eachother over our political choices.

I like Huckabee, as a person, I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, not everything and I would never vote for Obama due to his radically left ideas (voted most liberal senator) and lack of experience. I would challenge any one to name three things either Obama or Clinton have done to improve life in this country while in the Senate. I wish there was the perfect candidate but alas there is not.

 

Politics were a no-no on the old board and I assumed they were here. I figure this one will be locked as soon as anyone starts arguing or someone mentions how some posters are pulling for the "prom king" and "don't have a clue".;)

 

ETA: We can discuss the candidates without it being personal or divisive. Inviting argument is a sure way to get this thread locked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics were a no-no on the old board and I assumed they were here. I figure this one will be locked as soon as anyone starts arguing or someone mentions how some posters are pulling for the "prom king" and "don't have a clue".;)

 

ETA: We can discuss the candidates without it being personal or divisive. Inviting argument is a sure way to get this thread locked.

 

I agree with you and it was not your post that I was referring to when I said I was personally attacked, for the record.:) Are we cool?:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you and it was not your post that I was referring to when I said I was personally attacked, for the record.:) Are we cool?:cool:

 

Oh, no doubt we are cool!:D I don't mind debate, but on this board, where there is SO much diversity (and some who are a little more "hot fingered" than others), things get out of hand QUICKLY!

 

One thing I like about this new format is that the way I view the board, all long, tense, debatious (I know it isn't a word) posts are still only one line long!:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nestof3, could you link me to some sources which support this? Particularly, that Clinton wants to make it illegal to teach your child that one religion is true?

 

I *think* this goes back to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (or whatever it's called.) It has its own thread somewhere recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Virginia Dawn

Whoever he/she may be.

 

If this board is representative of a sampling of the general public then it looks like a close race between Obama and McCain.

 

I can not vote for either one. Obama- because of the democratic party platform on abortion and socialized whatever. McCain-because of his views on the war. I have much stronger negative things to say about McCain but I will refrain. If I had absolutely no choice I would probably vote for Obama just because he says he will get us out of this war that is destroying our economy and causing much of the world to view us with fear and suspicion.

 

To me Ron Paul is a voice of sanity in a government gone mad. I truly can not understand why so many feel that we (Americans) should be the saviours of the world. We have become the Ugly Americans, but we can not see our own faces. We are arrogant, self-centered, self-righteous, and two-faced. We publicly proclaim that we are the greatest nation in the world, without considering how that sounds to every other nation listening. Do you realize how many times over the last few decades that our bases and embassies overseas have been picketed by locals with signs screaming "Americans go Home!" Much worse has been done in opposition to our presence world wide, but not a lot of it gets in the local news. I am not just talking about since 9/11, but long before that too.

 

Ron Paul is right. How would we feel if another country wished to occupy us without the consent of the people? Our presence in many places is because their corrupt government officials benefit, not because nations as a whole want us there.

 

 

If you check Ron Paul's voting record in Congress, and read his addresses to Congress in "A Foreign Policy of Peace," you will see his consistant integrity and almost prophetic assessment of the state of our nation. He has used the lessons of history and economics to predict what will happen if we follow certain paths, and 99% of the time he has been right. He has also proven that he can not be bought by special interests. Many may disagree with some of his ideas, but they can not argue with the fact that he places his ideal of public loyalty to the constitution above his personal preferences when it comes to politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever he/she may be.

 

If this board is representative of a sampling of the general public then it looks like a close race between Obama and McCain.

 

I can not vote for either one. Obama- because of the democratic party platform on abortion and socialized whatever. McCain-because of his views on the war. I have much stronger negative things to say about McCain but I will refrain. If I had absolutely no choice I would probably vote for Obama just because he says he will get us out of this war that is destroying our economy and causing much of the world to view us with fear and suspicion.

 

To me Ron Paul is a voice of sanity in a government gone mad. I truly can not understand why so many feel that we (Americans) should be the saviours of the world. We have become the Ugly Americans, but we can not see our own faces. We are arrogant, self-centered, self-righteous, and two-faced. We publicly proclaim that we are the greatest nation in the world, without considering how that sounds to every other nation listening. Do you realize how many times over the last few decades that our bases and embassies overseas have been picketed by locals with signs screaming "Americans go Home!" Much worse has been done in opposition to our presence world wide, but not a lot of it gets in the local news. I am not just talking about since 9/11, but long before that too.

 

Ron Paul is right. How would we feel if another country wished to occupy us without the consent of the people? Our presence in many places is because their corrupt government officials benefit, not because nations as a whole want us there.

 

 

If you check Ron Paul's voting record in Congress, and read his addresses to Congress in "A Foreign Policy of Peace," you will see his consistant integrity and almost prophetic assessment of the state of our nation. He has used the lessons of history and economics to predict what will happen if we follow certain paths, and 99% of the time he has been right. He has also proven that he can not be bought by special interests. Many may disagree with some of his ideas, but they can not argue with the fact that he places his ideal of public loyalty to the constitution above his personal preferences when it comes to politics.

 

 

Thank you for saying what I think in a much better way than I ever could!!!

 

I wish more people would check out and support Ron Paul. I would love to see him win.

 

In 1988 he ran for president under the Libertarian party. He has said that if he does not get on the ticket as the R candidate, he won't run under a 3rd party.

 

I am not sure what I am going to do if it comes down to Obama or McCain. Most likely I will vote 3rd party (whoever that is, but I will have to check them out too, so maybe not). I don't like to vote for someone just so I am not voting for the other person. I feel very strongly about voting for the person who I feel I can support.

 

Anyway, this will be an interesting election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . until I heard that McCain voted against banning torture.

 

Is that true, by the way? Did he really vote against the torture ban bill? Was there any justification offered? I can't think up any justification that would allow me to vote for him, but did he at least try?

 

Ah, well. If Obama wins the nomination, I still might vote. Well, no. I probably won't. But he's the candidate I dislike the least, so I won't mind if he wins.

 

But if it's Clinton-McCain, I'm just going to leave the country. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . until I heard that McCain voted against banning torture.

 

Is that true, by the way? Did he really vote against the torture ban bill? Was there any justification offered? I can't think up any justification that would allow me to vote for him, but did he at least try?

 

Ah, well. If Obama wins the nomination, I still might vote. Well, no. I probably won't. But he's the candidate I dislike the least, so I won't mind if he wins.

 

But if it's Clinton-McCain, I'm just going to leave the country. :p

 

 

Here is what I found about why he voted against the ban. It is long. I wasn't a supporter of McCain to begin with, but I really think he has tripped himself up with this one.

 

Here's McCain's full statement on why he opposed the bill:

 

Mr. President, I oppose passage of the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report in its current form.

During conference proceedings, conferees voted by a narrow margin to include a provision that would apply the Army Field Manual to the interrogation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror.

 

That is why I fought for passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of any detainee held by any agency. In 2006, I insisted that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) preserve the undiluted protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for our personnel in the field. And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as “waterboarding†constitutes nothing less than illegal torture.

 

Throughout these debates, I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane and do not include such extreme techniques as waterboarding. I said on the Senate floor during the debate over the Military Commissions Act, “Let me state this flatly: it was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA’s interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.†This remains my view today.

 

When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the Field Manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The Field Manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I’d emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques – indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

 

Similarly, as I stated after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, nothing contained in that bill would require the closure of the CIA’s detainee program; the only requirement was that any such program be in accordance with law and our treaty obligations, including Geneva Common Article 3.

 

The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned – laws that were extensively debated and considered – by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA. I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.

 

This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact.

 

In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the Administration has chosen to apply a “shocks the conscience†analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding “shocks the conscience.â€

 

It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict “serious and non-transitory mental harm,†which the MCA states “need not be prolonged.†Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.

 

It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law – that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.

 

We have come a long way in the fight against violent extremists, and the road to victory will be longer still. I support a robust offensive to wage and prevail in this struggle. But as we confront those committed to our destruction, it is vital that we never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values, but because we have held fast to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is not a Presidential candidate that I would vote for. The voting history of Clinton, Obama and McCain are all unacceptable to me, and I will not vote for either of them. I'm not wild about Ron Paul either, as he is for cutting off all aid and military alliances with Israel. Methinks I will abstain. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...