Forum > Politics
US Elections
We are now just 6 weeks away from the primaries and I was just curious as to if anyone following the US Presidential elections at all, either closely or not so closely and what your thoughts were as to which candidate or party should win.
I personally would like to see the Democrats back in the house with Obama as my number one choice since Hilary is not as good as we all hoped. Aside from that I am terribly disappointed that Al Gore didn't run since he's too busy saving the world, one powerpoint presentation at a time with his very successful and gripping "Inconvenient Truth".
I just figured I'd get some idea. You do not have to be American to respond to this thread as all opinions are welcome and no voice shall be silenced. Please refrain from stupid posts though, especially if you don't care. Then in that case, do remain silent! :)
Posted: 2007-12-03 06:10:01
Comments
« Previous1Next »
+1 thumbs 
I think the only one rooting for the republicans are the American republicans themselves.
I remember the massive disappointment in Belgium when Bush got realected again.
No one quite got it.
Also, at first sight it seems like alot of the people support Obama, and also Hilary so I hope this time the democrats are actually going to win.
Is there still a prety much 50/50 division in the Senate by the way? Just wondering how it turned out with that sick senator.
In my opinion the public image of the republicans is pretty tainted, not only by Bush' dismal leadership, but also by alot of scandals, meaning Larry Craig etc.
People sometimes vote very unrationally though. For example the bible belt.
The majority there votes Republican, they vote for good old Christian values, yet those states have the highest divorce rate in the US, much higher than alot of liberal states.
So that proves that you don't always vote what you believe in, sometimes you vote what you were taught by your parents, or sometimes you vote what you want to be.
I'm really hoping Osama will win, I have faith in him.
I remember the massive disappointment in Belgium when Bush got realected again.
No one quite got it.
Also, at first sight it seems like alot of the people support Obama, and also Hilary so I hope this time the democrats are actually going to win.
Is there still a prety much 50/50 division in the Senate by the way? Just wondering how it turned out with that sick senator.
In my opinion the public image of the republicans is pretty tainted, not only by Bush' dismal leadership, but also by alot of scandals, meaning Larry Craig etc.
People sometimes vote very unrationally though. For example the bible belt.
The majority there votes Republican, they vote for good old Christian values, yet those states have the highest divorce rate in the US, much higher than alot of liberal states.
So that proves that you don't always vote what you believe in, sometimes you vote what you were taught by your parents, or sometimes you vote what you want to be.
I'm really hoping Osama will win, I have faith in him.
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+0 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
as much as i'm a pro-republican, i totally hate bush and want clinton back
so i'm not sure which party too root for now
so i'm not sure which party too root for now
+2 thumbs
@g00se17
He may not relate to fighting in a war, such as McCain, but he has served in the military. That's a lot more than most other candidates can say right now. Just look at all the other candidates, who, besides Ron Paul and John McCain have served in the military? Anyways, I support Ron Paul because he is telling the truth, so far as I can see it. He makes sense in what I want America to be. Free. Remove the red state (R), blue state (D) rhetoric, and stop fighting to police the world. Albeit; we need a strong military, no doubt about this, but, in my opinion the Militiary-Industrial-Complex could potentially bring the United States down a path of failure. Eisenhower warned of this in his closing speech. Eisenhower was a General elected President, he served in the 1950's. His closing speech is chilling because he is so right about it. Eisenhower had wanted to call it the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex, but the powers that be prompted him to change it, and he removed ''congressional' from the speech. This makes me think of what Ben Franklin said after the close of the Constitutional Convention, when a woman asked him about America's existence to be; "A republic if you can keep it." So, now we're talking about politics, policy. Ron Paul, in my opinion, has a better theory on maintaining America's foreign policy, to ultimtately maintain America's republic (remember we're not a true democracy, we elect representatives, thus, we are a republic) and restore the Constitution's power. The United States government has gone over board, with spending and foreign policy imo. This started with Woodrow Wilson, and the neocon (neocons are the majority of both parties now) philosophy which is expansionism. Imperialistic in nature, and I don't agree with it. It didn't work for the Romans, the British, the Germans, the Japanese, and many others, so what makes me think America can maintain it? It can't imo. Shall we sacrific our liberty for security as well?? Many Americans are so afraid that we're being chipped from the outside when in fact we're rotting from the inside. The head always rots first...
Which leads me to this point; why are we to believe what the Federal government says, when so much of what they say is false? Haven't they shown to be such monumental failures, hypocrits, and liars in the past? McCain was seen as a maverick in Washington, until Americans started waking up to Ron Paul's message. Which is freedom. Free market economy. Limit the two party system, open up American politics to many parties (remember Ron Paul is a true libertarian changing the Republican party) by requiring Congress to recognize; what is not in the Constitution is inherently denied to our Congress. In short, they shall make no laws pertaining to a subject that is not in the Constitution and leave everything else up to the states. The States will have the power, the UNITED States. When we all work together we make better decisions, "two heads think better than one". So, now with so many Republicans, like myself, having heard of Ron Paul's message; I am changing the Republican party. We are many. I want America to protect from within, not without. I'm a paleoconservative, strong defense nationally. Ron Paul supports this philosophy.
Anyways, I've said a lot about this and you asked was one question. I'm sure I'll get a tl;dr response outta this. :P Make of it what you will, I support America, but McCain scares me. Opening up another front in Iran or abroad is something closer to WWIII, which I want no part of. Any questions are welcome.
Ron Paul, US President, January 20 2009!
He may not relate to fighting in a war, such as McCain, but he has served in the military. That's a lot more than most other candidates can say right now. Just look at all the other candidates, who, besides Ron Paul and John McCain have served in the military? Anyways, I support Ron Paul because he is telling the truth, so far as I can see it. He makes sense in what I want America to be. Free. Remove the red state (R), blue state (D) rhetoric, and stop fighting to police the world. Albeit; we need a strong military, no doubt about this, but, in my opinion the Militiary-Industrial-Complex could potentially bring the United States down a path of failure. Eisenhower warned of this in his closing speech. Eisenhower was a General elected President, he served in the 1950's. His closing speech is chilling because he is so right about it. Eisenhower had wanted to call it the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex, but the powers that be prompted him to change it, and he removed ''congressional' from the speech. This makes me think of what Ben Franklin said after the close of the Constitutional Convention, when a woman asked him about America's existence to be; "A republic if you can keep it." So, now we're talking about politics, policy. Ron Paul, in my opinion, has a better theory on maintaining America's foreign policy, to ultimtately maintain America's republic (remember we're not a true democracy, we elect representatives, thus, we are a republic) and restore the Constitution's power. The United States government has gone over board, with spending and foreign policy imo. This started with Woodrow Wilson, and the neocon (neocons are the majority of both parties now) philosophy which is expansionism. Imperialistic in nature, and I don't agree with it. It didn't work for the Romans, the British, the Germans, the Japanese, and many others, so what makes me think America can maintain it? It can't imo. Shall we sacrific our liberty for security as well?? Many Americans are so afraid that we're being chipped from the outside when in fact we're rotting from the inside. The head always rots first...
Which leads me to this point; why are we to believe what the Federal government says, when so much of what they say is false? Haven't they shown to be such monumental failures, hypocrits, and liars in the past? McCain was seen as a maverick in Washington, until Americans started waking up to Ron Paul's message. Which is freedom. Free market economy. Limit the two party system, open up American politics to many parties (remember Ron Paul is a true libertarian changing the Republican party) by requiring Congress to recognize; what is not in the Constitution is inherently denied to our Congress. In short, they shall make no laws pertaining to a subject that is not in the Constitution and leave everything else up to the states. The States will have the power, the UNITED States. When we all work together we make better decisions, "two heads think better than one". So, now with so many Republicans, like myself, having heard of Ron Paul's message; I am changing the Republican party. We are many. I want America to protect from within, not without. I'm a paleoconservative, strong defense nationally. Ron Paul supports this philosophy.
Anyways, I've said a lot about this and you asked was one question. I'm sure I'll get a tl;dr response outta this. :P Make of it what you will, I support America, but McCain scares me. Opening up another front in Iran or abroad is something closer to WWIII, which I want no part of. Any questions are welcome.
Ron Paul, US President, January 20 2009!
+0 thumbs
Hillaty will win
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+2 thumbs
Hes not popular on the east
+2 thumbs
-1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
I'm voting for a Republican, but one that appears less "Reaganish" than Bush does. The thing is that every Republican candidate since Reagan has been a "Reagan republican," but the world and political scene is much different now, so his policies that were once brilliant (I don't care what anyone says, Reaganomics saved this country from democratic socialism), now are obsolete and lead to conflicting interests with other countries. Don't get me wrong, I, nor most Americans, could not give less of a fuck what Europeans (Our primary "allies," but I prefer to say "acquaintances of mutual benefit at certain times").
I'm going to vote for the Republican who is the most conservative for domestic policy, and the most isolationist for foreign. Not isolationist in the sense of "Fuck all of you," but more like "You're all nice, but I'd rather manipulate things subtly in my own benefit" sort of way. Only time will tell who "most" fits that template, and in the long run of things, I will vote for the "lesser" of two evils. One thing I hate is how everyone in the world besides Americans love our Democrat candidates. All the Democrats do is increase taxes, rob from the rich to give to the poor, and burden us with more social programs and protections that we need. We're big boys and girls, we can care for ourselves. America is not Europe. Democratic socialism will not work here. I'm all for cutting unnecessary subsidies, giving tax benefits to the entrepreneurial upper-class, giving benefits to corporations that go local for their labor, and etc. It's been proven through history in the United States that helping out the upper class (strategically of course, we do not need anymore Rockefellers) creates more job opportunities for the working class and middle class, and helps the social class progression of working to middle to upper class progression.
Republicans (so far) ftw.
I'm going to vote for the Republican who is the most conservative for domestic policy, and the most isolationist for foreign. Not isolationist in the sense of "Fuck all of you," but more like "You're all nice, but I'd rather manipulate things subtly in my own benefit" sort of way. Only time will tell who "most" fits that template, and in the long run of things, I will vote for the "lesser" of two evils. One thing I hate is how everyone in the world besides Americans love our Democrat candidates. All the Democrats do is increase taxes, rob from the rich to give to the poor, and burden us with more social programs and protections that we need. We're big boys and girls, we can care for ourselves. America is not Europe. Democratic socialism will not work here. I'm all for cutting unnecessary subsidies, giving tax benefits to the entrepreneurial upper-class, giving benefits to corporations that go local for their labor, and etc. It's been proven through history in the United States that helping out the upper class (strategically of course, we do not need anymore Rockefellers) creates more job opportunities for the working class and middle class, and helps the social class progression of working to middle to upper class progression.
Republicans (so far) ftw.
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
Ye, I'd really loved to see Al Gore running for president. He would have had the best chance for presidency imho.
I think democrats are going to win this ellections, and I think Hillary Clinton has the best chance for the term eventhought I think Obama would be a better president.
I watched debates of democrats and republicans, but I honestly dont think that we will see some dramatic changes (by we I mean the rest of the world).
Eventhought there is alot of talks going on about Iraq war and economy I think that changes will be more inside US rather then on foreign policy issues. The reputation of US is at all time low when you ask the rest of the world, so I think that whoever wins the elections, will have his hands full on repairing the US image worldwide.
I think democrats are going to win this ellections, and I think Hillary Clinton has the best chance for the term eventhought I think Obama would be a better president.
I watched debates of democrats and republicans, but I honestly dont think that we will see some dramatic changes (by we I mean the rest of the world).
Eventhought there is alot of talks going on about Iraq war and economy I think that changes will be more inside US rather then on foreign policy issues. The reputation of US is at all time low when you ask the rest of the world, so I think that whoever wins the elections, will have his hands full on repairing the US image worldwide.
+2 thumbs
Neither I, nor the American government, gives half a fkn penny's worth of care about what you think about us or what we do, if you couldn't tell. America needs a president who will think outside the established "box," to promote entrepreneurship (cutting taxes for the wealthy while being tough on predatory corporations), give rewards for going local for labor, start to fix our "slightly out of hand" debt, and start cutting useless subsidies and government programs (once again: socialism does not work in America.)
What the rest of the world seems to want is an American president who screws his internal policy in favor of kissing the world's ass. Screw that. Screw you. Well not really, but our president should certainly care more about us than you guys.
What the rest of the world seems to want is an American president who screws his internal policy in favor of kissing the world's ass. Screw that. Screw you. Well not really, but our president should certainly care more about us than you guys.
+1 thumbs
@blank1
You have clearly never heard of thing called "foreign policy" and you obviously do not see how important it is for every voter. You'd be surprised...
You have clearly never heard of thing called "foreign policy" and you obviously do not see how important it is for every voter. You'd be surprised...
+1 thumbs
@blank1
I somewhat agree with you on many of the established principles you presented and the tax cut for the middle and lower class of individuals but I do have to say that foreign policy is another big step that we need our new president to emphasize on. We also need to stop this current, disastrous war.
I somewhat agree with you on many of the established principles you presented and the tax cut for the middle and lower class of individuals but I do have to say that foreign policy is another big step that we need our new president to emphasize on. We also need to stop this current, disastrous war.
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
Oh, I'm all for radical change in foreign policy. However, I think that the EU is growing up rather nicely, and the Cold War is over, so America is no longer in a sort of obligatory "big brother" position. I think that a European coalition would be more than willing to but Iran in its place when it inevitably gets out of line (if it isn't already) with its nuclear program (even semi-theocratic nations and nukes are not a nice mixture), although Israel will have to be the nation with the balls to start it (nukes for Iran is even a worse thing for Israel). I'm all for Americanizing America, but not in an isolationist sense. Staying in major treaty agreements (NATO, the UN, etc.) is important, but I stepping off the world scene as the political superpower to reinforce our economic and military superpower status (the political part has some detrimental effects on the former two).
America's foreign policy is too involved. I think we should become more of a neutral nation. Of course, we already have very strong alliances with Canada, the UK, and Israel, but those will never change... it's a special relationship of sorts. But yeah, screw the rest of you guys.
America's foreign policy is too involved. I think we should become more of a neutral nation. Of course, we already have very strong alliances with Canada, the UK, and Israel, but those will never change... it's a special relationship of sorts. But yeah, screw the rest of you guys.
+1 thumbs
One more thing... this war is Iraq is not going well politically, but it's not "disastrous." I was in Iraq for a year as a civilian contractor... yes, IED's go off like mad, but it's actually pretty chill. American soldiers, for the most part, have absolutely nothing to do there. The Iraqi's fkn love us. I felt like a celebrity. That, and an American presence there is the only thing keeping the Shi'a Muslims from total massacre against the Sunni. Ironic that the Sunni's comprise the bulk of insurgents huh? P.S. insurgents are not very common. Why? Most of them get killed. The news is very sensationalist and does not given anywhere near what is actually happening. Our casualties in Iraq are extremely low (700 dead per year is a rate unmatched by ANY major world power in an occupational operation) and our support is high... we just don't have enough manpower there to stabilize the nation, because fkn democrats AND republicans are trying to pull troops out. Fuck the media.
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
blank1 should apply for Iraq since he enjoys getting the Iraqi peoples gratitude so much.
And apparently, to him, deaths is only about numbers, note: "700 dead per year "is a rate"".
Do you think he cares if troops are killed? No, he doesn't, as long as he isn't down there getting himself killed. I say pull out the troops, let them come home and live a peaceful life.
And apparently, to him, deaths is only about numbers, note: "700 dead per year "is a rate"".
Do you think he cares if troops are killed? No, he doesn't, as long as he isn't down there getting himself killed. I say pull out the troops, let them come home and live a peaceful life.
+3 thumbs
@blank1
Are you serious kid? I can tell that you are republican just by reading your comments. The war in Iraq is a disaster. The troops should be pulled off immediately to stop the damage and shouldn't have been there in the first place... Sure we got Saddam but to the cost of what? Billions of dollars to the economy and to thousands and thousands of lives of both US soldiers AND civilians... all of that for what? Nothing really.. Sure there's oil and our stupid president will be happy about that for sure but overall it really wasn't worth it. We should focus on signing the Kyoto treaty and improving our country's declining situation and debt; which brings me back to the fact that I DON'T GIVE A FUCK if a presidential candidate was a veteran... and I hope that our new President hasn't served, that way we hopefully won't be as militarily aggressive and we won't start conflicts unnecessarily.
Are you serious kid? I can tell that you are republican just by reading your comments. The war in Iraq is a disaster. The troops should be pulled off immediately to stop the damage and shouldn't have been there in the first place... Sure we got Saddam but to the cost of what? Billions of dollars to the economy and to thousands and thousands of lives of both US soldiers AND civilians... all of that for what? Nothing really.. Sure there's oil and our stupid president will be happy about that for sure but overall it really wasn't worth it. We should focus on signing the Kyoto treaty and improving our country's declining situation and debt; which brings me back to the fact that I DON'T GIVE A FUCK if a presidential candidate was a veteran... and I hope that our new President hasn't served, that way we hopefully won't be as militarily aggressive and we won't start conflicts unnecessarily.
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
+1 thumbs
@blank1
"Are you serious kid? I can tell that you are republican just by reading your comments. The war in Iraq is a disaster. The troops should be pulled off immediately to stop the damage and shouldn't have been there in the first place... Sure we got Saddam but to the cost of what? Billions of dollars to the economy and to thousands and thousands of lives of both US soldiers AND civilians... all of that for what? Nothing really.. Sure there's oil and our stupid president will be happy about that for sure but overall it really wasn't worth it. We should focus on signing the Kyoto treaty and improving our country's declining situation and debt; which brings me back to the fact that I DON'T GIVE A FUCK if a presidential candidate was a veteran... and I hope that our new President hasn't served, that way we hopefully won't be as militarily aggressive and we won't start conflicts unnecessarily."
Um. I'm actually a registered independent, thank you very much. Yeah, and don't call me kid. I am two years younger than you, douche bag.
I already said the war in Iraq is failing from a political perspective. And why are we wasting billions of dollars by continuing to occupy? Because retarded democrats and republicans have become so anti-Iraq that the U.S. military has been directly commanded to release a large portion of our military force in Iraq, so now we essentially have to bring political stability to a tinder box region when we don't even have a QUARTER of the men necessary to do it! If bleed heart liberals like you wisened the fuck up you'd realize the only way to get our boys out of Iraq sooner is to have A LOT more military presence, beat the fuck out of weapons trading routes (which means giving Iran a bombing run or two, since THEY are the ones supporting the insurgency), start making preemptive attacks against insurgent strongholds, and annihilating them, removing their ability to fight back, and GTFO. But you obviously have no understanding of how politics or the military.
We need a president who does what is best for us. That certainly means staying the fuck away from Kyoto. We are no where NEAR as service based as Europe. Kyoto would make both of us unemployed and starving, I hope you realize.
700 dead a year is still dead, I realize. I have both been inserted as a civilian contractor (that means I got a gun :D) and I have friends who have lost limbs in Iraq. But all of you tree hugging bleeding heart liberals don't realize that a rate of 700 dead per year (when our enlistment rate is a lot more than ten thousand per year) is astonishingly low. No first world nation as achieved this in an occupational operation in modern history. Basically, Go U.S.A. But anyways, The fact of the matter is that if stability is going to be brought to Iraq, people are going to have to die. It's a sad fact. Things aren't going to happen in a room with A/C, a pen, and paper there. It's going to happen at the business end of an assault rifle, sadly. You guys are pussies. Grow a fkn pair already. No, death isn't good. It never is and I could only wish those nutty camel jockies would chill the fuck out and talk things over. However, an American presence is the only thing keeping chaos and massacre from that country. And trust me. The locals love us. I can not tell you how many times I've had Iraqi children bring me flowers, pastries, home cooked bread (which was AMAZING... I have this new found love of Arabic cooking.)
Our troops should be pulled out. However, any chance of them getting the job done was ruined by politicians. Ideally, we'd send over another fifty, sixty thousand, fuck shit up, and leave. Of course we'd sell them our raw material and labor expertise to rebuild... they get infrastructure, we get jobs and a market for goods, everyone wins. I wouldn't mind going back, in fact. It was like a really, really hot vacation with a lot of guys running around with guns doing nothing (because there was NOTHING to do) for the most part. But that isn't going to happen, because the press has manipulated national opinion so much that our politicians aren't going to sacrifice votes to do what they know should be done.
Fuck all of you for being so easily influenced, basically.
"Are you serious kid? I can tell that you are republican just by reading your comments. The war in Iraq is a disaster. The troops should be pulled off immediately to stop the damage and shouldn't have been there in the first place... Sure we got Saddam but to the cost of what? Billions of dollars to the economy and to thousands and thousands of lives of both US soldiers AND civilians... all of that for what? Nothing really.. Sure there's oil and our stupid president will be happy about that for sure but overall it really wasn't worth it. We should focus on signing the Kyoto treaty and improving our country's declining situation and debt; which brings me back to the fact that I DON'T GIVE A FUCK if a presidential candidate was a veteran... and I hope that our new President hasn't served, that way we hopefully won't be as militarily aggressive and we won't start conflicts unnecessarily."
Um. I'm actually a registered independent, thank you very much. Yeah, and don't call me kid. I am two years younger than you, douche bag.
I already said the war in Iraq is failing from a political perspective. And why are we wasting billions of dollars by continuing to occupy? Because retarded democrats and republicans have become so anti-Iraq that the U.S. military has been directly commanded to release a large portion of our military force in Iraq, so now we essentially have to bring political stability to a tinder box region when we don't even have a QUARTER of the men necessary to do it! If bleed heart liberals like you wisened the fuck up you'd realize the only way to get our boys out of Iraq sooner is to have A LOT more military presence, beat the fuck out of weapons trading routes (which means giving Iran a bombing run or two, since THEY are the ones supporting the insurgency), start making preemptive attacks against insurgent strongholds, and annihilating them, removing their ability to fight back, and GTFO. But you obviously have no understanding of how politics or the military.
We need a president who does what is best for us. That certainly means staying the fuck away from Kyoto. We are no where NEAR as service based as Europe. Kyoto would make both of us unemployed and starving, I hope you realize.
700 dead a year is still dead, I realize. I have both been inserted as a civilian contractor (that means I got a gun :D) and I have friends who have lost limbs in Iraq. But all of you tree hugging bleeding heart liberals don't realize that a rate of 700 dead per year (when our enlistment rate is a lot more than ten thousand per year) is astonishingly low. No first world nation as achieved this in an occupational operation in modern history. Basically, Go U.S.A. But anyways, The fact of the matter is that if stability is going to be brought to Iraq, people are going to have to die. It's a sad fact. Things aren't going to happen in a room with A/C, a pen, and paper there. It's going to happen at the business end of an assault rifle, sadly. You guys are pussies. Grow a fkn pair already. No, death isn't good. It never is and I could only wish those nutty camel jockies would chill the fuck out and talk things over. However, an American presence is the only thing keeping chaos and massacre from that country. And trust me. The locals love us. I can not tell you how many times I've had Iraqi children bring me flowers, pastries, home cooked bread (which was AMAZING... I have this new found love of Arabic cooking.)
Our troops should be pulled out. However, any chance of them getting the job done was ruined by politicians. Ideally, we'd send over another fifty, sixty thousand, fuck shit up, and leave. Of course we'd sell them our raw material and labor expertise to rebuild... they get infrastructure, we get jobs and a market for goods, everyone wins. I wouldn't mind going back, in fact. It was like a really, really hot vacation with a lot of guys running around with guns doing nothing (because there was NOTHING to do) for the most part. But that isn't going to happen, because the press has manipulated national opinion so much that our politicians aren't going to sacrifice votes to do what they know should be done.
Fuck all of you for being so easily influenced, basically.
-1 thumbs