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

[tlcmom]

I really don't like any of the choices and as a 24 fan I think David Palmer would do a great job. :D JK

[Unicorn.]

Does anyone have the website where you can take the quiz to see who best fits with your ideas? Ds asked me today if he was republican or democrat, so I said "I don't know, what is important to you?" So anyway we had a long talk about stuff and I said I would find the website for him.

 

BTW- you guys should vote for him- I think he has it figured out better than we do. Maybe that should be the rule, instead of being over 35, you should have to be age 6-12 or something.

 

Now a question from the politically ignorant (that would be me :0) ) I kinda get the Nafta thing- but why do so many of you think we should not be part of the U.N.? I'm not trying to start a war, I am genuinely curious.

[Mama Bear]

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'd be interested as well.

[PrairieAir]

I remember hearing the explanation of McCain's opposition to the bill which Deece posted--probably in its entirety on NPR while my children howled and whined for me to change the station. I agreed with it at the time, and I still think it makes sense after reading over it carefully here.

 

McCain clearly stated that he thinks inhumane treatment and waterboarding specifically should be illegal for the military and for the CIA. His only disagreement seems to be in applying a military code to a civilian agency. I am not familiar with the Army Field Manual, so I don't know any specific reasons this wouldn't be a good idea. There are many requirements for military personnel which I don't think we would want applied to civilians. The same things are not always appropriate for different groups of people. I would be interested in hearing specifics from McCain on this, but I don't think he in any way indicated that it was appropriate for the CIA to torture people or treat them inhumanely. He seems to have stated and restated the opposite of that. As McCain was a prisoner of war and did suffer cruel and inhumane treatment over a long period of time and also is very familiar with requirements and restricitions placed upon the military, I tend to trust his judgement on this issue.

[Amy loves Bud]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/693/can-the-un-really-be-reformed/

 

I'm one-handed right now, but he says it beeter than I would anyway. The final paragraph cinches it.

[Mrs Mungo]

Does anyone have the website where you can take the quiz to see who best fits with your ideas?

 

There are several online. However, I think most of them are pretty slanted. For example, the one on the Libertarian Party's website didn't give a choice in between staying with the war on drugs and legalizing pot.

 

This is a pretty good one because if you click on each issue it will tell what the quiz-makers believe each answer means. That's pretty helpful in determining where you fit:

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008

 

My score says my top two candidates would be Edwards and then Obama and that's accurate for me.

 

This one is OK too: http://glassbooth.org/

[Bee]

I used to like McCain but I can't support his position on the war in Iraq.I like Obama's position on the war but I don't feel he has any real plans to do anything substantial once he is elected.He is promising change but he isn't being very specific.I should vote for Clinton just because she is a woman and I like her.I like many of Ron Paul's ideas;I wish more people took him seriously.I'm not sure who I'll vote for.Do I vote against the person who is the worse candidate?

[Amy loves Bud]

Nevermind, I am so confused with the threading today!

[Deece in MN]

I remember hearing the explanation of McCain's opposition to the bill which Deece posted--probably in its entirety on NPR while my children howled and whined for me to change the station. I agreed with it at the time, and I still think it makes sense after reading over it carefully here.

 

McCain clearly stated that he thinks inhumane treatment and waterboarding specifically should be illegal for the military and for the CIA. His only disagreement seems to be in applying a military code to a civilian agency. I am not familiar with the Army Field Manual, so I don't know any specific reasons this wouldn't be a good idea. There are many requirements for military personnel which I don't think we would want applied to civilians. The same things are not always appropriate for different groups of people. I would be interested in hearing specifics from McCain on this, but I don't think he in any way indicated that it was appropriate for the CIA to torture people or treat them inhumanely. He seems to have stated and restated the opposite of that. As McCain was a prisoner of war and did suffer cruel and inhumane treatment over a long period of time and also is very familiar with requirements and restricitions placed upon the military, I tend to trust his judgement on this issue.

 

I do see what you are saying as I thought the same thing when I read his statement.

 

I think the problem is that many people are not going to read it or hear it and will look at his vote based on how the media portrays it or from what others tell them. That is why I think in the long run it will hurt him.

 

I think this is the biggest problem with elections in general. I was talking with a group of people a couple weeks ago and it is interesting how people approach election time.

 

Only 1 other person in the group (there were about 15) besides myself had done any research on the cadidates or watched/listened to any of the debates, etc. They were saying things and it was clear that they had no basis for what they were saying. Some had no idea how the elections work, yet they were going on and on about it as if they knew what they were talking about.

 

Ah, politics...:D

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

But your point of view is distinctly American:)

 

I did a quick check and there are currently 6 female presidents in Argentina, Chile, Finland, India, Ireland, Liberia and the Phillipines.

 

There are also 6 female prime ministers in: Germany, New Zealand, Mozambique, The Netherland Antilles, Ukraine, and Aland Islands.

 

There have been many others since the early 70's.

 

I'm not even going to try to find out how many black presidents there are or have been in the world. Other countries have also elected minorities (compared with their majority population) we have not.

 

We are not so special in that regard, in fact, considering our "democratic" philosophy, one might ask, "What took us so long?"

[Unicorn.]

This is a pretty good one because if you click on each issue it will tell what the quiz-makers believe each answer means. That's pretty helpful in determining where you fit:

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008

 

QUOTE]

 

Thanks, That was a good one. My ds (11) took that one and the one from USA Today, the one you mentioned hit right on w/ his favorite candidate.

 

It has been an interesting day- my dd's havent' done much school, but ds has had an awesome class in govt. and economics today!! :)

[Mrs Mungo]

But your point of view is distinctly American:)

 

I did a quick check and there are currently 6 female presidents in Argentina, Chile, Finland, India, Ireland, Liberia and the Phillipines.

 

There are also 6 female prime ministers in: Germany, New Zealand, Mozambique, The Netherland Antilles, Ukraine, and Aland Islands.

 

There have been many others since the early 70's.

 

I'm not even going to try to find out how many black presidents there are or have been in the world. Other countries have also elected minorities (compared with their majority population) we have not.

 

We are not so special in that regard, in fact, considering our "democratic" philosophy, one might ask, "What took us so long?"

 

Because we're not a democracy, we're a republic and the political machine takes a long time to change.

[Cricket]

This is an interesting thread. I really have no idea who I will vote for. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says. He could never do half of what he would want to do but least he seems to be a step in the right direction, imo. (I had no idea Alan Keyes was running again. I've liked him in the past.) Dh liked Huckabee but I think dh is going to vote for McCain simply because he will maintain the status quo. He doesn't like the shift to the left Clinton or Obama would bring. I agree with the others who have said there really isn't any one to get excited about. It will be interesting to see who turns out to be the Democratic candidate (although I wouldn't vote for either one! :)) That has been an interesting race.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I wasn't making a statement regarding the form of government we have, but our nation's supposed *philosophy*.

 

I'm confused, what does having a woman or a minority run for president have to do with our republican government?

[Renee in NC]

But your point of view is distinctly American:)

 

I did a quick check and there are currently 6 female presidents in Argentina, Chile, Finland, India, Ireland, Liberia and the Phillipines.

 

There are also 6 female prime ministers in: Germany, New Zealand, Mozambique, The Netherland Antilles, Ukraine, and Aland Islands.

 

There have been many others since the early 70's.

 

I'm not even going to try to find out how many black presidents there are or have been in the world. Other countries have also elected minorities (compared with their majority population) we have not.

 

We are not so special in that regard, in fact, considering our "democratic" philosophy, one might ask, "What took us so long?"

 

 

I think her point is that women haven't been voting all that long and the Civil Right Movement wasn't that long ago either. We ARE in America, talking about an American election, so the comment fits.

[Mamagistra]

None of them are worth a hill beans in my opinion. I'll be voting pro-life whoever that turns out to be. I would put pro-life over homeschooling freedom. But I'm pretty one dimensional in some of my views. :)

 

Ron Paul is both pro-life and a supporter of home schooling. :)

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I still see no connection with my original post, other countries have had to fight for rights for women and minorities in the last century too.

 

We are not more special than any one else because we have a woman and a minority running for president .

[Renee in NC]

I still see no connection with my original post, other countries have had to fight for rights for women and minorities in the last century too.

 

We are not more special than any one else because we have a woman and a minority running for president .

 

I must have missed that post - the one where anyone said we were more special. Why is it such a big deal that she (and I, I guess, because I agreed with her) felt that was special for us personally. Or maybe we are on different "parts" of this thread all together, but I can't tell from the linear time fashion of how they are posted.

 

Also, bolding and underlying is just as much "yelling" as all caps are, especially when it is a whole sentence (and not just a word for emphasis.)

[Colleen]

We are not so special in that regard, in fact, considering our "democratic" philosophy, one might ask, "What took us so long?"

 

Yes, I agree.

 

Side note: I find it so interesting that Swiss women were not granted the right to vote until 1971 yet have had a variety of women in higher office (including the presidency) for years. Not that I'm comparing our two systems; we are of course a republic whereas Switzerland is a direct democracy. The very notion of someone winning the popular vote and not gaining office would be unheard of over there. But I digress...;)

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I give up.

 

I was merely trying to emphasize the intent of my original reply to WTMindy, which noone seems to get.

 

Bowing out of this thread now.

[Renee in NC]

I give up.

 

I was merely trying to emphasize the intent of my original reply to WTMindy, which noone seems to get.

 

Bowing out of this thread now.

 

And see, I had no idea that you were emphasizing the intent of your original reply - I thought you were chastising Mrs. Mungo and I. It has to do with this format - I can't tell who is answering what! All I see is the order the posts were posted, and I think that doesn't help with clear communication.

 

I apologize because I thought you *were* speaking to us directly, not WTMindy!

[Bee]

I wonder if choosing our next president would be taken more seriously ,and if more people would vote, if we knew that each individual vote really did count.I know so many people who just don't bother to vote.

[Colleen]

I give up. I was merely trying to emphasize the intent of my original reply to WTMindy, which noone seems to get.

 

I get it ~ and posted in agreement with you.:) What is helpful, with this format, is if you quote at least a snippet of the comments to which you're replying. Not everyone views the board via the same mode, so some people can't tell who is responding to whom. Quoting adds clarification.

[Colleen]

And see, I had no idea that you were emphasizing the intent of your original reply

 

Virgnia Dawn felt, I think, misunderstood the first time around, so she was was trying to underscore (ha! no pun intended) her point by adding emphasis to the words.

 

It has to do with this format - I can't tell who is answering what! All I see is the order the posts were posted, and I think that doesn't help with clear communication.

 

You must be viewing the board in linear format. That mode is highly frustrating, imo, because it doesn't allow one to see who is answering whom. Try switching to hybrid mode. Once you do that, you can actually see the posts in a "staggered" fashion, indicating the actual thread of the discussion. Makes for much clearer communication.:)

[Renee in NC]

You must be viewing the board in linear format. That mode is highly frustrating, imo, because it doesn't allow one to see who is answering whom. Try switching to hybrid mode. Once you do that, you can actually see the posts in a "staggered" fashion, indicating the actual thread of the discussion. Makes for much clearer communication.

 

Thanks! I fixed it and that did make it easier to see who was saying what to whom!

[Jill- OK]

Why are you surprised?

 

I mean...how on earth does someone actually have an inkling of what kind of majority, etc. there is on a board like this?

 

I know several folks usually say things like "I know I'm in the minority, here"...but I've always wondered...how do you *know*? Especially when there are so many members who don't even post? (Didn't someone say there are several pages of members who haven't posted at all?)

 

Not meant to be any kind of draw-out or anything, lol...just genuinely curious. I notice plenty of folks here who self-identify as 'conservative', and I see plenty who self-identify as 'liberals'. I'd be hard pressed to put a number to them, though. I *might* assume that there would be a conservative majority, because that's the assumption usually, about homeschoolers, but...I think that's rapidly becoming an outdated notion.

[kokotg]

well, if you look at the way mccain, huckabee, and paul are splitting the vote, though, conservatives still have the expected-on-a-homeschooling-board advantage. What I think the poll results say the most about is who the democrats need to nominate if they want to win. But I knew that already. Eek. I really need to stay off of this thread. It makes me all nervous. I come from a family where we are all missing the gene that allows us to talk politics without wanting to strangle each other.

[Mrs Mungo]

I wasn't making a statement regarding the form of government we have, but our nation's supposed *philosophy*.

 

I'm confused, what does having a woman or a minority run for president have to do with our republican government?

 

Because change would happen faster in a true democracy. A representative republic where we are electing people who elect people is much slower to change. It least in my opinion.

 

Now I see you bowing out of the thread and I'm not sure why. I understood your point but I was explaining my point because you seemed to ask me to with the post I quote above, did you not? You asked what took us so long and I was attempting to answer that question. That's all. I don't feel I was disrespectful in my post in the least.

[Janet in Toronto]

Me too!

 

(I voted third party just so I could see the results...)

[readwithem]

We're voting early on Saturday and I *still* haven't decided what to do, sigh. (at the moment I'm leaning toward Paul but I still have that nagging fear of "throwing away my vote" blah blah blah).

[readwithem]

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?

 

 

Yes, yes, yes and no. :)

[Testimony]

Yes, yes, yes and no. :)

 

Ha! Ha! Ha!

 

Where's Elmo on the ticket?

 

Karen

[Diana in OR]

We're voting early on Saturday and I *still* haven't decided what to do, sigh. (at the moment I'm leaning toward Paul but I still have that nagging fear of "throwing away my vote" blah blah blah).

 

If you vote your conscience, your vote is *never* thrown away :D

[readwithem]

You know, you're right - :)

Thanks for the nudge

[AKshanmar]

I agree with WTMindy! Even with all our imperfections, this is a pretty neat place. (Don't worry, I love Canada, too Cleo!) This past weekend, my dh and I were wandering around the Mall in D.C. I marvelled once again at the free Smithsonian museums lining the Mall between the Washington monument and the Capital. They are so demonstrative of what our country represents and for which it strives.

 

The election process is flawed and imperfect...but it sure beats a lot of the other options!

[Peek a Boo]

If you vote your conscience, your vote is *never* thrown away :D

 

 

THIS IS SO TRUE!!!

 

For so long America has moved towards using "whether they'll really win" or "lesser of two evils," and "electability" to determine their vote and we [ok, some of us, lol] wonder why there are now no candidates that fit our personal philosophies. People have been brainwashed into voting for someone based on fear of another candidate instead of principle.

 

The purpose of voting is NOT to cast a vote for whoever's "electable" --but to vote your conscience. When you move from your conscience you deserve what you get. Now *that* is a waste-- a waste of time going to the polls, a waste of principle, and a waste of real freedom.

 

it's NO WONDER that when we refuse to vote based on principle and conscience we end up w/ candidates who HAVE NO principles or conscience-- we don't demand it! How smart of a vote is that??

 

We don't insist on a change, so the candidates don't bother giving us real change.

 

when you vote for the lesser of two evils, what do you get???? EVIL!

So if that's how you phrase your choice, then make a better one --write in someone if nobody you like is on the ballot --that's a valid option. They might not win, but that's not the point!

 

If they *deserve* my vote, They Will Have It.

[Volty]

THIS IS SO TRUE!!!

 

For so long America has moved towards using "whether they'll really win" or "lesser of two evils," and "electability" to determine their vote and we [ok, some of us, lol] wonder why there are now no candidates that fit our personal philosophies. People have been brainwashed into voting for someone based on fear of another candidate instead of principle.

 

The purpose of voting is NOT to cast a vote for whoever's "electable" --but to vote your conscience. When you move from your conscience you deserve what you get. Now *that* is a waste-- a waste of time going to the polls, a waste of principle, and a waste of real freedom.

 

it's NO WONDER that when we refuse to vote based on principle and conscience we end up w/ candidates who HAVE NO principles or conscience-- we don't demand it! How smart of a vote is that??

 

We don't insist on a change, so the candidates don't bother giving us real change.

 

when you vote for the lesser of two evils, what do you get???? EVIL!

So if that's how you phrase your choice, then make a better one --write in someone if nobody you like is on the ballot --that's a valid option. They might not win, but that's not the point!

 

If they *deserve* my vote, They Will Have It.

 

This sounds good. Some idiots in Florida actually tried this- they voted for Nader. Ask them how that worked out. I'm still pissed.

[Peek a Boo]

I think it worked out great :D

 

kudos to them!

 

If you didn't want the other guy so badly, maybe they shoulda put forth someone more people agreed with.

 

So much for trying to vote "strategically" lol.

[GreenKitty]

Absolutely NO WAY would vote for Obama or Hitlery. We do not need more governmental control.

 

Interesting to hear how people complain about fivolous laws being passed, and the ones we have to abide by now. YET seem to ingnore what these two are planning to do while in office. :rolleyes:

 

 

disclaimer: these remarks are not directed towards anyone specifically on this board, yet more towards those whom I hear, see and read about around me.