If the 2008 elections were today, who would you be voting for and why.

[matmanx2]

Yes, I know, yet another thread on politics and the 2008 elections. But the more I hear people talk about who they support the more convinced I am that the majority of those people are only voting on name recognition and really have no idea what their candidate stands for. So I'm asking you, FoH'ers, who generally are a little more knowledgeable about things, who would you vote for if the elections were today and what issue or issues caused you to vote this way.

Yes, this question requires thought and could lead to actual discourse. Proceed with caution.

And just so you dont think I'm hedging, if the election were today I'd vote for Ron Paul. I like his stance on personal liberties, minimalist government, a return to a balanced budget and foreign affairs. What do YOU say?

[Astrocreep]

out of the 4 that have any chance in hell of getting elected(McCain, Romney, Clinton and Obama), i would pick Romney. if its McCain v Obama i would probably go Obama and if it were McCain v Hilary i would be too busy hiding in the basement to get out and vote at all!

[Kaio]

Maybe Obama, i haven't looked at him carefully enough yet. So far he just seems like a great orator (at times) and I'm not convinced he will really get worthwhile changes made. Mccain is also a possibility.

Change isn't always good, Bush is a great example. He changed the country massively by introducing large bureaucracies, spent tons of money, and introduced a budget/tax plan that is resulting in massive debt. He also did it in a very unscrupulous way, hiding his tracks, keeping secret meetings he's had with corporate leaders, destroying documents. He's also setting precedents by pardoning his administration directly, and affecting legislation to pardon himself.

I'm usually for the candidate of the least change (I liked Clinton being at odds with a republican congress, hoping they'd cancel each other out) but since we've moved so far in the wrong way, imo, it might not be bad to have someone like Obama who claims he will make change in a way that will improve the lives of the citizens.

[Soriak]

Hillary Clinton, because with husband Bill she has already established connections with foreign leaders. It's neither a new face nor a new name on the block and avoids the uncertainty that may come with Obama. Then there's her health care proposal, which goes further than Obama's in terms of mandates and hence will be more effective. Getting more people covered will help the US economy and with that everyone else's. I like that she's not above getting dirty, because politics is a messy business and the democratic strategy of "compromise" is failing badly in the Senate already. I think she's much more likely than Obama to put her foot down. She also has considerable backing in the "establishment" that can be very advantageous as well. Removing most troops from Iraq in a reasonable timeframe (2 years or so) seems likely with either democratic candidate, and she would not pass tax cuts that would trash the federal deficit/debt even more - bad enough as it is.

The republicans are nuts, simple as that. They love to spend money on the military and on security (can't be weak!) and are not afraid to waste billions on a wall to combat immigration. Their solution to absolutely everything is tax cuts and in their speeches (it may just be election talk, but who knows) you hear a lot of protectionism. Especially in areas of work visas and outsourcing, they are not true to the idea of the free market they love to praise. Not to mention their idea of environmental protection is it's all a hoax. I love how they bitch about the pollution in China and India. Either country has almost 4x the US population and still pollutes less in absolute terms. (less than a quarter on a per capita basis) It's the country of SUVs telling the country of carton box homes that they need to conserve more.

They also oppose any sort of regulation, which ensures crisis in the debt market would continue to happen exactly like what's going on now. The keyword "privatization" leads exclusively to worse services that aren't cheaper (in some cases more expensive), but ensure some buddy in the private sector gets to make a fortune. It's entirely about robbing the country for the gain of a few connected people and has nothing to do with the free market. This is long before we look at their idea of a justice system, where only looking at marijuana should get you 200 years in jail.

[Kugbok_Fennin]

Ron Paul, his track record speaks for itself. He is a true American and not just some shill candidate who has been bought and paid for by the corporate establishment and also not a member of the CFR. He actually has a true "sound" monitary. foreign, healthcare ,and security policy. The other candidates have "promises"

FYI, we are headed in the Direction of a "Brokered Convention" which will place Paul squarely in the middle of the GOP nomination process.

[MrGraham]

I want to get the furthest away from the current state of affairs in Washington as possible, and out of the people who have a chance of winning, Obama is the only one who fits that bill. It has nothing to do with his message of change, and more to do with a) Bringing out the younger crowd, b) Listening to Creative Commons, c) the color of his skin and his name (the fact that he can get this far already signifies a big shift).

I don't like the fact that he does little to push out his thoughts or planned efforts and focuses more on ideals/philosophies, however I have to keep reminding myself that if he did that he'd be torn apart and definitely not elected.

I don't want to be the world's police.
I want to have a better education for people who put in the efforts. This doesn't mean free college for people who have done jack shit to advance themselves, but free college for people who work for it.
I want better healthcare per dollar. I want to be rewarded for being a non smoker and a healthy eater, not punished because everyone else in my plan is obese.
I want a bigger focus on scientific advancements.

Honestly I don't know what president will be best for the last 3, but I know that I don't like any of the options besides Obama for the first one (out of the big 5 left).

[Draegan]

Whats with the Ron Paul shilling?

[MrGraham]

Oh what the fuck

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Nader takes steps towards another White House bid « - Blogs from CNN.com

How much do you think the Republicans are paying Nader? It has to be a ton.

Our process is so broken

[Ancalagon]

If the choice were among those candidates still in the race, I would choose Ron Paul. Every other candidate in the race, regardless of party, wants to be the president because of what he or she believes they will be able to get government to do. Whether it's nationalizing healthcare, a further bloating of the military industrial complex, more money for education through the DoE, every single major party candidate for president -- with the lone exception of Ron Paul -- wants to see the role of government expand and the role of the citizen in society contract. Not one candidate, again, except for Ron Paul, believes that civil society can by and large run itself.

Ron Paul does.

He has a record that is unmatched and unwavering in terms of standing by his principles. You can agree or disagree with those principles, but any truthful reading of his record makes it impossible not to admire him for adhering to his beliefs -- especially when virtually every other politician succumbs to the pressures of Washington. I would vote for Ron Paul because I know that his like will not come again in my time. He is perhaps the last of the classical liberal tradition -- the tradition of Locke and Jefferson, of Bastiat and Cobden -- upon which this nation was founded. We will not see someone stand up for the Constitution, for the individual, and perhaps most importantly, against empire, for a long while.

[matmanx2]

Wow, Nader entering again could be a huge deal and yet another PITA for the Dems.

[matmanx2]

Originally Posted by Draegan

Whats with the Ron Paul shilling?

Shilling? I dont see shilling. I see someone saying who they like and why they like them, which is exactly the question that I asked. Some of these answers might be a little "pie in the sky" sounding but I can at least respect the fact they have a reason for liking their candidate. Many (or even most) dont even have that.

[Dabamf]

Originally Posted by Soriak

health care proposal...Getting more people covered will help the US economy

lol

[Bristlebane]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Hillary Clinton, because with husband Bill she has already established connections with foreign leaders. It's neither a new face nor a new name on the block and avoids the uncertainty that may come with Obama. Then there's her health care proposal, which goes further than Obama's in terms of mandates and hence will be more effective. Getting more people covered will help the US economy and with that everyone else's. I like that she's not above getting dirty, because politics is a messy business and the democratic strategy of "compromise" is failing badly in the Senate already. I think she's much more likely than Obama to put her foot down. She also has considerable backing in the "establishment" that can be very advantageous as well. Removing most troops from Iraq in a reasonable timeframe (2 years or so) seems likely with either democratic candidate, and she would not pass tax cuts that would trash the federal deficit/debt even more - bad enough as it is.

The republicans are nuts, simple as that. They love to spend money on the military and on security (can't be weak!) and are not afraid to waste billions on a wall to combat immigration. Their solution to absolutely everything is tax cuts and in their speeches (it may just be election talk, but who knows) you hear a lot of protectionism. Especially in areas of work visas and outsourcing, they are not true to the idea of the free market they love to praise. Not to mention their idea of environmental protection is it's all a hoax. I love how they bitch about the pollution in China and India. Either country has almost 4x the US population and still pollutes less in absolute terms. (less than a quarter on a per capita basis) It's the country of SUVs telling the country of carton box homes that they need to conserve more.

They also oppose any sort of regulation, which ensures crisis in the debt market would continue to happen exactly like what's going on now. The keyword "privatization" leads exclusively to worse services that aren't cheaper (in some cases more expensive), but ensure some buddy in the private sector gets to make a fortune. It's entirely about robbing the country for the gain of a few connected people and has nothing to do with the free market. This is long before we look at their idea of a justice system, where only looking at marijuana should get you 200 years in jail.

Why are you so obsessed with American politics? Heh.

[Ishad]

I will continue to not vote.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

Why are you so obsessed with American politics? Heh.

Because who is elected president matters outside the US

Originally Posted by Dabamf

lol

Nothing funny about it. Currently, US employers carry the burden of increased health care cost. (they pay a huge share of the group plan, deducted from your wages of course, even if not specifically declared.) This is a major drawback in the international competition, as the costs of other companies doesn't increase with the cost of health care.