Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I allways vote the best candidate but the ony demacrat I ever voted for is govoner dave fredenthal the demacrats are usuly not in tune whith what i think is right we have a strong economy there is lots of jobs wars are allways hard but I will continue to suport ouer troops they still think they are doing the right thing and we were told up front this would be long and hard war.
I still say if an independent party could get a good, canidate they might win. I think it would be good for the country, the thing is it seems like this race boils down to who has the most money. I am really frustrated with this.
I've always voted Republican, but I've become so discouraged with the national and my local GOP party that I am considering voting who I think would be the best candidate and best person to do the job regardless of what party they're with. The only person I would never, never, never, never vote for is Hiliary Clinton. There are many reasons, but the one that stands out is how the presidency, in my view, has become more of a corporation. Look at the last several presidential election cycles;
Bush(41)/Clinton/Bush(43) and now another Clinton? Who will it be when Hiliary's time is up? Jeb Bush? and then who? Chelsea Clinton? You get the idea. It scares me to see how cozy the Bushes and Clintons have become lately. That should tell you something.
As to who I would favor now...I've been very impressed lately with TX congressman Ron Paul. He won't get the media attention the others do because the belt way and the media fear many of his ideas. Look him up and decide for yourselves.
I will be voting for the best candidate who is IMO Ron Paul. I might vote democrat if Al Gore runs and Paul is out. If Paul is out and Gore is not running, I will probably vote for Tancredo. I would vote for practically anyone before I vote for Giuliani.
Whenever I hear the nonsense "not certain if we are ready for a woman" I cannot help but wonder where you've stuck your head the last 50 years. Man or Woman - it would make no difference. Vote for the issues and the track record, and the ability to lead change. Those are the things which matter.
Republican vs Democrat, higher vs lower taxes - they both seem these days to be generic cra* that can trip you up on casting an intelligent vote. The reality is that taxes are likely to go up for whomever you vote for the next election because the administration the past two terms has racked up enormous debt which will have to be paid off. Anyone who says "no new taxes" - well I wouldn't rely upon their word nor reading their lips . Additionally, Republican vs Democrat matters not when the most supported candidates on both sides are aligned with agendas of the same controlling groups. In this election, like the last, we'll see in the primaries identical affiliations of the candidates.
Rather than the "best man or woman" winning, we may just see "the best connected" winning unless there is a serious grassroots effort to enact significant change and/or people put aside the idiotic categories of division presented to us every election.
I will be voting for the best candidate who is IMO Ron Paul. I might vote democrat if Al Gore runs and Paul is out. If Paul is out and Gore is not running, I will probably vote for Tancredo. I would vote for practically anyone before I vote for Giuliani.
Go to Candidates@google:Ron Paul. There you will learn more about him and his ideas. Also just type in Ron Paul on Youtube and it'll come up with a lot of links, including a 6 part section when he appeared on WMUR-TV in New Hampshire recently. Very interesting.
Best
The only person I would never, never, never, never vote for is Hiliary Clinton. There are many reasons, but the one that stands out is how the presidency, in my view, has become more of a corporation. Look at the last several presidential election cycles;
Bush(41)/Clinton/Bush(43) and now another Clinton? Who will it be when Hiliary's time is up? Jeb Bush? and then who? Chelsea Clinton? You get the idea. It scares me to see how cozy the Bushes and Clintons have become lately. That should tell you something.
As to who I would favor now...I've been very impressed lately with TX congressman Ron Paul. He won't get the media attention the others do because the belt way and the media fear many of his ideas. Look him up and decide for yourselves.
You bring up a valid point. Two families running the White House for decades - it is almost like a new royal family is being established in the US. It does make one want to get someone fresh into the mix of things. International relationships might benefit from such a change. But should someone be penalized/excluded because of their last name? That is a tough moral question without easy answer.
Ron Paul has a lot of videos and information online - I never saw the bulk of his ideas presented before today. He seems facinating and impressive. A conservative libertarian at heart and with a consistent voting record which shows a good measure of independence from the groups which control most politicians today. I'm not seeing anything I oppose from him though my research on him has admittantly just begun. I just hope he does gain enough popularity that he doesn't sink into obscurity.
Do you all know WHY George Bush is running the country?
Folks like Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, etc.
These folks had no, and have no shot at getting elected. I know this is a defeatist attitude, but it's also realistic. Please DO NOT vote for Ron Paul, or any other third wheel that has no real hope of actually winning the election. Avoid the temptation of making a "political statement" with your vote.
This is why GWB has been in the White House for almost 7 years now. If those few folks that voted independent voted for Gore or Kerry, we wouldn't be experiencing this utter disaster of a presidency.
I say again, Ron Paul has absolutely no shot at actually winning the 2008 election. Do the responsible thing. Pick a party and vote. I say this because in the absence of choice, MOST folks who "vote the best candidate" would vote democrat. Sometimes I wonder if the Republicans don't fund these independents through the back door in order to take votes away from the Democrats.
Think about it, that's not such a far-fetched idea.
Do whatever you think is best for the United States, but remember, there are consequences. George Bush is one of them.
Try that again in 2008 and we might wake up on Wed morning to President Thompson.
~T
Last edited by YapCity; 07-16-2007 at 10:36 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Additionally, Republican vs Democrat matters not when the most supported candidates on both sides are aligned with agendas of the same controlling groups. In this election, like the last, we'll see in the primaries identical affiliations of the candidates. 
