Who Are You Voting For?

[Ocho_Cinco85]

Sorry if this has been asked. Who are you gonna vote for? I'm only 16 but I'd go McCain because I don't beleive in abortion.


EDIT: I think their both morons and liers btw.

[philhos]

Sorry if this has been asked. Who are you gonna vote for? I'm only 16 but I'd go McCain because I don't beleive in abortion.


EDIT: I think their both morons and liers btw.

I'm voting for McCain, but it's not really anything to do with abortion. I just disagree less with McCain than with Obama on policies.

[CloeHokie]

Man here we go again! Lol. Yeah we have this poll like once a month it seems so it about time to get another one going since its June. No more till July though. Lol

Right now I am going with Obama. Iraq is my main issue and I dont want to be there for another 100 years. We are wasting way too much money that we could be using to fix our own problems here.

[BANJAXED]

Sorry if this has been asked. Who are you gonna vote for? I'm only 16 but I'd go McCain because I don't beleive in abortion.


EDIT: I think their both morons and liers btw.

Everyone must vote for McCain - if they don't they are DUM-DUM HEADS!!! :dunce:

(Here we go Barry) :p

[CloeHokie]

Everyone must vote for McCain - if they don't they are DUM-DUM HEADS!!! :dunce:

(Here we go Barry) :p

Take it you are in Medical Insurance then?

[Ocho_Cinco85]

I'm voting for McCain, but it's not really anything to do with abortion. I just disagree less with McCain than with Obama on policies.Same as me (except for the abortion part)

[BANJAXED]

Take it you are in Medical Insurance then?

Peeeeerhaps? :ninja:





What's it to you? :p

[CloeHokie]

Peeeeerhaps? :ninja:





What's it to you? :p

Hahahaha. I was joking. But all my friends who make money charging too much for health care dont want him. :lol:

[BANJAXED]

Hahahaha. I was joking. But all my friends who make money charging too much for health care dont want him. :lol:

*Psssssst*...it's the Hospitals' fault

If we go universal it's going to get pretty nuts here in "the industry"

[kevin28_1962]

can we vote like in Brewster's Million and vote "None of the above"?

[philhos]

can we vote like in Brewster's Million and vote "None of the above"?

I seriously think that should be an option.

Think about it. Many times after a candidate has won (for any office at any level) they talk about the mandate they have because they were voted in.

In terms of teh Presidency, there are millions who voted for the president-elect, but there also millions who voted for the other guy, plus millions who didnt' even vote. Think of the kind of message you would send to the president-elect if he won the presidency, but an overwhleming number of voters chose "none of the above." Be kind of hard to say you were the people's choice when most voters didn't want either of you.

[BANJAXED]

I seriously think that should be an option.

Think about it. Many times after a candidate has won (for any office at any level) they talk about the mandate they have because they were voted in.

In terms of teh Presidency, there are millions who voted for the president-elect, but there also millions who voted for the other guy, plus millions who didnt' even vote. Think of the kind of message you would send to the president-elect if he won the presidency, but an overwhleming number of voters chose "none of the above." Be kind of hard to say you were the people's choice when most voters didn't want either of you.

Would it ever actually change the # of delegates and super delegates though (the votes that really matter?) :hmm:

[thefo0]

I'm going with Obama. I just don't trust McCain on my top two issues (Iraq and the economy). But, I still want to see the next few months play out before I make my final decision. VP choice will be pretty huge this time around.

I heard that Kerry is in the running, which frightens me. Then again, Portman's name keeps on popping up for McCain, which frightens me more.

[CloeHokie]

I'm going with Obama. I just don't trust McCain on my top two issues (Iraq and the economy). But, I still want to see the next few months play out before I make my final decision. VP choice will be pretty huge this time around.

I heard that Kerry is in the running, which frightens me. Then again, Portman's name keeps on popping up for McCain, which frightens me more.

I agree 100%


My biggest 2 issues as well. Cant see myslef voting for McCain because of this but you never know what will happen between now and then.

[philhos]

I agree 100%


My biggest 2 issues as well. Cant see myslef voting for McCain because of this but you never know what will happen between now and then.

Those are my 2 biggest issues as well and they're the reasons I'm voting FOR McCain.

[CloeHokie]

Those are my 2 biggest issues as well and they're the reasons I'm voting FOR McCain.

So you like our economy right now? Lol. And I take it you want to keep sending troops and wasting money in Iraq for another 100 years?

[philhos]

So you like our economy right now? Lol. And I take it you want to keep sending troops and wasting money in Iraq for another 100 years?

No one, not even McCain, said we WILL be in Iraq for 100 years (he said we MAY be). However, if that's how long it takes to get Iraq to be a stable, safe democracy that takes 1 less nation from the hands of terrorists then so be it.

It'd be far better to be there 'til it's stable then to follow Obama's pull out now plan and make Iraq a lot more chaotic, less stable, and generally worse for us than it was before. Regardless on your views of whether we should've gone into Iraq or not, we need to stay now 'til Iraq is fixed.

As to the economy, I'm still waiting for the recession that's supposedly coming to hit. So far, no recession. IMO, the reason it hasn't hit yet is because the Dems in congress haven't been able to override Bush's vetoes. If Obama gets elected, they'll get everything they want passed and you'll see the economy REALLY going south.

1 thing I like about McCain is that he's never voted for earmarks. That suggests he would be fiscally responsible. As long as McCain doesn't raise taxes and decreases spending, I'll be happy.

[CloeHokie]

No one, not even McCain, said we WILL be in Iraq for 100 years (he said we MAY be). However, if that's how long it takes to get Iraq to be a stable, safe democracy that takes 1 less nation from the hands of terrorists then so be it.

It'd be far better to be there 'til it's stable then to follow Obama's pull out now plan and make Iraq a lot more chaotic, less stable, and generally worse for us than it was before. Regardless on your views of whether we should've gone into Iraq or not, we need to stay now 'til Iraq is fixed.

As to the economy, I'm still waiting for the recession that's supposedly coming to hit. So far, no recession. IMO, the reason it hasn't hit yet is because the Dems in congress haven't been able to override Bush's vetoes. If Obama gets elected, they'll get everything they want passed and you'll see the economy REALLY going south.

1 thing I like about McCain is that he's never voted for earmarks. That suggests he would be fiscally responsible. As long as McCain doesn't raise taxes and decreases spending, I'll be happy.

Mccain has admitted he needs to buff up on the Economy and that is not his best area. Not the guy I want to fix it.

[barryllium]

Mccain has admitted he needs to buff up on the Economy and that is not his best area. Not the guy I want to fix it.

Nor do I want Phil Gramm "fixing" it, either.

[barryllium]

Everyone must vote for McCain - if they don't they are DUM-DUM HEADS!!! :dunce:

(Here we go Barry) :p

McCain voters are dotards. Plain and simple. ;):rotf::thumbsup:

[philhos]

Mccain has admitted he needs to buff up on the Economy and that is not his best area. Not the guy I want to fix it.

That's EXACTLY the guy I want (assuming he'd listen to his economy experts). Do you want someone who thinks he knows it all? Or would you rather go with the person who KNOWS doesn't know it all and will surround himself with people who will?

Going with that logic, you shouldn't want Obama trying to fix our foreign policy as he's made blunder after blunder in many of his speeches in referencing foreign policy (i.e. NAFTA, things he's said about Iran, etc.).

At least, McCain's admitted his weakness on the economy. Has Obama ever admitted his weakness on foreign affairs?

[philhos]

Nor do I want Phil Gramm "fixing" it, either.

From what I've read, I don't either. But, I don't think he will after the fiasco involving him from a couple weeks ago.

[thefo0]

No one, not even McCain, said we WILL be in Iraq for 100 years (he said we MAY be). However, if that's how long it takes to get Iraq to be a stable, safe democracy that takes 1 less nation from the hands of terrorists then so be it.

It'd be far better to be there 'til it's stable then to follow Obama's pull out now plan and make Iraq a lot more chaotic, less stable, and generally worse for us than it was before. Regardless on your views of whether we should've gone into Iraq or not, we need to stay now 'til Iraq is fixed.

He has called for a phased withdrawal, taking roughly 16 months: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

As to the economy, I'm still waiting for the recession that's supposedly coming to hit. So far, no recession. IMO, the reason it hasn't hit yet is because the Dems in congress haven't been able to override Bush's vetoes. If Obama gets elected, they'll get everything they want passed and you'll see the economy REALLY going south.

Could you explain your perceived cause and effect here?

[CloeHokie]

That's EXACTLY the guy I want (assuming he'd listen to his economy experts). Do you want someone who thinks he knows it all? Or would you rather go with the person who KNOWS doesn't know it all and will surround himself with people who will?

Going with that logic, you shouldn't want Obama trying to fix our foreign policy as he's made blunder after blunder in many of his speeches in referencing foreign policy (i.e. NAFTA, things he's said about Iran, etc.).

At least, McCain's admitted his weakness on the economy. Has Obama ever admitted his weakness on foreign affairs?

Got me. But yeah, I would rather have the guy that does know how to fix it. I like his honesty but I will go with a different plan that what we have now.

[thefo0]

Another big factor for me is that the people around Obama would be slightly different than what we have had in the past. I'm tired of the Clinton Democrats and the Bush/Reagan Republicans. Having different cabinet members and heads of various government entities has the potential to really help the country. And, I could try to find a job, which would be nice. I would like those sweet, sweet government benefits.

[barryllium]

Another big factor for me is that the people around Obama would be slightly different than what we have had in the past. I'm tired of the Clinton Democrats and the Bush/Reagan Republicans. Having different cabinet members and heads of various government entities has the potential to really help the country. And, I could try to find a job, which would be nice. I would like those sweet, sweet government benefits.

I'm in complete agreement here. I'm all for continual change in the government (I abhor the no-term-limit legislative branch situation). In the end, the cabinet and advisors that a president brings in are just as important as the actual president. And, so far, while Obama seems to have questions as to who he surrounds himself non-politically (Rev. Wright), McCain seems to have questions as to who he surrounds himself politically (Phil Gramm).

[BANJAXED]

Another big factor for me is that the people around Obama would be slightly different than what we have had in the past. I'm tired of the Clinton Democrats and the Bush/Reagan Republicans. Having different cabinet members and heads of various government entities has the potential to really help the country. And, I could try to find a job, which would be nice. I would like those sweet, sweet government benefits.

How are you living in DC without a job mister? :hmm:

[jmccracky]

Another big factor for me is that the people around Obama would be slightly different than what we have had in the past. I'm tired of the Clinton Democrats and the Bush/Reagan Republicans. Having different cabinet members and heads of various government entities has the potential to really help the country. And, I could try to find a job, which would be nice. I would like those sweet, sweet government benefits.

I don't mind the Bush/Reagan Republicans. UNLESS you're talking about Dubya. Dubya and Reagan are not even in the same league.

Right now, I'm definitely leaning towards voting for Barack. McCain is just not the same guy he was 8 years ago. He definitely had liberal-ish views, but was also a Republican at heart. Now.....he confuses me. I like the guy, I just don't want him as president if he wants to continue what Bush has done.

[barryllium]

No one, not even McCain, said we WILL be in Iraq for 100 years (he said we MAY be). However, if that's how long it takes to get Iraq to be a stable, safe democracy that takes 1 less nation from the hands of terrorists then so be it.

It'd be far better to be there 'til it's stable then to follow Obama's pull out now plan and make Iraq a lot more chaotic, less stable, and generally worse for us than it was before. Regardless on your views of whether we should've gone into Iraq or not, we need to stay now 'til Iraq is fixed.

As to the economy, I'm still waiting for the recession that's supposedly coming to hit. So far, no recession. IMO, the reason it hasn't hit yet is because the Dems in congress haven't been able to override Bush's vetoes. If Obama gets elected, they'll get everything they want passed and you'll see the economy REALLY going south.

1 thing I like about McCain is that he's never voted for earmarks. That suggests he would be fiscally responsible. As long as McCain doesn't raise taxes and decreases spending, I'll be happy.

I'm not going to claim to have an extensive knowledge on our economy, but a large part of what you are talking about with our recession that has not yet hit has to do with the "plus" side of the dollar becoming drastically devalued. For starters, let's look at the value of the dollar over the past 10 years:

link (http://www.bkeck.net/dollar.html)

As you can see, since the dollar's peak in 2002-2003, the dollar has lost major value against 6 of the other major trade nations/groups in the world. This means two things with trade - it costs us a whole lot more to import things, and we make a whole lot less for everything we export. The plus side comes in with exports. While we do make less per item, we export a whole lot more. This is good for the economy in sectors that export goods. The negative is with items that we import (thankfully we don't import a grand portion of our goods).

That covers the trade side (for now). Next we get into the investment side. We are seeing foreign investors investing in the euro, the british pound, the swiss franc, gold, and silver - while less and less invest in the US dollar. Why? Because the investment yield is lower. The less money invested, the less the US gets out of it as well. As long as the dollar is down, this continues to be an issue.

So, let's bring these issues together. Sure, we're shipping things out more. We're also selling things more domestically (it costs more to buy a Toyota here than elsewhere because of import costs, compared to domestic cars which cost less, for example). But, as time goes on, and the dollar continues to drop, our exports will continue to bring in less and less money per item we ship out - thus yielding less profit for the companies exporting goods. Furthermore, we continue to pay more and more to import goods (this is huge in the technology field), and if things continued getting worse, we would have to consider changing who we can afford to import with - if things got bad enough, we'd have to stop trading with the G-7 nations. As things continued to get worse, we would become a totally isolated country, as we couldn't afford to import, and exporting would gain no profit. Several domestic companies would do well, but it wouldn't even out in the end.

Now, what I've just spelled out is an extreme worst case scenario - in no way do I think things will get this bad. The point in saying all this, though, is that economic effects are cyclical - and things that are happening today will have more of a bearing a few years down the road than they will today. So, unless things start to change to get the value of the dollar up (less of a government deficit would be a huge step forward), the recession you are told is coming will indeed rear it's ugly head to some degree in the coming years.

[thefo0]

I don't mind the Bush/Reagan Republicans. UNLESS you're talking about Dubya. Dubya and Reagan are not even in the same league.

Right now, I'm definitely leaning towards voting for Barack. McCain is just not the same guy he was 8 years ago. He definitely had liberal-ish views, but was also a Republican at heart. Now.....he confuses me. I like the guy, I just don't want him as president if he wants to continue what Bush has done.

I agree with you on the change in McCain. I'm pretty liberal (very liberal in some people's eyes) and I didn't even mind the guy not too long ago. One of the things that killed him in my eyes was the fact that he continuously changed his opinions in an attempt to become more electable in the Republican primary, which may be his undoing in the general election. He is no longer the "maverick" or "straight talker" that he constantly calls himself.

[thefo0]

How are you living in DC without a job mister? :hmm:

Have a job. Working at a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. Its just that the government jobs are sweet for job security and benefits. It's called the "golden coffin" because once you have one of the jobs, its hard to leave b/c you will never get the salary and benefits anywhere else. That and it's nearly impossible to get fired. All sad things on a national, political basis, but you've gotta love the job security on a pure self-interest level.

[barryllium]

I agree with you on the change in McCain. I'm pretty liberal (very liberal in some people's eyes) and I didn't even mind the guy not too long ago. One of the things that killed him in my eyes was the fact that he continuously changed his opinions in an attempt to become more electable in the Republican primary, which may be his undoing in the general election. He is no longer the "maverick" or "straight talker" that he constantly calls himself.

I'm in complete agreement here. I used to have a pretty decent amount of respect for McCain, he seemed to care more about his ideals and less about the direction of his party. Now, though, he seems to be doing a little John Kerry-esque flip-flopping, and is trying to be seen as a really conservative Republican. In the end, I'm having more and more trouble distinguishing him from the rest of the two-faced politicians that exist in both parties.

For instance - paragraph 5 of his Iraq policy talks about leveling with the American people about the war. And yet, three paragraphs earlier, he talks about continuing to deal with Al-Qaeda in Iraq - despite the fact that both the CIA and Defense Department have shown the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda to be misinformation. What am I to believe?!?

[CloeHokie]

I'm in complete agreement here. I used to have a pretty decent amount of respect for McCain, he seemed to care more about his ideals and less about the direction of his party. Now, though, he seems to be doing a little John Kerry-esque flip-flopping, and is trying to be seen as a really conservative Republican. In the end, I'm having more and more trouble distinguishing him from the rest of the two-faced politicians that exist in both parties.

For instance - paragraph 5 of his Iraq policy talks about leveling with the American people about the war. And yet, three paragraphs earlier, he talks about continuing to deal with Al-Qaeda in Iraq - despite the fact that both the CIA and Defense Department have shown the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda to be misinformation. What am I to believe?!?

Do you ever notice that he often has people in his ear correcting him?

[barryllium]

Do you ever notice that he often has people in his ear correcting him?

You mean like this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU

[n8lhf]

I'm in complete agreement here. I used to have a pretty decent amount of respect for McCain, he seemed to care more about his ideals and less about the direction of his party. Now, though, he seems to be doing a little John Kerry-esque flip-flopping, and is trying to be seen as a really conservative Republican. In the end, I'm having more and more trouble distinguishing him from the rest of the two-faced politicians that exist in both parties.

For instance - paragraph 5 of his Iraq policy talks about leveling with the American people about the war. And yet, three paragraphs earlier, he talks about continuing to deal with Al-Qaeda in Iraq - despite the fact that both the CIA and Defense Department have shown the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda to be misinformation. What am I to believe?!?

I was all ready to vote for McCain in 2000, but not now. He has totally done a 180 in an attempt to appeal to the republican base. He's not the same "maverick, straight talkin'" John McCain he was 8 year ago.
In Scott McClellen's book he says that "Washington has become nothing but the home of the permanent campaign. And that governing has become an appendage of that machine instead of the other way around."

I think that they should not be able to campaign until January of the election year. There shouldn't be this 18-month campaign drive. That would lower the cost of the election process, which would enable possibly more qualified people, who may not have the funds, to run. And, really, how can anything in politics get done if these people are constantly having to leave to campaign. If you choose to run for higher elected office, you should be made to step down so that the governing takes the lead of running for office. (ie if you are a senator running for President.)

[CloeHokie]

You mean like this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU


Exactly.

[barryllium]

I was all ready to vote for McCain in 2000, but not now. He has totally done a 180 in an attempt to appeal to the republican base. He's not the same "maverick, straight talkin'" John McCain he was 8 year ago.
In Scott McClellen's book he says that "Washington has become nothing but the home of the permanent campaign. And that governing has become an appendage of that machine instead of the other way around."

I think that they should not be able to campaign until January of the election year. There shouldn't be this 18-month campaign drive. That would lower the cost of the election process, which would enable possibly more qualified people, who may not have the funds, to run. And, really, how can anything in politics get done if these people are constantly having to leave to campaign. If you choose to run for higher elected office, you should be made to step down so that the governing takes the lead of running for office. (ie if you are a senator running for President.)

Really, despite his black love child?!? ;)

Honestly, I would have voted for him 8 years ago as well - I really wanted him to beat Bush for the nomination. He just doesn't seem like the same guy anymore.

[n8lhf]

I'm in complete agreement here. I'm all for continual change in the government (I abhor the no-term-limit legislative branch situation). In the end, the cabinet and advisors that a president brings in are just as important as the actual president. And, so far, while Obama seems to have questions as to who he surrounds himself non-politically (Rev. Wright), McCain seems to have questions as to who he surrounds himself politically (Phil Gramm).

And non-politically-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_parsley
He might as well be surrounding himself with members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Both candidates have renounced with allegiance with these men.

[barryllium]

And non-politically-John Hagee & Rod Parsley
He might as well be surrounding himself with members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Both candidates have renounced with allegiance with these men.

Good call on both guys. In the end, I'm more concerned with who these people are associated with politically, as I fail to see their non-political associations having too much effect on what they would do in office - so while Obama and McCain both have their non-political "skeletons" (if you will), it's McCain's political ones that bother me the most - especially since Gramm in particular seems to have McCain's ear.

[n8lhf]

Good call on both guys. In the end, I'm more concerned with who these people are associated with politically, as I fail to see their non-political associations having too much effect on what they would do in office - so while Obama and McCain both have their non-political "skeletons" (if you will), it's McCain's political ones that bother me the most - especially since Gramm in particular seems to have McCain's ear.

I concur.

[Ocho_Cinco85]

No one, not even McCain, said we WILL be in Iraq for 100 years (he said we MAY be). However, if that's how long it takes to get Iraq to be a stable, safe democracy that takes 1 less nation from the hands of terrorists then so be it.

It'd be far better to be there 'til it's stable then to follow Obama's pull out now plan and make Iraq a lot more chaotic, less stable, and generally worse for us than it was before. Regardless on your views of whether we should've gone into Iraq or not, we need to stay now 'til Iraq is fixed.

As to the economy, I'm still waiting for the recession that's supposedly coming to hit. So far, no recession. IMO, the reason it hasn't hit yet is because the Dems in congress haven't been able to override Bush's vetoes. If Obama gets elected, they'll get everything they want passed and you'll see the economy REALLY going south.

1 thing I like about McCain is that he's never voted for earmarks. That suggests he would be fiscally responsible. As long as McCain doesn't raise taxes and decreases spending, I'll be happy.I agree with you 100% on the Iraq situation.