Let's see how the world would vote

[airmenair]

Well for all those hoping for troop withdrawls from Iraq, it's not going to happen regardless of who is elected. Sure, there maybe troop redeuctions, but pulling everyone out? Not happeneing. We still have troops in Kosovo (10K plus I believe) and even Korea for christ's sake. As for what McCain said, 100 years might not be far from the truth (even if its a stretch it's based in reality). Unlike alot of the rhetoric we've been getting from other candidates about the situation, pulling out of Iraq en totale is lunancy and won't happen. I'm also not for social programs that can't be afforded, my cost of living is high enough. In my opinion you can't have a war and a brand spankin new universal health care system without some serious expense being passed onto the citizens.

All that said, I don't like any cadidate. If I didn't care I'd vote for someone obscure, but I'll prolly play defense and vote McCain..

[vRS]

Barak Obama because he has the coolest name.

[vegasrebel29]

My vote?
Ron Paul or the Libertarian candidate.

Oh, hey, they aren't listed. Sweet.

[Crazyjeeper]

I prefer Ron Paul to all others but I know he does not have a hope in hell of winning so I'm going to be realistic and vote for someone who might have a chance.

[phuckingduck]

I'm gonna throw this out here for others to consider.

McCain is old. In fact, he'd be the oldest man to ever take the office. I get that modern medical science is helping us live longer yatta yatta yatta. But he's old, and has tons of health problems. His choice in VP should be very important.

Would you vote for McCain if Huckabee was his VP?
Romney?
Tancredo?

Who would you like to see as McCain's VP? There's a very real possibility that McCain will either croke in office, or will invoke the 25th numerous times.

Personally, if McCain panders to the religious right and appoints either Romney or Huckabee and Obama is his opponent, my vote goes to Obama.

[NooDle]

Originally Posted by vRS

Barak Obama because he has the coolest name.

that's a nice reason.

I too chose Obama, because he's cool. Clinton is a little bit of 'same old same old' and for any Republican is out of the question

also :

[vegasrebel29]

Originally Posted by Crazyjeeper

I prefer Ron Paul to all others but I know he does not have a hope in hell of winning so I'm going to be realistic and vote for someone who might have a chance.

Fallacy of the wasted vote.
Also, we got to this point in history by doing THE VERY THING YOU SEEK TO DO.

[hajj]

I think Obama and Clinton are hammering against free-trade far too much these days. For an American to support them on these issues I can understand, seems logical and reasonable if you are among the ones to lose out. But for Europeans supporting them is wrong in any given way, look at the uproar over the EADS defense contract for example. The democrats are really fighting against it, because an European company got the contract. Does anyone European really want to see one of those left-wing protectionist idiots in the white house? Any European supporting Obama or Clinton should be shot, in my eyes, sadly the death penalty is gone here

[tigger]

Originally Posted by hajj

For an American to support them on these issues I can understand, seems logical and reasonable if you are among the ones to lose out.

It seems to me that we have to learn, time and again, that protectionist policies only hurt us in the long term. Most recently we can see their effect in the corn/ethanol market. Used to be that gas/ethanol blends were a solid 10-15cents cheaper a gallon than even 87 octane. Nope, not anymore, since we've instituted tariffs to 'protect our burgeoning ethanol production'. Ethanol from US corn .

[gtrietsc]

Originally Posted by TBoneUs

Go Ron Paul!!!!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Yea, I don't see the one I would vote for in today's Texas primary listed.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

You want no federal assistance? No public schools? No IRS? etc.

He's for super, duper no government. He's a bit crazy if you ask me.

There is no way he'd be able to pull off removing it all no matter how much he wanted to. Especially the public school system.

Either way, I'm not voting in this on account that I have no clue who I'd vote for, and especially not any of them.

Originally Posted by Crazyjeeper

I prefer Ron Paul to all others but I know he does not have a hope in hell of winning so I'm going to be realistic and vote for someone who might have a chance.

Here is the problem I have with that line of thought:

If everyone (I mean everyone legally able to) voted for whoever they actually wanted, regardless of it being a "wasted vote," I think we'd find that the Democrats and Republicans are neither of what we really want and the 2 parties will either change, or someone we actually want will get into power, and we can get our damn country back.

*And if there was no one anyone wanted to vote for, then vote for themselves, just to show disapproval for the rest of the candidates. This concept that we have to only be a 2 party system is retarded and gets on my nerves.

[Momentum57]

Originally Posted by airmenair

Well for all those hoping for troop withdrawls from Iraq, it's not going to happen regardless of who is elected. Sure, there maybe troop redeuctions, but pulling everyone out? Not happeneing. We still have troops in Kosovo (10K plus I believe) and even Korea for christ's sake.

Now thats what i call common sense. It is cute though how many young people believe that voting for a democrat will solve everything. That the economy is run by the president that he can raise an lower taxes that pulling out the troops could be done in a night. Well kids its time to ask "what do you believe in" that one man controls everything, or that we all have to make a conscience effort to improve our society.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by airmenair

Well for all those hoping for troop withdrawls from Iraq, it's not going to happen regardless of who is elected. Sure, there maybe troop redeuctions, but pulling everyone out? Not happeneing. We still have troops in Kosovo (10K plus I believe) and even Korea for christ's sake. As for what McCain said, 100 years might not be far from the truth (even if its a stretch it's based in reality). Unlike alot of the rhetoric we've been getting from other candidates about the situation, pulling out of Iraq en totale is lunancy and won't happen. I'm also not for social programs that can't be afforded, my cost of living is high enough. In my opinion you can't have a war and a brand spankin new universal health care system without some serious expense being passed onto the citizens.

Pulling out of Iraq is as dumb as abandoning Afghanistan after we helped them in the Soviet invasion. Had we continued to offer some assistance to build schools, jump start a decent government, etc. who knows how history would have turned out for us in the region.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by thedguy

*And if there was no one anyone wanted to vote for, then vote for themselves, just to show disapproval for the rest of the candidates. This concept that we have to only be a 2 party system is retarded and gets on my nerves.

I agree, but it seems that the whole thing is set up to work as a two-party system. Third-party candidates (such as Nader) are either laughed at, percieved as 'throwing away your vote' or percieved as only being in it to spoil it for others. The media hypes up the major players in each (think how much column space has been devoted to the main 4 in the poll compared to all the others still technically in it).

Then again, I've no idea how you'd go about changing it (if you wanted to change it), so I gues I'll shut up now.

[airmenair]

Political parties in the US are on the decline, political parties are just a stage of democracy. There was a time in the US that political parties were not all that powerful. Now, whether or not we last to see something new emerge remains to be seen.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by airmenair

Now, whether or not we last to see something new emerge remains to be seen.

Launching in the 2012 elections : The NRA Party!

[Momentum57]

AARP could be a great contender

[phuckingduck]

Originally Posted by teeb

Launching in the 2012 elections : The NRA Party!

NAMBLA in '12!

[teeb]

Originally Posted by Momentum57

AARP could be a great contender

Funnily enough, we had an MSP in Parliament before the 07 elections from the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party...

Which is odd. Apparently "We're old!" is enough of a manifesto for them to be the 6th most popular party in Scotland :/

[Scooby5]

Originally Posted by teeb

Funnily enough, we had an MSP in Parliament before the 07 elections from the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party...

Which is odd. Apparently "We're old!" is enough of a manifesto for them to be the 6th most popular party in Scotland :/

When you're a pensioner in Scotland and the government is not paying you the "Cold Weather Allowance" in preference to housing an Albanian family in a Glasgow tenement, being "old" is certainly as good a reason as any...... and let's face it the elderly in any developed country these days is a very big demographic and just getting bigger.

Whilst going senial, many are still pretty smart Ask John McCain..... although i wouldn't vote for him myself.