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

[Peek a Boo]

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.

[Holly IN]

I haven't decided yet. I heard Alan Keys are not on many state's ticket. I would love to vote for him but I heard he won't be on my state's ticket. I could be wrong on that.

If Mitt Romney was still on the ticket I would vote for him or Alan Keys.

Holly

[Peek a Boo]

that's ok --you can vote later if the thread doesn't get deleted, lol. I might be pressing my political luck here, but we'll see :)

[lynn]

Ah man, can you give me more choices:p

[Peek a Boo]

more choices??!!! hee hee.

The sad part is some of these will be write-in only by the time the election gets here. we'll adjust accordingly :D

[GothicGyrl]

I gotta admit, I'm surprised who is in the lead right now, on your poll. It's kind of who I figured would be out of the two Dem. choices, but I'm just surprised is all. ;)

[Hillary in KS]

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?

[CleoQc]

Hmm.
I want a category for "I'm not going to vote, I'm not American"

:)

[Mama Lynx]

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.

[Laura Corin]

I suspect I'll vote Labour at the next general election, but it's a bit far off to decide (hasn't been announced yet - the Prime Minister gets to fix the date). I'm not entirely happy with what Labour is doing, but I'm even less keen on the alternative.

Laura

[Laura K (NC)]

Probably in NC there will only be one 3rd party choice: Libertarian. No matter who he is, I'll vote for him. If there are more than one third party choice then I'll have to think about it harder. I won't vote either Republican or Democrat for president this year.

[Amy in Orlando]

McCain is not my first (2nd or even 3rd choice) but I'll vote for him over Hillary or Obama.

This whole election is making me sad.

[nestof3]

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:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

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.

[Kimber]

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. :)

[JuJuBee]

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.


Which candidate holds these views?

[nestof3]

Clinton.

I am not trying to debate religion. I just figured homeschoolers were very passionate about the right to parent as they see fit.

[Diana in OR]

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. :(

[6packofun]

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

[astrid]

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.

[WTMindy]

that we live in where a black man and a woman are serious contenders for the presidency. Too bad I don't like and won't vote for either one of them!! :D But, it is still cool when you think how far our nation has come in the last 50 years!

[Amy loves Bud]

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.

[astrid]

HEY! I thought you were votin' for Pedro!?!

[Mrs Mungo]

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?

[Volty]

Which candidate holds these views?

None. Nestof3 is misinformed.

[Amy loves Bud]

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.

[Volty]

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.

[Amy loves Bud]

Unfortunately, he isn't 40 yet, so I'll have to wait a few years.

[Mrs Mungo]

NATO - maybe, UN - yes.

Almost completely and yes.

For the most part.

Nope.

Thank you for answering, Amy, I was really curious.

eta: and you only have to be 35 to run for president so not as long of a wait as you thought! ;)

[Peek a Boo]

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?

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

[Renee in FL]

that we live in where a black man and a woman are serious contenders for the presidency. Too bad I don't like and won't vote for either one of them!! :D But, it is still cool when you think how far our nation has come in the last 50 years!


Amen!

[Plaid Dad]

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.

[Sixmeadows]

yep, same here
Cheri

[Sixmeadows]

I meant to put this under amy loves bud.

[Soph the vet]

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.:(

[Renee in FL]

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.

[Soph the vet]

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:

[Renee in FL]

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:

[JuJuBee]

Clinton.



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?

[Renee in FL]

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.

[JudoMom]

no one is voting for Pedro. Where is Amy loves Bud ;)?

[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.

[nestof3]

Here is one link. The original info I found I can no longer find as it was a few years ago, but I can keep looking:

http://www.hslda.org/parentalrights/default.asp

[PrairieAir]

I keep hearing his name but nothing more. Once in a while I'll see a sign. Is he real? Has he not been making the same rounds as the other candidates? If he has, I haven't heard about it. And who is this Alan Keyes? (Did I get that name right?)

[Deece in MN]

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.

[PariSarah]

. . . 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

[kokotg]

it's true--McCain has apparently decided that torture isn't so bad after all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

to be fair, neither Obama nor Clinton made it back to Washington for the vote.

[Deece in MN]

. . . 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.”

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.

[Tami]

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. :(

[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

[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]

[QUOTE=Mrs Mungo;58015]
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.

[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 FL]

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. :)

[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 FL]

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...;)

[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 FL]

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 FL]

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

[shanmar]

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.