|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:35 pm
Hi, this thread is simple
Who you gonna vote for in the primary, those of voting age.
Also we can discuss issues.
Like... what the candidates stand for.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:59 am
Awesome idea! Ground rules- no personal attacks, support your statements with more than "I hate _____," and be nice. I also reserve the right to add more.
As for the topic, still deciding, as I don't particularly like any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
darkphoenix1247 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:05 pm
Well, I guess I'll go out and be specific. I'll say I'm NOT voting for Clinton.
Personally, I don't like her as a person and I disagree with her positions on many issues. For example:
Her health care plan, as much as I would also like universal health care, is completely unrealistic. "Cost estimated at $110 billion annually, to be paid for by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000, as well as by reducing waste and inefficiencies in the current system." (Cnn.com) Well, that's fine to say, but that's not an actual idea on how to do anything. Until she can come up with a better, less vague plan, I'm strongly against her view.
I don't like the fact that she changed her opinion on Iraq saying, "If I knew then what we knew now." If president, you don't always have all the information. But, you still have to make the best choices that you can with what little you do have; changing your vote now doesn't help. I'm under the belief she would have done the same thing as Bush and is only changing based on fluctuating public opinion.
I don't like the fact that she's "against some Bush ideas on Social Security" (not that she's against it, but the fact that she's not proposing anything new about it.) It's quite apparent Social Security needs some work, and is a huge drain on our country without being fully worked out. Not saying it's a bad idea, but the way it's done now will destroy future generations, especially in that there's a massive increase in benefits with a smaller ratio of workers to retirees.
Plus- just look at our presidents recently. Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush? COME ON! We don't need more Clintons and Bushes!
Anyway, I have more reasons, but I'm just highlighting a few random ones. I don't mean to offend anybody by saying this- just stating my views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
darkphoenix1247 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:33 pm
Not surprisingly I was one of 3% of the population that voted for Ron Paul, but he ain't gettin in so we're gonna put him behind right now and look at the top 4.
Clinton, Obama, Huckabee and McCain.
Each one is a supporter of big goverment and are all fiscally liberal.
The differences between each one are subtle but glaring.
Hillary wants a big nanny state type government where it's a big brother with an even bigger mother trying to take care of everyones needs in the American family of 300,000,000 and growing.
I agree with most of Obama's social policies, except for his education plan.
He also hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, which is a more reasonable timeline than Hillary's 60 day plan of "drop your guns and run"
Huckabee is right wing on most social issues, he also has strong ties with the Religious Right (which is neither.) Unlike McCain who is distancing himself from the Relgious Right.
McCain has also been called a "RINO" (Rhino) Republican in Name Only. And is the only candidate who does not want to close GITMO.
GITMO is possibly my strongest issue right now, everything else falls by the wayside compared to GITMO in my humble opinion. Considering there's between 500 and 700 detainees, only 10 of them have been charged with anything and the rest have been termed "enemy combatants" which means they will be released after the war on terror has ended.... which means they will be out of gitmo sometime between... An Eternity and Forever.
As for the 10 who have been charged with anything... consider this. They are going through a military tribunal. 3 military general officers as judges, a jury of senior military officers, a military officer as prosecutor and a military officer as the defendant's attorney. Evidence is hidden from the defendant and his attorney and the defendant most likely was tortu... I MEAN... interrogated with intense methodology... and the judges and jury have pretedermined everyone as guilty.
Fortunately there hasn't been a trial yet. I mean that as we haven't gone so far as to start having show trials.
Moment we have show trials, there's no turning back and America will become all which it tries to overcome and destroy.
So... in short it goes like this for voting.
Most likely vote for : Obama (if he wins candidacy)
Paul (if Obama doesn't win)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:08 am
If I were American, Obama. I'm not that up to date with American politics but I think you've had enough Clintons. I'm not going to vote for wotshisname...McCain, because he's not going to break any ground. So Obama or none
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
