Simple Post

[BradT]

Who is your choice? Please state your reasoning for selecting this candidate and why you prefer them to other candidates.

 

[UberNeuman]

You first...

 

[Capitalizt]

Ron Paul, because nobody else wants to limit government power.

 

[johnnyjohnson]

"None of the above". I'm still waiting for a viable 3rd party candidate to come to the rescue. For those too young to remember 92, Perot didn't enter the race until very late in the game. There's still hope. I see the '08 election as being a sweep of all incumbents, though the Democrats will be in better shape than the Republicans.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Ron Paul, because nobody else wants to limit government power.

Biggest reason I'm voting Ron Paul, too. Totally disagree with his economic policies/opinions on the Fed and hard money, and he's a little too socially conservative on some issues, but I've never voted for a candidate that I agreed 100% with. I don't think most have.

 

[Siddhartha]

It is too early in the cycle for me to choose but I am definitely not voting for a Bush clone.

 

[BrownTown]

Its too early for me to decide yet, but I have ruled out several people (thye have all been ruled out for several years in fact). So Far Hillary, Obama, and Gulliani have been ruled out and unfortunately it seems that they are the freaking front runners, so I dunno what I am gonna do if the dang elections come and its Hillary vs Guliani, that would be a freaking nightmare. You thought the last elections candidates sucked, those would take it to a whole new level of suckage (and take out country to a whole new level of suckage with them).

 

[HeXploiT]

Ron Paul. This nation is headed for disaster. It's time to pay the piper and Ron Paul is the only one who see's it. Probably every other single candidate is in it for the power. Enough putting actors into the Whitehouse.

 

[nageov3t]

I'm still waffling between Hillary and Obama... I'd be happy voting for either of them over any of the Republicans other than McCain (I'd vote for McCain over anyone else in the field, but that's probably not going to happen). I think Hillary would do a better job, but I think Obama is more electable.

if the Dems nominated Edwards, I'd have to take a serious look at the Republican candidates.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Ron Paul, because nobody else wants to limit government power.

You're right. All other candidates are against all limits on government power. The government should have the power to force your religion, eat your children, have the sort of sex you are still trying to get your wife to have, paint your house an ugly color, kick your dog, imprison torture and execute you for fun.

So we better hope Ron Paul wins, because he's the only one who supports any limits to government power.

Hey capitalizt, your ideology is showing, slipping out from under your sloppy rhetoric. Of course you will 'clarify' now, but the fact you used the wrong phrasing says something.

It suggests you have oversimplified the issues to demonize all but the guy you want.

Let's not even get into the fact that you fail to show any understanding of how the power you are worried about with the government can also be abused by the private sector - and how you fail to understand the government's role in protecting the less powerful from the more powerful in society, how you would cripple that function of government, unwittingly.

 

[Craig234]

I'm in favor of Dennis Kucinich, as the one guy who really shows the independence, the guts, the values to set the country on the right track, to counter the current problems. It's time we stop over-rewarding the pretty smiles and the big corporate donations. Remember how George Bush got pulled into politics? Karl Rove said his piercing blue eyes made Rove recruit him to run. That sure worked out.

My second choice is John Edwards, because even while I don't see the real greatness in him I'd like, he's committed enough to creating opportunity for the poor, to justice, that I think he'd be a champion for a lot of good things we need. I still haven't forgiven him for his poor performance against Cheney in the debate though.

Among Barak and Hillary, it's the Ego versus the, well, I'm not sure how to put Hillary into a word yet, I'm not even sure what her real agenda is - but I'm for Obama between at this time for a few reasons. Ted Sorensen said it better than I would (google his video endosement or his statement) - Obama would bring the right sort of change into the works - hopefully.

Do we really know what he would do? To an extent, we shouldn't - candidates evolve in office and events change the situation; Kennedy could hardly have campaigned on his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Reagan was hardly going to campaign on Iran-Contra and the promise to create an army of terrorists and to back death squads in Latin America.

But it's a bit of a crazy system that Obama would have 'our endorsement' by being elected when we have so little idea what he would actually do (same for any candidate, really). The nature of the system.

 

[Capitalizt]

Craig, you support Kucinich...a raging socialist. I'm not even going to try having a discussion with you. Your ideology is tyrannical.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Craig, you support Kucinich...a raging socialist. I'm not even going to try having a discussion with you. Your ideology is tyrannical.

Well, you are arguing sloppily, with undefined terms tossed around. I can't say I'm surprised you'd want to avoid a discussion - you aren't really looking for truth, are you.

As for my 'ideology' being 'tyrannical', that's just you trying to protect your own ideology with an attack, however silly it is.

My 'ideology', to the small extent you can call it that, is actually the opposite of tyrannical, but that'd take the discussion you are running from to explain to you.

I will give you this - you at least don't want tyranny, our disagreement lies more about the means by which you would unwittingly increase it.

As for ideology, you'll find I'm the one avoiding it, analyzing issues on the merits, while you are the one swimming in koolaid, basing your positions on what the ideology requires.

So while I'd take a Kucinich proposal for a more socialist policy on a specific area and look at the pros and cons, you're more likely to say simply 'it's socialist, therefore it's bad'.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I like my dog. She's a better choice than what I've seen so far.

 

[StageLeft]

If I could vote, I'd pick Ron Paul because he is intelligent and an independent mind, unlike all of the other republicans. Otherwise, Obama of the top three democrats because he doesn't sour me like Clintin/Edwards. I do like Biden, but maybe I'm just smitten by his debate personality. I don't know his actual stances on anything

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Ron Paul, because nobody else wants to limit government power.

Biggest reason I'm voting Ron Paul, too. Totally disagree with his economic policies/opinions on the Fed and hard money, and he's a little too socially conservative on some issues, but I've never voted for a candidate that I agreed 100% with. I don't think most have.

Ron Paul is simply a humble and honest man who respects the constition, our rights, and he is the only one who will put this country back in the right direction. Fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and a sane foreign policy. He's got my vote.

 

[Pabster]

I'll vote for Fred Thompson.

In the event 9/11 is the nominee, I'd be forced to vote for Obama.

If neither of those two are on the tickets, we're all fucked.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: johnnyjohnson
"None of the above". I'm still waiting for a viable 3rd party candidate to come to the rescue. For those too young to remember 92, Perot didn't enter the race until very late in the game. There's still hope. I see the '08 election as being a sweep of all incumbents, though the Democrats will be in better shape than the Republicans.

You're going to wait a very, very long time. Our electoral system is designed to heavily favor two parties, not three or four or five. In order for a 3rd party to ever become consistently viable in this country now, we would have to undergo large-scale electoral reforms.

As for who I'd vote for, I don't really know.

 

[GDaddy]

The only real way we will get a 3rd party pres, is if he/she is richer then Gates and has no problem throwing his cash around and buying loyalty. Do we really want that in the white house?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I like my dog. She's a better choice than what I've seen so far.

Ok? which dog? Checkers or Buddy?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I'm still waffling between Hillary and Obama... I'd be happy voting for either of them over any of the Republicans other than McCain (I'd vote for McCain over anyone else in the field, but that's probably not going to happen). I think Hillary would do a better job, but I think Obama is more electable.

if the Dems nominated Edwards, I'd have to take a serious look at the Republican candidates.

With Hillary I think we will get Nixon part 2.

Read around the conservative media and you will see lots of people comparing her tactics to Nixon's.

Also, look at all her scandals and how she never seems to know anything about them. Yet everyone talks about how she is a micromanager.

She gets elected and we are going to have four ugly years of scandals and political fighting. As one Democrat member of the forum said: she has all of Bill?s negatives, but none of his positives.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Ron Paul, because nobody else wants to limit government power.

You're right. All other candidates are against all limits on government power. The government should have the power to force your religion, eat your children, have the sort of sex you are still trying to get your wife to have, paint your house an ugly color, kick your dog, imprison torture and execute you for fun.

So we better hope Ron Paul wins, because he's the only one who supports any limits to government power.

Hey capitalizt, your ideology is showing, slipping out from under your sloppy rhetoric. Of course you will 'clarify' now, but the fact you used the wrong phrasing says something.

It suggests you have oversimplified the issues to demonize all but the guy you want.

Let's not even get into the fact that you fail to show any understanding of how the power you are worried about with the government can also be abused by the private sector - and how you fail to understand the government's role in protecting the less powerful from the more powerful in society, how you would cripple that function of government, unwittingly.

Let us put it this way - under Ron Paul, we will most definitely see things like "Dept Of Homeland Security" dismantled.
Whether or not he can "get" to the Fed and a slew of other programs is questionable. But to get rid of the Department of Bloat itself is a huge step foreward--and one that I can't see any OTHER candidate doing...even Obama.

 

[teclis1023]

Obama. Fresh, new choice with some great ideas.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Ron Paul, because nobody else wants to limit government power.

You're right. All other candidates are against all limits on government power. The government should have the power to force your religion, eat your children, have the sort of sex you are still trying to get your wife to have, paint your house an ugly color, kick your dog, imprison torture and execute you for fun.

So we better hope Ron Paul wins, because he's the only one who supports any limits to government power.

Hey capitalizt, your ideology is showing, slipping out from under your sloppy rhetoric. Of course you will 'clarify' now, but the fact you used the wrong phrasing says something.

It suggests you have oversimplified the issues to demonize all but the guy you want.

Let's not even get into the fact that you fail to show any understanding of how the power you are worried about with the government can also be abused by the private sector - and how you fail to understand the government's role in protecting the less powerful from the more powerful in society, how you would cripple that function of government, unwittingly.

Let us put it this way - under Ron Paul, we will most definitely see things like "Dept Of Homeland Security" dismantled.
Whether or not he can "get" to the Fed and a slew of other programs is questionable. But to get rid of the Department of Bloat itself is a huge step foreward--and one that I can't see any OTHER candidate doing...even Obama.

Let's be clear - I'm not disagreeing that Ron Paul is unique in his level of commitment to reducing some of government's activities - for better or worse.

I was merely commenting on the erroneous rhetorical excess that 'no one else wants to limit government power', rather than 'limit government power as much as Ron Paul'.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Craig, you support Kucinich...a raging socialist. I'm not even going to try having a discussion with you. Your ideology is tyrannical.

I believe you're looking for the term Communist.

Socialism is hardly tyrannical.