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.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by gametime
This is why you should vote for Ron Paul. because the Dems and Reps are playing shell games.
I admire many (though not all) of Paul's ideas, but realistically, he's simply way too old, which would also make his running mate almost a de facto POTUS. That, and he's even less electable than Nader or Perot were. And Obama's real intentions probably aren't in such a bad place to begin with (unlike some of his opposition). It's just that he's too much a slave to the "practical", the "pragmatic", and the "possible". When true leadership actually creates those possibilities!
"The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today." -Franklin D. Roosevelt
Romney is the only Republican candidate with a chance of nomination that I'm not unduly concerned about winning the WH - but I won't vote for him. Huntsman isn't getting the nomination. Though I agree with a few of Ron Paul's ideas (foreign entanglements being the main one), his overall vision of federal government in relation to state governments is one I reject.
I have never abstained from voting in a national election and do not consider that as an option unless the candidates were all to be intolerable to me. Obama has not been everything I wished for, but he is far from intolerable for me. I also do not know of a 3rd party candidate to vote for, and in any event, the direction and focus of today's Republican party makes it imperative to me that Republicans not win in the White House or Congress.
As for protest votes, I have never seen the Democratic Party "get" a message that they need to be more liberal due to losing an election. When there has been low Democratic voter turnout in past elections, I don't believe it's been because disappointed voters felt the Democrats had not been liberal enough, nor have more liberal Democrats been proven to be more successful at winning a subsequent election. And I'm a pragmatist. I don't expect a Kucinich or Nader style of politician to be a winning proposition in a national contest. I'll accept progress slowly over none at all.
I disagree that Obama has been Bush 3. Would Bush have done the same as Obama with DADT? DOMA? What about the Regent U. lawyers in DOJ rejecting applicants based on political ideology? Supreme Court appointments? Stem cell research? The Ledbetter Act? And though PPACA isn't close to what I wished for, do you seriously think anything different could have passed, or that Republicans, if in control, would have done anything about national healthcare? Also, from my memory of the campaign, Obama did not promise to get out of Afghanistan, at least not quickly or as a priority, and I get tired of hearing claims that he broke this "promise", but correct me if I'm wrong.
I actually feel the same way but am an independent who is center left. I voted for Obama and do not have any reservations about my vote. I don't like any of the major candidates of the GOP currently, not even Ron Paul in case someone pipes up about him. I will vote for Obama again in 2012.
I really don't have any problems with him. I also used to like McCain, back in 2000 I voted for him the Rep primary and would have voted for him over Gore, but in 2008 he was not the same, plus he picked Palin as his running mate and that sealed the deal in my eyes. I considered Hillary but didn't think that she and Obama were any different really from each other.
I don't think that anyone in office would have done any better when it comes to the economy and how it currently stands, neither dem nor rep.
Also wanted to add that it is always funny to me that people bring up Obama's political slogan of "hope and change." I never buy into political slogans and wouldn't even remember it if people who didn't despise Obama didn't always bring it up. I voted for him because I felt he was the best choice at the time. Not because of a slogan or any ill will towards Bush. I didn't mind Bush much except for the Iraq war in particular and the Patriot Act, which I am still bothered by the fact it hasn't been repealed.
But no I do not regret voting for him. I will vote for him in 2012 as well. The republicans on the national level are way too nutty for my taste, especially the front runners, except Romney who will more than likely get the nomination. And really he is no different from Obama IMO so I would vote for Obama again.
I bolded the above section as well because I would never not vote. I will write in a candidate, even myself (which I have done before when I didn't support any candidate on teh ballot) if there are not other options. Not voting for me is never an option.
I admire many (though not all) of Paul's ideas, but realistically, he's simply way too old, which would also make his running mate almost a de facto POTUS. That, and he's even less electable than Nader or Perot were. And Obama's real intentions probably aren't in such a bad place to begin with (unlike some of his opposition). It's just that he's too much a slave to the "practical", the "pragmatic", and the "possible". When true leadership actually creates those possibilities!
"The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today." -Franklin D. Roosevelt
So you're banking your vote on whether or not the president is healthy enough to be president. that's ridiculous...Presidents' have gotten shot more times than they died out of office.
has any president died out of office? none I can think of.
and Ron Paul looks and moves as healthy as Obama does. he looks like a runner if you ask me.
Your vote should be based on the ideals of a potential President and how those ideals mesh with your own.
Ron Paul is the wisest man in the whole race.
And in the Old days of America, people looked to the elders for guidance on where to live and start families and grow crops.
What happend? Now we got young slick Politicians ripping off the country. go figure.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by gametime
So you're banking your vote on whether or not the president is healthy enough to be president. that's ridiculous...Presidents' have gotten shot more times than they died out of office.
has any president died out of office? none I can think of.
and Ron Paul looks and moves as healthy as Obama does. he looks like a runner if you ask me.
Your vote should be based on the ideals of a potential President and how those ideals mesh with your own.
Ron Paul is the wisest man in the whole race.
And in the Old days of America, people looked to the elders for guidance on where to live and start families and grow crops.
What happend? Now we got young slick Politicians ripping off the country. go figure.
No doubt that was also the reasoning behind most of the otherwise liberal Nader voters in the 2000 election... and look where that got us (aka, the Spoiler Effect)?!!
Although if you'd vote your "conscience" for Ron Paul instead of say, Perry or Romney (or god forbid, Bachmann!), then hey, go for it!
Are there any 2008 Obama supporters out there who will admit they were wrong?
Yes, like many others I was duped. But the same is true about Reagan and Clinton as well. I have never voted for an incumbent president and that is not about to change.
Truthfully, it was a lose, lose situation. I'm still glad that I voted for Obama as oppose to John bomb Iran McCain and thaat dumbazz chick who ran with him. Hillary would have done the exactly the same thing as Obama proably minus the healthcare bill. I tried to give Obama the benefit of a doubt considering he had opposition to everything that he has done and tried to do.
Personally I really believed that he got into office with great ideas and good intentions but got caught up with reality and a terrible staff and handlers. It does not help that he started in the hole from the begining. Also considering the stupidity of the many of the American people and how easily they can be manipulated by the media, it is a wonder that we even have a functioning government at all
I'm perfectly happy with my vote. I didn't expect Obama to usher in the second coming of Jesus Christ. I just wanted some changes to my healthcare plan, some regulations put back on wall street, and a competent Commander in Chief (so far Osama has been killed, troops are coming home from Iraq and the surge in Afghanistan is working). It was also a huge bonus knowing that we wouldn't be going to war with Iran if Obama was elected.
I never expected that one man would be able to fix this economy in four years.
So basically we are in an economic depression because y'all just hate Palin (who would have been only VICE-PRESIDENT, btw) so much...
I hope it was worth it to put your hatred before your country.
Traitors.
Tell that to the teabaggers
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.
