Your next president ?

[KYYX4ever]

I'll keep my eyes open.

Barack the Vote !

[coop41]

[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>

Barack the Vote !
[/quote]


I'm so glad you brought that up. I am waiting for some of the bands I listen to and some celebrities I like to tell me who they are voting for so I may follow suit.

[birdmadgirl]

[quote][i]Originally posted by plagiarism[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by birdmadgirl[/i]
<br>
I'm just curious: I understand why people are compelled to do, to write in someone because they don't like the Republican or Democratic nominee. I get that you're making a statement. BUT--your write-in person hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning. So, doesn't it make sense to pick the lesser of two evils?

I'm not picking on you or bashing your choice. I'm genuinely curious what the reasoning is behind the choice. Is it because you're "making a statement" or is it some joke to you?
[/quote]

It's not a joke, but "making a statement" might be going too far, because I don't necessarily vote for the same 3rd party every time.

I don't see how voting for the lesser of two evils does anything but propagate an evil. The Democrats and Republicans aren't going to change their ways, because they don't have to. They've shown it time and again. They know that millions of Americans feel that they have to choose someone with a chance of winning.

I realize I'm making a futile gesture. But maybe if enough people join me in looking for answers elsewhere, this country might actually move forward.
[/quote]

Thanks for explaining [:)] I do understand what you're saying--and I agree. Unfortunately, my problem is that I just don't think enough people care enough to try and change things, and I have to admit that I'm almost guilty of that, too. I care, but I feel as though my caring is futile, so I pick the lesser of two evils.

[waldnorm]

In general, I'm a progressive-- and Edwards was my main person this election, but I'll gladly vote for Obama. No, he's not perfect (like any of the candidates were), but I've always thought McCain's status as Maverick was always overrated.

I do know some people very disappointed in Hillary not getting it--most of them, women, and I can understand. Right now at this moment, with hope of seeing a female President in their lifetimes, Hillary was the best hope. Other prominent women in politics, appear, at least at this moment, to not gain it (no, Condi would lose in a landslide). And our supposedly unbiased mainstream media kept touting a New York race was "inevitable" (Hillary Clinton vs. Rudolph Giuliani and maybe even Michael Bloomberg as the Independent. It didn't happen). Hillary wasted a lot of money on consultants like Penn and tried to cash it all on the February primaries, even though it was perfectly clear Obama's grassroots efforts was appealing to people in all 50 states to show up, including caucuses. I know a few who say they are not voting, but I bet practically all will, and mainly against McCain because while he's said different things he is quoted to saying he would appoint justices to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and most women are pro-choice. One of my gay friends will still not vote for Obama because of Mclurkin (or whatever his name, the "ex-gay" performer who entertained at one of Obama's events), in spite of Obama's overall record of legislation and votes, which have been supporting (no, he doesn't support gay marriage, but not many candidates did).

But if the "cult of personality" is any indication, Obama's got it (i.e. the charisma) and he gets students at the community college I work not only to vote for him, but also volunteer for him (and that's representative of young people from many areas. The students at my college are in general, diverse, and rather energized about him, and identify with him).

McCain has to be appealing to conservative democrats, independents and disgruntled Republicans and Libertarians by distancing himself from Bush II. So far, he seems to be mostly doing the opposite, with respect to key positions. But it's only June. After Bush II, I'd rather clean/purge all that's bad, but as I'm a Progressive (and predominantly vote Democratic), I am a bit biased.

[phillyidol]

I will only vote for who the movie stars tell me to. They know whats best for the world so I think it is the right thing to do.




Worlds GREATEST Photographer!

[SallyLightfoot]

I will only vote for who my favorite TV or AM radio pundit tells me to. Or I'll follow the highly credentialed experts on the opinion pages of my preferred newspaper-- they really cut through the bluster of those fuzzy political issues.

Why should I waste time reading a candidates position profile or watch a speech or debate? I feel much more at ease with myself when I follow the recommendation of qualified experts. After all, they are the people who are paid to analyze all that crap.

I will only vote for the candidate that my spouse, family, close friends or business associates tell me to. I feel most comfortable taking advice from people that look like me, think like me, or come from my ethic or socio-economic background. These are people who understand me, use my language and share my values. In times like these, people like us gotta stick together and watch each others backs, or those 'other people' will start taking over this damn country.

[KYYX4ever]

ha ha !

I vote for whom I feel will best represent what I stand for. I vote for the candidate whose stands on issues most closely mirror mine. I vote for the candidate whom I feel will do the best job on getting work done as much as they possibly could in a pretty crazy place such as DC and all its concomitant crookedness. Like I said before, American politics is pretty screwy. We just have to believe that our votes do make a difference and that we can effect change at the ballot. We are very lucky to be able to participate in this process !

[WLIRRIP]

McCain for me. Am I excited about him? Not at all. But I feel he's a better choice than a man who keeps singing about hope and change and never explains how we're going to get those things. Or, if he does, he changes his explanation depending on who the audience is. All the things he has talked about doing would make the federal government HUGE. It would creep further and further into various aspects of our lives more so than it already does. Barry Goldwater said "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." Obama seems to believe that it's the government's job to make everyone prosperous, but that's socialism -- public redistribution of wealth. If the 20th century's taught us anything is that socialism and communism simply do not work. Ask Russia. Ask China. Ask even Cuba now who's starting to allow some free enterprise in their impoverished country. Businesses would have no incentive to be here in the US, since they'll get taxed to death and watch their profits go to people who believe that they're entitled to all that wealth -- without having to have worked for it. If the wealth-makers of our country leave, we're screwed, because our jobs go with them. On top of that, to fund national health care for a country as big as ours, we ALL will be taxed to high Heaven. The EU has a lot of feel-good socialistic elements, and their collective unemployment rate is about 80% greater than ours -- and this is with our current recession.

You need to leave the peoples' pay checks alone. You need to leave the profit-makers alone, too, unless of course they're doing something illegal. You ought to have programs in place to help people who legitimately can not manage on their own, but to make that national policy for all 310 million of us is dangerous.

And now this guy wants to repeat the foreign policy mistakes of Carter and the Democratic Congress of the '70s. The results of those policies were disasterous. 3 million people were murdered in Asia after we left Vietnam, and Iran laughed at us under Carter. They don't call us a paper tiger for nothing. And Obama would just reinforce that belief that we don't have the stomach to defend our way of life -- while they're willing to fight till the next century to get what they want. In a recent NY Post editorial, Amir Taheri writes

"[Sheik Abu-Bakar] Naji believes that, subjected to constant intimidation and fear of death, most non-Muslims (especially in the West) would submit: "The West has no stomach for a long fight." The only Western power still capable of resisting is the United States, he believes. But that, too, will change once President Bush is gone."

Why do they want to attack us? Because we're so evil? Because we just don't leave them alone and in their desperation they have no recourse but to resort to terrorism? Uhh, not exactly. According to the massive work "In the Shade of the Qur'an", by Syed Qutb, the whole purpose of Jihad is to make humans -- all humans, worldwide -- more fulfilled, to achieve a greater balance between their physicality and their spirituality through a strict Taliban-like interpretation of Islam. In essence, they want to establish a global Taliban. Anyone standing in their way they believe that they have the divine authority to murder. And Obama wants to talk to them. Hitler had a similar, totalitarian ideology bringing about a global utopia. And we who know history know how well talking with him worked out.

And on that subject, I am not willing to submit this country's foreign policy decisions to the UN. Even NATO, supposedly made up of pro-US countries, has proven itself uninterested in truly getting its hands dirty to help us. The rest of the international community? Forget about it. We give so many nations millions and billions, and they almost as a rule vote against us in UN votes. Then there was the recent oil-for-food scandal, in which the principle countries who were most resistant to our invading Iraq -- Russia and France -- were found to be making a whole ton of money under the table with Saddam Hussein. If I could I'd pull us out of that corrupt, impotent organization and put our millions in fees elsewhere. So Mr. Progressive Diplomat Internationalist is dreaming if he feels that he can sway the rest of the world to work with us. They haven't yet, regardless of who's been sitting in the White House.

There are things to pick on about McCain, no question. His stance on immigration needs more beef for me. I don't have his bumper sticker on my car and I'm not exactly a big fan. I just happen to be of the mind that he's the lesser of two evils. Besides that, if you want crazy, far-left judges running our courts, then Obama's your man. If you want judges who are less likely to be judicial activists and just interpret the Constitution the way the Founders intended, then McCain is the better choice. If you want to see what far-left judges do and whether or not you'd like their decisions, I can provide some examples in future posts.

But believe it or not, I'm with some of you on this level: We all know that many of the promises both these guys are making will never come to pass. They have Congress to contend with, for one thing. They have lobbyists to contend with as well. They'll have access to intelligence and information they're not privy to as Senators. Things will look differently to them once they actually step into that office. I highly doubt that the Iraq war will be over and won by the end of McCain's first term. That's as realistic as Obama's universal health care.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.
Psalm 33:12

[shovelbum]

I'm with Motors and Wolverine on this issue.

I am torn between two actions:

Voting for Bob Barr OR...

Pulling an Obama: going to my voting station, having myself marked "present and accounted for" and then going home without committing to a vote, stance, or decision.

*sigh*

"There's safety in numbers when we learn to divide, how can we be in when there is no outside?" ~Peter Gabriel

[KYYX4ever]

[quote][i]Originally posted by WLIRRIP[/i]
<br>
Why do they want to attack us? Because we're so evil? Because we just don't leave them alone and in their desperation they have no recourse but to resort to terrorism? Uhh, not exactly. According to the massive work "In the Shade of the Qur'an", by Syed Qutb, the whole purpose of Jihad is to make humans -- all humans, worldwide -- more fulfilled, to achieve a greater balance between their physicality and their spirituality through a strict Taliban-like interpretation of Islam. In essence, they want to establish a global Taliban. Anyone standing in their way they believe that they have the divine authority to murder. And Obama wants to talk to them. Hitler had a similar, totalitarian ideology bringing about a global utopia. And we who know history know how well talking with him worked out.
[/quote]
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the Taliban--or any terrorist group--will take over the world and establish a Taliban state. They may wish to, but that's just not going to happen. They succeed in areas like Afghanistan precisely because of a high illiteracy rate, high unemployment, rural conditions, and a host of other issues that make their policies more likely to take hold. But their wishes will not be able to extend much further--or farther-- than that.

I do NOT buy into the argument that the "terr'rists" are gonna get us if we have a Dem in office. Please.

[phillyidol]

Who is Tomcat voting for? It must be the right choice!




Worlds GREATEST Photographer!

[WLIRRIP]

[quote]I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the Taliban--or any terrorist group--will take over the world and establish a Taliban state. They may wish to, but that's just not going to happen. They succeed in areas like Afghanistan precisely because of a high illiteracy rate, high unemployment, rural conditions, and a host of other issues that make their policies more likely to take hold. But their wishes will not be able to extend much further--or farther-- than that.

I do NOT buy into the argument that the "terr'rists" are gonna get us if we have a Dem in office. Please.
[/quote]

You can respectfully disagree, and you may very well be correct. I'm telling you what this terrorist leader guy thinks. I am however of the belief that Democrats are historically more passive than their Republican counterparts which does tend to embolden others with a more aggressive agenda. Also, Democrats *generally* tend to be the more politically correct party, partly meaning that they worry too much about offending people, even when those people've done something wrong. In these times, both of these are bad bases for foreign policy, and Obama seems to embody them. Seems to, I say, because he has not delivered a consistent or clear message about just what exactly he plans to do as president. But his general statements appear to be in this vein, so the man scares me. Never mind the judges I believe he'd appoint. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason to vote if for nothing else: judicial appointments.

But like I said, this is a generalization. There is, e.g., Joseph Lieberman, a very liberal guy who wouldn't take crap from anyone.

Perhaps a Democrat like you should be in office [:)]

As for their plans for world domination, again, you may be right. I don't really believe that they'd succeed in making the entire planet radically Muslim. But in their attempts, they're going to try to make life for us very painful. They are exerting pressure in "progressive" Europe now and have made a few dents. The Danes are getting pissed and may be spawning a backbone (thank God), but the Brits appear to be caving under the pressure. France had riots what... a couple of years ago? Africa's getting it. China and Russia are having some problems. Australia... the Philippines... Indonesia... India... Pakistan... Israel... the Pope's a target... This is no joke folks. These people are not playing around and neither should we. And historically, the Obaman desire to negotiate with totalitarians has not been successful--unless they were actually frightened by the hundreds of ICBMs you had pointed at them. I.e., diplomacy backed by teeth. But these Muslim nut-jobs aren't scared to die. They actually embrace death and want to be executed when caught.

So while they probably will never realize their global ambitions, they're going to try. And some of us will die in the process. We need someone who can do more than try to rally a disinterested international community or talk directly with these loons while they continue to make their plans behind the scenes.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.
Psalm 33:12

[KYYX4ever]

ah, but I worry that if McSame were to appoint judge(s) to the SCOTUS, a woman's right to choose would vanish, among other scary things. That worries the heck out of me. I am not comfortable with such a scenario, nor am I with a swing to the right in the Court.

[WLIRRIP]

[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>ah, but I worry that if McSame were to appoint judge(s) to the SCOTUS, a woman's right to choose would vanish, among other scary things. That worries the heck out of me. I am not comfortable with such a scenario, nor am I with a swing to the right in the Court.

[/quote]

Sorry... I'd since edited the post...

I'll see about responding more in the future. I've got some other stuff to tend to right now, but your post was a good one so I'll try to address it at some future point.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.
Psalm 33:12

[club80]

This election will not bring me any great joy for me. I am voting for the candidate whom I feel is the lesser of two evils. That would be Obama. Let's face it. Both candidates (and I leave out the "throw away vote" candidates) have serious shortcomings.
The world will not become a terrorist state. What the present-day terrorists cannot offer, despite their preaching, is a better way of life. The disparity between the rich and the poor in countries like Afghanistan is even greater than it is in the United States. You just can't sell it when you haven't demonstrated it.
Gangs aren't successful recruiting the "haves". They prey upon and appeal to the "have nots". Terrorist recruitment is not all that different in that regard.


We didn't sell a lot of records, but somehow we left an impression.
-Johnny Ramone-