Why should I vote for your candidate?

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Muse
-snip-

Obama doesn't strike me as very liberal at all, but relatively centrist compared to the liberals around here.

I think it risky to be confident in any way about whether Obama will be centrist or liberal.

In the primary he portrayed himself as far more liberal; he ran to the left of HRC.

Now he's running to the center.

In the begining of the primary he was thought "new" and "idealistic" maybe even niave, then he looked to be more a regular hardcore run-of-the-mill Chicago politician (as he has been in the past - using technical laws/rules to move opponents aside).

He advertises himself as "reaching across the ailse" and "bridging divides", yet his history is the opposite.

Some fear he will be a pushover for Pelosi et al.

I have no idea what his administration will be like, or his policies - Centist or left?

Fern

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: evident
its pretty clear who to vote for this year and that's obama. The McCain Palin platform is run completely on fear. How do you think that will translate into the presidency? does the last 8 years ring a bell? lets put the policies aside for a second- the last 8 years has had nothing but propaganda coming out of the whitehouse that has made us look stupid towards the rest of the civilized world. Mccain is sure to continue the same tone and trend. Im sick of "if you dont support iracks war then you are a traitor" that has plagued our society. A vote for Obama will hopefully end this stupidity, because it will challenge those who have this mentality.

QFT

I fear a recession/depression the likes of which the world has not seen for the past 8 years.. or even the past 70 years due to a president who's campaign was based on "hope and change" and no real substance. A president who with quick foresight and sound judgment at one time decided to associate with a person who had no compunction bombing police stations.. A president who was baptized in one corruptest city in the country where "money" talks, and family connections is more important than "doing whats right" (I know I am from chicago). A president who made money on the advice of convicts felons.

I fear that if Obama gets elected, he will try to do what he thinks will help. But more likely than not he will only exacerbate the situation. Like his fellow democrats who tried to regulate home loans to make them more affordable to low income families.. to encourage banks to make risky loans...

What will ultimately happen, due to Obama's lack of judgment -- rich or poor, over or under 250k.. everyone's going to get screwed over and its going to be bad.. a whole lot worst than the last 8 years.

 

[evident]

^ IMO, Obama has alot more substance than McCain. He has been composed his entire time campaigning and has not stooped to low blows or tricks to try to win votes. He is more honest than mccain and the campaign he has been running is taking the high road, for the most part.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Right now, I feel that both big-party candidates are jokes. They will both increase the size, power, and cost of government - something I definitely oppose. Neither shares my view on social issues, so it doesn't even make sense to vote on the basis of USSC justice nominations. I see both of them as very poor choices. However, I have to pick someone. Convince me why your candidate should get my vote. I live in a swing state, so this is a chance to make your thoughts count for something, especially if you live in a die-hard red/blue state.

We know no matter what you will be voting Republican so this is a waste of time/resources.

Other undecided voters are reading the thread. I'm curious as well.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
However, I have to pick someone.

Why?

For me, because I do want the best possible person running the country. Neither may be a good option but one has to be at least moderately better than the other.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Why should I vote for your candidate?

He or she is not my candidate, they are candidates.

A limit of two with two trim options.
(kinda like buying a clunker)
You hope it runs better than it looks,
but you always expect it to break down.

So you make the choice - who do you identify with?

Run down beat up jalopy with a new seat cover,
or the spiffy fresh looking one with new paint.
(Never buy a used car in the rain)

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The bottom line is that both options suck. In some ways one sucks more and the other, and in other ways the opposite, but the grand total is that both are going to enlarge the government on our dime and waste more money.

Given that, my choice is pretty simple: having a R president will be much more effective in containing government stupidity and growth than having a D in the white house along with the senate and house control. Bottom line, vote McCain, it's the only way to keep the fringe in check.

:laugh: Where have you been the past 8 years and was the weather nice there? This is the most absurd thing I've seen posted all day.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Dari
For Republicans, I think Jaskalas put it best when he said (many many months ago)that Republicans should vote for Obama so that Democrats get the blame for the socialist activities the government will undertake during the next Presidency. He has no idea how prescient his idea was.

And when it fails, Obama the Messiah will be crucified and for the next 40 years, the nation will once again lean right. Running a government on the idea of taking money from the "rich" to give to the "poor" has never worked.. and it isn't going to work now.

Sorry but government exists first and foremost to redistribute wealth, no matter which society or era you're discussing.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: evident
^ IMO, Obama has alot more substance than McCain. He has been composed his entire time campaigning and has not stooped to low blows or tricks to try to win votes. He is more honest than mccain and the campaign he has been running is taking the high road, for the most part.

QFT.

And you guys who don't know what to make of Obama or think he's going to be responsible for a much worse administration than the last 8 years. Get a clue. I don't think there's a chance he will be worse than Bush. Realistically, he's the only candidate with a chance to pull us out of the fire. You can't predict what he will do? Where he will stand? Well, noone knows what tomorrow will bring.

 

[Hugh H]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: evident
^ IMO, Obama has alot more substance than McCain. He has been composed his entire time campaigning and has not stooped to low blows or tricks to try to win votes. He is more honest than mccain and the campaign he has been running is taking the high road, for the most part.

QFT.

And you guys who don't know what to make of Obama or think he's going to be responsible for a much worse administration than the last 8 years. Get a clue. I don't think there's a chance he will be worse than Bush. Realistically, he's the only candidate with a chance to pull us out of the fire. You can't predict what he will do? Where he will stand? Well, noone knows what tomorrow will bring.

This. Both Obama and McCain will be an improvement no matter what.

Obama has run the better campaign, seems to have better ideas/proposals, and I think we need to steer away from the direction the Republicans have taken this country during the last 8 years.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Dari
For Republicans, I think Jaskalas put it best when he said (many many months ago)that Republicans should vote for Obama so that Democrats get the blame for the socialist activities the government will undertake during the next Presidency. He has no idea how prescient his idea was.

And when it fails, Obama the Messiah will be crucified and for the next 40 years, the nation will once again lean right. Running a government on the idea of taking money from the "rich" to give to the "poor" has never worked.. and it isn't going to work now.

It doesn't work because the rich buy the minds of idiots like you in their endless class war on the middle class and the poor. All the stupid assumptions you make were put in your head at tremendous expense. You are a prisoner of invisible bars.

 

[SparkyJJO]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-3C0v8eVfw

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Right now, I feel that both big-party candidates are jokes. They will both increase the size, power, and cost of government - something I definitely oppose. Neither shares my view on social issues, so it doesn't even make sense to vote on the basis of USSC justice nominations. I see both of them as very poor choices. However, I have to pick someone. Convince me why your candidate should get my vote. I live in a swing state, so this is a chance to make your thoughts count for something, especially if you live in a die-hard red/blue state.

Well then put your vote behind the party that has proven that it can run big government openly and efficiently, not like other with the Captain(decider) taking over the helm and aiming the Titantic at the iceberg.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The bottom line is that both options suck. In some ways one sucks more and the other, and in other ways the opposite, but the grand total is that both are going to enlarge the government on our dime and waste more money.

Given that, my choice is pretty simple: having a R president will be much more effective in containing government stupidity and growth than having a D in the white house along with the senate and house control. Bottom line, vote McCain, it's the only way to keep the fringe in check.

Your assumption, of course, is that the 'fringe' is the problem. But the facts indicate that the budget gets busted best under Republican administrations. You merely fall back of the lie the Republicans specialize in, that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. They milk you like a stupid cow.

Perhaps you could learn to read. I *don't* believe that the republicans are any different, I believe that having a white house in R hands and congress in D hands is the best way of somewhat containing a runaway train of government spending.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The bottom line is that both options suck. In some ways one sucks more and the other, and in other ways the opposite, but the grand total is that both are going to enlarge the government on our dime and waste more money.

Given that, my choice is pretty simple: having a R president will be much more effective in containing government stupidity and growth than having a D in the white house along with the senate and house control. Bottom line, vote McCain, it's the only way to keep the fringe in check.

:laugh: Where have you been the past 8 years and was the weather nice there? This is the most absurd thing I've seen posted all day.

Learn to read. Having the white house in R hands and the congress in D hands is the best chance for containing the runaway government spending train. I don't trust the white house/congress combo in republican hands either, we saw how wonderfully that worked in the first 6 years of Bush.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The bottom line is that both options suck. In some ways one sucks more and the other, and in other ways the opposite, but the grand total is that both are going to enlarge the government on our dime and waste more money.

Given that, my choice is pretty simple: having a R president will be much more effective in containing government stupidity and growth than having a D in the white house along with the senate and house control. Bottom line, vote McCain, it's the only way to keep the fringe in check.

Or the only way to get nothing done like the last 2 years... with vetos left and right.

When very little gets done in government is when things work best.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

The Republicans went haywire when the Legislative and Executive branches of govt. were all one party (Republican). History shows govt. does best when the entire govt. is NOT controlled by one party. Checks and balances. Therefore, vote for McCain, if for nothing else to at least have some parity. p.s. The Dems want to abolish secret ballots for union members voting in union elections. Is that democracy??

 

[runzwithsizorz]

The Republicans went haywire when the Legislative and Executive branches of govt. were all one party (Republican). History shows govt. does best when the entire govt. is NOT controlled by one party. Checks and balances. Therefore, vote for McCain, if for nothing else to at least have some parity. p.s. The Dems want to abolish secret ballots for union members voting in union elections. Is that democracy??

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Because history has shown that our system of checks and balances in govt. works best when the govt. branches are NOT all controlled by one party. The Repubs. messed up and the Dems.
will do the same. Vote McCain.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The bottom line is that both options suck. In some ways one sucks more and the other, and in other ways the opposite, but the grand total is that both are going to enlarge the government on our dime and waste more money.

Given that, my choice is pretty simple: having a R president will be much more effective in containing government stupidity and growth than having a D in the white house along with the senate and house control. Bottom line, vote McCain, it's the only way to keep the fringe in check.

Or the only way to get nothing done like the last 2 years... with vetos left and right.

When very little gets done in government is when things work best.

What has happened since the silent majority flopped their ass in the river of progress is that nothing has happened in government. The titanic disaster you see all around you is the result of no change. We are stuck in the past, in the civil war between the conservative, backward, farmer, religiously bigoted south and the industrial progressive, secular, scientific north, relatively speaking. The dinosaurs didn't die out 6000 years ago. They are with us today. They are everywhere there are Republicans working to create Taliban America. They are the terrorists who are really a threat to our country and they need to be politically exterminated. You live in one of the most backward and primitive of the developed nations on earth and the world looks on with total disgust. A huge portion of the American people are completely brain dead and they are voting Republican. It is up to the youth to sweep all this old shit away but the madrases keep turning them out by the millions.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The bottom line is that both options suck. In some ways one sucks more and the other, and in other ways the opposite, but the grand total is that both are going to enlarge the government on our dime and waste more money.

Given that, my choice is pretty simple: having a R president will be much more effective in containing government stupidity and growth than having a D in the white house along with the senate and house control. Bottom line, vote McCain, it's the only way to keep the fringe in check.

:laugh: Where have you been the past 8 years and was the weather nice there? This is the most absurd thing I've seen posted all day.

Learn to read. Having the white house in R hands and the congress in D hands is the best chance for containing the runaway government spending train. I don't trust the white house/congress combo in republican hands either, we saw how wonderfully that worked in the first 6 years of Bush.

You're going to talk about runaway spending? I'd like to see the cost of the Iraq war compared with any domestic legislation enacted or even just proposed by a democratic congress. You must have learned in civics that the president has the power to wage war for up to 90 days. Then you must have learned in american history that you don't need to declare war to continue to wage it (see Vietnam conflict, et al). Therefore having another simpleton republican in the white house with an egregious lack of foreign policy understanding has FAR more potential to continue bankrupting this country than a unified democratic legislative / executive branch.

And I may be wrong of course, but you and everyone else will have a chance to correct it in two years if I am. I think that after the last eight its pretty safe to assert that its worth a try.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The bottom line is that both options suck. In some ways one sucks more and the other, and in other ways the opposite, but the grand total is that both are going to enlarge the government on our dime and waste more money.

Given that, my choice is pretty simple: having a R president will be much more effective in containing government stupidity and growth than having a D in the white house along with the senate and house control. Bottom line, vote McCain, it's the only way to keep the fringe in check.

:laugh: Where have you been the past 8 years and was the weather nice there? This is the most absurd thing I've seen posted all day.

Learn to read. Having the white house in R hands and the congress in D hands is the best chance for containing the runaway government spending train. I don't trust the white house/congress combo in republican hands either, we saw how wonderfully that worked in the first 6 years of Bush.

You're going to talk about runaway spending? I'd like to see the cost of the Iraq war compared with any domestic legislation enacted or even just proposed by a democratic congress.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but if you'd care to search, you'll find that the total cost of entitlements cost much more than the Iraq war. The increase in Medicare due to the changes recently enacted are expected to cost $395 Billion -- that's the increase not the total cost.

Further, the president can go to war, but ultimately the congress holds the purse strings and can fund or not fund it.

Of course your whole theory is based on some crazy idea that McCain is somehow inclined to jump out and start a war somewhere for no reason. Unlike Bush, who's never been in a war himself, he would be much more likely to think twice about doing something like that.

And I may be wrong of course, but you and everyone else will have a chance to correct it in two years if I am. I think that after the last eight its pretty safe to assert that its worth a try.

Oh? So in two years, after Obama appoints some complete idiot to the supreme court with the blessing of the rubber stamp congress, we can change our mind and toss that person off the bench? I don't think so. If McCain were president, he would be forced to put a centrist on the bench, because otherwise he would not get the confirmation vote in the senate. Again, checks and balances are a good thing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Right now, I feel that both big-party candidates are jokes. They will both increase the size, power, and cost of government - something I definitely oppose. Neither shares my view on social issues, so it doesn't even make sense to vote on the basis of USSC justice nominations. I see both of them as very poor choices. However, I have to pick someone. Convince me why your candidate should get my vote. I live in a swing state, so this is a chance to make your thoughts count for something, especially if you live in a die-hard red/blue state.

Simply put, the Republican party has been co-opted to represent a small elite ruling class and corporatocracy. The Democrats have only been partly co-opted by that group.

McCain has shown for a long time that you can only expect crass politics from him - chasing the popular thing, the things that will help him. He'll sell you out easily.

The Democrats are more the party representing the middle class (and poor) - the 'nation', the 'public', most Americans - than the Republicans.

Some people who are knowledgable about leaders have backed Obama unlike they backed other nominees - for example, Ted Sorensen, JFK's closest aide not named Bobby, has said Obama is more like JFK than any leader he's seen, and he endorsed him when Obama was far out of the lead position, in early 2007.

Obama's background - passing up a well-paying legal position for serving community and low-paying service - suggests his agenda not being just to represent the top.

That's what we needed in the change from laissez-faire Republicans of the 1920's to FDR, and it's what we need now.

I have reservations whether Obama will do enough to represent the public against power, but he's clearly far more likely to than the Republicans.

The fact that you can't see why one is better after the last 25 years much less the last 8 is concerning though. Why are you ignoring the facts of how Republicans govern?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The bottom line is that both options suck. In some ways one sucks more and the other, and in other ways the opposite, but the grand total is that both are going to enlarge the government on our dime and waste more money.

Given that, my choice is pretty simple: having a R president will be much more effective in containing government stupidity and growth than having a D in the white house along with the senate and house control. Bottom line, vote McCain, it's the only way to keep the fringe in check.

:laugh: Where have you been the past 8 years and was the weather nice there? This is the most absurd thing I've seen posted all day.

Learn to read. Having the white house in R hands and the congress in D hands is the best chance for containing the runaway government spending train. I don't trust the white house/congress combo in republican hands either, we saw how wonderfully that worked in the first 6 years of Bush.

You're going to talk about runaway spending? I'd like to see the cost of the Iraq war compared with any domestic legislation enacted or even just proposed by a democratic congress.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but if you'd care to search, you'll find that the total cost of entitlements cost much more than the Iraq war. The increase in Medicare due to the changes recently enacted are expected to cost $395 Billion -- that's the increase not the total cost.

Further, the president can go to war, but ultimately the congress holds the purse strings and can fund or not fund it.

Of course your whole theory is based on some crazy idea that McCain is somehow inclined to jump out and start a war somewhere for no reason. Unlike Bush, who's never been in a war himself, he would be much more likely to think twice about doing something like that.

And I may be wrong of course, but you and everyone else will have a chance to correct it in two years if I am. I think that after the last eight its pretty safe to assert that its worth a try.

Oh? So in two years, after Obama appoints some complete idiot to the supreme court with the blessing of the rubber stamp congress, we can change our mind and toss that person off the bench? I don't think so. If McCain were president, he would be forced to put a centrist on the bench, because otherwise he would not get the confirmation vote in the senate. Again, checks and balances are a good thing.

Right, another ass to dam the flow to the future. The Supreme court voted Bush in. They said money is speech. They said corporations are people. Nobody had f*cked American more than the Supreme Coup voting conservative.