Thread: Whos your favourite canditate?

Shit i forgot to put mccain on the poll!! It was an acident can DV Staff please delete this thread and ill make a new one with mccain on the thread thanks

ron paul!!!

It's all screwed up. Ron Paul is really a Libertarian, John McCain is really a Democrat, and Hillary Clinton is really Satan. I agree with Libertarians on everything, except I come nowhere near agreeing with them on foreign policy. I also think Ron Paul is a wimp who always sounds like he is on the edge of whimpering, "I'm gonna go tell," so I think he would be a weak leader even if he changed his foreign policy views. Mitt Romney comes across as a slick business man who could just as easily have been a Democrat and talked like one if he thought that would get him further. Barack Obama said we should invade Pakistan but is otherwise way too left wing on foreign policy, just like he is on economics. Mike Huckabee is finished, but I would never consider voting for a Baptist preacher any way. Giuliani is out of the race, and I think the Republicans, because of their right wing fundamentalist faction, really screwed up by not making him the nominee. Nobody else is even worth mentioning.

Conclusion: All of our options suck, as always.

The Poll Should at least include all the candidates. Are we in Africa or something?

OK Check this test out. All it does is compare you views to that of each candidate. Then gives you percentages.
From what I can tell, the views that are reflected are accurate.
Please note if you see otherwise.

Who is your candidate?

That thing wasn't accurate for me at all. I got Hilary with it.

Whoever voted for Obama, could you explain why?

that wasnt accurate for me either, it said Huckabee, and I want Ron Paul! it didnt even show most of the issues I care about

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Whoever voted for Obama, could you explain why?

Because he's black!

Not caring about this so cool.

I got Hillary too. But look at the data. If it matches it matches.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

That thing wasn't accurate for me at all. I got Hilary with it.

Whoever voted for Obama, could you explain why?

*points to the "i've got a crush on Obama" thread*

I'm voting for Paul, and thats who I got on that little quiz thing.

You know Ron Paul has been in the house banking committee while in congress for a long time? Hes been talking about the economy since the first time he got elected in the 1970's, and probably even before that. You know Ron Paul has a Doctorate in medicine, and ran his own practice for a while? He was also joined the Air Force as a flight surgeon, and reached the rank of captain?

Hes a very smart man and he knows what he is talking about. If you ever watch him it becomes obvious he knows far more than any of the other people running.

Originally Posted by Alric

Hes a very smart man and he knows what he is talking about. If you ever watch him it becomes obvious he knows far more than any of the other people running.

Amen!

Anyway im just alittle curious if all the votes Ron Paul got reflect peoples views or it is just because i gave him so much praise in my initial question.

I have heard however that on online polls Ron Paul ends up getting the majority of the votes but that is not so in real life...I wonder.

Clinton was at the bottom of my results list. w00t!

At the top was Romney, and then Guliani, and Obama, and Gravel. Ha, I love Gravel's campaign ads. "Fire" and "Rock," I think. Best ads ever. XD

I'd say the quiz was pretty accurate for me. I had the same top three, same order. It's all about the issues. =)

I chose Barack.

I support him for lots of reasons. I'm young (~18), and to me, Barack would not continue with the old school politics that all of the other candidates would perpetuate. As has been said many times, he truly represents change. I am also quite impressed by the moderate ideas that he espouses. I think that there's a growing rift in this country, as people tend towards extremism, rather than moderation. More and more, people seem intolerant of the views of others, and I think the extremist views on both sides of the political spectrum a big source of this. I think that Barack would help to pull the United States away from this trend.

Another reason I support him is that he seems like he would be more understanding with Muslims and Arab-Americans. I know that he is not Muslim (like some people mistakenly think) but he went to a multi-denominational school, so I think he would be more tolerant of other religions. I think that the United States needs to be helped away from the growing intolerance towards that group. Barack seems like he would do this.

I also agree with him on many of the other issues.


I am very much against Ron Paul. I am aware of his huge internet support, and his grassroots supporters. However, I fear that these supporters do not recognize Ron Paul's true principles and driving ideas. His strict constitutionalist, Libertarian ideas would not work. He advocates returning to the gold standard. That is completely unfeasible, and would destroy the American economy (and thus, would severely and negatively affect the world's economy). He wants to cut programs like NASA and Social Security, and remove the United States from the United Nations and NATO. He seems to live in his own little world where he thinks that these proposed ideas wouldn't have any negative consequences. I agree that he is very forthright and straight-talking, especially compared to other candidates, but unfortunately, what he is saying would just be disastrous. Plus, he has other problems, like conspiracy theories, and he's a confirmed racist (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...090/639/426519).

Sorry for the long post, I'm just kind of a political junkie, and I have lots to say about politics. (By the way, please don't take anything I said personally, as an attack towards anyone who does support Ron Paul. I respect your opinion, and I hope to hear some good defenses of him).

(edit)
Addendum:

Another reason I support Barack is because of the ingrained racism that still exists in the United States. In some places it is overt, but even in other places it is insidious and subtle. I think that electing a black president would go a long way towards reducing some of this racism, and I think that it would be good for the country if having a black presidential candidate were not "monumental"

Originally Posted by tswift_2

I chose Barack.



Another reason I support him is that he seems like he would be more understanding with Muslims and Arab-Americans. I know that he is not Muslim (like some people mistakenly think) but he went to a multi-denominational school, so I think he would be more tolerant of other religions. I think that the United States needs to be helped away from the growing intolerance towards that group. Barack seems like he would do this.
"

I agree with you on this,He would be a more understanding figure as president then someoen like Mccain who claims to understand Islam but infact doesn't. He just seems (in my view) to be an anti islam christian with little grasp on the relegion other then Islam=evil christianity=good

I know its a generalazation but he is really biased and does not understadn islam or radical islam at all, he assumes all the hate from america comes from relegious extremism when in actuality americas policies are what garner alot of hate to it and simply blaming islam as the culrpit is just scape goating.

If anything americas imperialistic policies have pushed al qaeda and others into the "mainstream" as a respons to "imperialistic behaviour" on the part of the united states.

It has been much speculated about Obamas relegious beliefs, from what i have read is not a muslim, that much is clear. But looking at his family background and his raising it would appear he is either an atheist,agnostic or non affaliated (in opinion he is).

I think he is just playing the relegion card because in america is nigh on impossible to become president. In America, if you profess a faith other then christianity or if you profess to be either an
1. agnostic,2.atheist or 3.non affilated. I feel Obama falls under one of the categories i just listed. He is either 1,2 or 3.

I firmly beleive he is not a christian deep down. Which is fine by me,im atheist after all!

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

It has been much speculated about Obamas relegious beliefs, from what i have read is not a muslim, that much is clear. But looking at his family background and his raising it would appear he is either an atheist,agnostic or non affaliated (in opinion he is).

I think he is just playing the relegion card because in america is nigh on impossible to become president. In America, if you profess a faith other then christianity or if you profess to be either an
1. agnostic,2.atheist or 3.non affilated. I feel Obama falls under one of the categories i just listed. He is either 1,2 or 3.

I firmly beleive he is not a christian deep down. Which is fine by me,im atheist after all!

He is a Christian. As a younger man, he wasn't very religious, but he found religion later. He talks about it in his books. However, he doesn't force his religion on other people and is open-minded.

Originally Posted by tswift_2

He is a Christian. As a younger man, he wasn't very religious, but he found religion later. He talks about it in his books. However, he doesn't force his religion on other people and is open-minded.

Ofcourse i forgot that about "born again christians",i hadn't considered that, thank you.

Originally Posted by tswift_2

However, I fear that these supporters do not recognize Ron Paul's true principles and driving ideas. His strict constitutionalist, Libertarian ideas would not work. He advocates returning to the gold standard. That is completely unfeasible, and would destroy the American economy (and thus, would severely and negatively affect the world's economy). He wants to cut programs like NASA and Social Security, and remove the United States from the United Nations and NATO.

Actually I tend to find that is untrue. The reason people support him is because they do know all that stuff you just listed. That is the stuff we WANT! I want someone who is a strict constitutionalist! I dont want some jerk who doesn't follow the constitution, that piece of paper our government officals seem to hate is what made our country great!

I dont want social security, its a total mess. Soecial security FAILED, its no good. Why should I pay money into it when I am not going to get anything in return. Ron Paul wants to get rid of it so we don't want to pay. Not only that under his plans the people who already paid into it can still get the stuff they want. How do they get the money? By cutting spending else where and giving the people their money back.

As for the UN and NATO? I say good, get us the heck out of them. They are crap, and are totally useless. We should of quit them long ago. They are only dragging us down.

As for the gold standard, its far better than what we have. Even still Ron Paul never said he wanted the gold standard back, Ron Paul said he didn't want the gold standard but wanted to work towards something new that involves gold and real assists. He main concern is the fact that the government prints their own money. When you print your money, you debase its value, and thats why our dollar is crashing in the US. We are in serious trouble and hes the only one talking about the issues. He is the only one that knows anything about the economy who is running for president.

Heck you say you want change and then you go out and vote for the status quo. Barack is the same as the rest of them. They are all the same, look at the issues! They are the same, they support all the same issues. Ron Paul is the only real person for change running.

By the way, Ron Paul isn't a racist. You can find thousands of videos of him on youtube and around the web. There isn't a SINGLE one with him making a racist comment. There isn't a single tape of him ever saying anything of the sort. No one has ever seen him say anything of the sort. Hes been in the public spot light for over 20 years, and theres nothing.

Except for the few things written, which can't be proven that he even wrote, which he said he didn't write.

Originally Posted by tswift_2

I am very much against Ron Paul. I am aware of his huge internet support, and his grassroots supporters. However, I fear that these supporters do not recognize Ron Paul's true principles and driving ideas. His strict constitutionalist, Libertarian ideas would not work.

His true principles are the reason he has so many people behind him - and they would work - we as a country are just so ingrained with the "need" to have the government in every aspect of our lives - when in fact it's quite the opposite - and the less powerful the government the more powerful the people can be.

He advocates returning to the gold standard. That is completely unfeasible, and would destroy the American economy (and thus, would severely and negatively affect the world's economy).

As opposed to the booming market we're experiencing now?
A return to the gold standard would in fact be a good thing. The Federal Reserve is a government sponsored private bank, and when the economy hits a slump like we are now, they institute temporary fixes, that in the long run only do harm to the economy. Gold has a (relatively) fixed rate, and using it as the basis for currency will prevent inflation, as one cannot up and print more gold when we're running short on money.
We wouldn't have to switch automatically over either, a transitional period would help add a buffer to it.

He wants to cut programs like NASA and Social Security, and remove the United States from the United Nations and NATO. He seems to live in his own little world where he thinks that these proposed ideas wouldn't have any negative consequences.

What does the NSA do that we can't survive without? Social Security is a complete flop, and getting rid of it will only serve to protect people's finances. He doesn't even want to get rid of it, just not force it to be a federal program, one could put money into a privatized company much like a 401K.
The UN is nothing we can't live without, I mean hell, we don't listen to them now, and we weren't even supposed to be members. We as a country are supposed to be relatively isolationist, Thomas Jefferson said "Commerce with All Nations, Alliance with None" and that's a great stance to take.
As for NATO, I'm getting kind of wordy and I can't say it better than this site, this is why we should leave. http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/nato.html

I agree that he is very forthright and straight-talking, especially compared to other candidates, but unfortunately, what he is saying would just be disastrous.

How so?

Plus, he has other problems, like conspiracy theories, and he's a confirmed racist (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...090/639/426519)
.

He has never once said he supports any form of conspiracy theory, and in fact in response to a particularly, if I may be so bold, vile trap set by Fox News in a debate, he said that he believes that 9/11 truthers are wrong in their assumptions about the US Governments involvement in 9/11
Here is the question and answer I'm talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
I don't know of any other conspiracy theorys, but if one comes to mind, let me know and I'll probably be able to explain his views on the subject.


As for the racism, that one small article was ghostwritten into his congressional newsletter while he was not even in congress, at the time that was written/published he was back working as an obstetrician. He has since apologized for not editing his newsletter more carefully, and really, he fundamentally cannot be racist. He's a libertarian and libertarians are incapable of being racist because racism is a collectivist idea, when libertarians do not view people in any form of group, be it race, age, sex or country of origin, but as an individual.
I'd appreciate it if you'd watch this video, and educate(no offense) yourself on this subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u39z38xjraw
Barack Obama is a confirmed cocaine user is he not? It's in the past though, and should have naught to do with this election, just as much as this supposed racism should have naught to do with it.

Sorry for the long post, I'm just kind of a political junkie, and I have lots to say about politics. (By the way, please don't take anything I said personally, as an attack towards anyone who does support Ron Paul. I respect your opinion, and I hope to hear some good defenses of him).

No need to apologize for the length, in fact it's quite short compared to some posts on here (I'm looking at you O'nus ) and my own, it seems. Also, if I come off as harsh I mean nothing by it, I too am a political junkie, and a staunch supporter of Dr. Paul, and am trying to prevent any more smear campaigns from permeating the public.

Another reason I support Barack is because of the ingrained racism that still exists in the United States. In some places it is overt, but even in other places it is insidious and subtle. I think that electing a black president would go a long way towards reducing some of this racism, and I think that it would be good for the country if having a black presidential candidate were not "monumental"

Honestly the worst reason one could give for voting for someone is race or sex. Just because a person thinks the country is ready for a black/woman president does not mean that the black guy/woman is ready to be president. I agree we need some diversity at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., not just old white guys, but Obama just is not ready for presidency. This is a crisis election, and we need someone who has been around, and knows how to work the system in favor of the people. Ron Paul is that man, and Obama needs a few more years under his belt and I would vote for him. If he were to have waited til the next election, I guarantee he'd be getting even better numbers than he's getting now.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

As opposed to the booming market we're experiencing now?
A return to the gold standard would in fact be a good thing. The Federal Reserve is a government sponsored private bank, and when the economy hits a slump like we are now, they institute temporary fixes, that in the long run only do harm to the economy. Gold has a (relatively) fixed rate, and using it as the basis for currency will prevent inflation, as one cannot up and print more gold when we're running short on money.
We wouldn't have to switch automatically over either, a transitional period would help add a buffer to it.

I agree that using gold as the basis for currency would prevent inflation on the part of the government or individuals. However, that would take away any sort of power away from the government to nudge the economy in any direction. I imagine that many people would consider this a good thing, but it is absolutely vital that the government has some control in order to help the country's economy during a recession. This is a prime example of where the government needs to make use of the "necessary and proper" clause, and be larger than the constitution specifically states. During the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt needed to create programs that far exceeded what the Constitution specifically stated. However, it is almost universally agreed that his programs were necessary and were responsible for lifting the country out of the Depression. The government needs to be able to have some control of the economy, because problems do not always work themselves out without government intervention.


In fact, almost all of the greatest American presidents in history have been those who have expanded their power past what the constitution specifically states.

• Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and almost everyone questioned whether he had the authority to free the slaves. The measures that he took in order to preserve the Union exceeded what was conventionally thought to be his constitutional power, but he is universally considered either the greatest president of all time, or the second greatest. -Franklin D. Roosevelt frequently faced questions about the constitutionality of his New Deal programs, and the Supreme Court even ruled some of them unconstitutional. However, like I said earlier, almost everyone accepts that these programs pulled the country out of the depression. He is also considered amongst the top 3 greatest presidents.
• Wilson was the driving force behind the United Nations, because his ideas which began the League of Nations influenced later presidents, like Truman. The United Nations is absolutely vital for the world. The entire world is becoming more and more interconnected and interdependent. It has been proven (from WWI and WWII) that the United States can not be an island unto itself. Isolationism did not help the world, nor did it help the United States. It is increasingly more valuable in today's day that the world's nations make important decisions together. It promotes peace and understanding among the most powerful nations on the globe.
• Truman was the one who sent Eleanor Roosevelt to the first United Nations assembly, and was a strong supporter of its creation. He also secured the creation of NATO, which time has shown was incredibly important. Truman issued an executive order requiring the desegregation of the U.S. armed services. Executive orders were not mentioned at all in the constitution, but Truman's use was monumental in advancing civil rights for African-Americans. Truman is almost universally considered in the top 10 greatest presidents.

The greatest presidents have always been the ones who had at least one crisis to deal with, and have always responded by using power that the constitution implies in order to overcome those challenges. Ron Paul would not be able to leverage the power of the presidency in order to overcome any challenges, and would only let the country fall to any crisis that would arise during his presidency.

What does the NSA(sic) do that we can't survive without?

I concede that NASA may not be important anymore, but when it symbolized quite a lot during the late 1960s, and the early 1970s. For many people, it was hope and exemplified American ingenuity and our competition with the Soviets. Rather than a direct confrontation (which would have almost undoubtedly ended in complete world destruction due to the atomic bomb), we competed during the Cold War, such as through space exploration. Ron Paul does not oppose NASA because it does no longer performs a vital function, but because he is a strict constitutionalist. During the earlier years of NASA, it was vital to the United States, and was quite important at the time.

Social Security is a complete flop, and getting rid of it will only serve to protect people's finances. He doesn't even want to get rid of it, just not force it to be a federal program, one could put money into a privatized company much like a 401K.

Social Security has historically provided a valuable function for Americans, since the time of FDR. While I wholeheartedly agree that it has more than its share of problems (it is basically a glorified ponzi scheme), I think that it can be reformed, and should be.

The UN is nothing we can't live without, I mean hell, we don't listen to them now, and we weren't even supposed to be members. We as a country are supposed to be relatively isolationist, Thomas Jefferson said "Commerce with All Nations, Alliance with None" and that's a great stance to take.
As for NATO, I'm getting kind of wordy and I can't say it better than this site, this is why we should leave. http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/nato.html

I previously pointed out how I thought that the United Nations and NATO are necessary to our country and the world. Isolationism has not worked for us as a nation. Our world is even more tied together than it has been in the past. We must be able to cooperate with other countries.

He has never once said he supports any form of conspiracy theory, and in fact in response to a particularly, if I may be so bold, vile trap set by Fox News in a debate, he said that he believes that 9/11 truthers are wrong in their assumptions about the US Governments involvement in 9/11
Here is the question and answer I'm talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
I don't know of any other conspiracy theorys, but if one comes to mind, let me know and I'll probably be able to explain his views on the subject.

You are quite right about his skepticism of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, something that I respect about him. However, he wants to remove the United States from NAFTA, because he believes that it is part of a conspiracy to form a combined government between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. NAFTA has been beneficial for all 3 of the countries, and is very important for the economies of the North American countries.

As for the racism, that one small article was ghostwritten into his congressional newsletter while he was not even in congress, at the time that was written/published he was back working as an obstetrician. He has since apologized for not editing his newsletter more carefully, and really, he fundamentally cannot be racist. He's a libertarian and libertarians are incapable of being racist because racism is a collectivist idea, when libertarians do not view people in any form of group, be it race, age, sex or country of origin, but as an individual.

First, anyone can be a racist. Simply holding a certain set of political views does not preclude someone from being a racist. Second, that article was written in his Ron Paul Report newsletters. He is ultimately responsible for whatever is written in it. If he puts his name out on the line, and has other people write for him, it is his responsibility to know what is being written, and how it represents him. Throughout many years of his newsletters, there was a pattern of bigotry towards blacks, Jews, and gays (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...5-4532a7da84ca). This was not an isolated incident. This was a long history.

I'd appreciate it if you'd watch this video, and educate(no offense) yourself on this subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u39z38xjraw
Barack Obama is a confirmed cocaine user is he not? It's in the past though, and should have naught to do with this election, just as much as this supposed racism should have naught to do with it.

No offense taken. Barack Obama did indeed admit to trying marijuana and cocaine. The difference between his past mistakes and Ron Paul's is that Barack was a teenage boy, and this was before he was a politician. Ron Paul was publishing his newsletters as a Congressperson (the newsletters started in 1978, he was first elected to Congress in 1976). Ron Paul was making decisions as a Congressperson while these newsletters (purporting to be from him) spewed these hateful ideas.

No need to apologize for the length, in fact it's quite short compared to some posts on here (I'm looking at you O'nus ) and my own, it seems. Also, if I come off as harsh I mean nothing by it, I too am a political junkie, and a staunch supporter of Dr. Paul, and am trying to prevent any more smear campaigns from permeating the public.

I'm glad to find another person who's into politics. It's hard to find people with opposing views who can talk about politics intellectually and rationally who live near me.

Honestly the worst reason one could give for voting for someone is race or sex. Just because a person thinks the country is ready for a black/woman president does not mean that the black guy/woman is ready to be president. I agree we need some diversity at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., not just old white guys, but Obama just is not ready for presidency. This is a crisis election, and we need someone who has been around, and knows how to work the system in favor of the people. Ron Paul is that man, and Obama needs a few more years under his belt and I would vote for him. If he were to have waited til the next election, I guarantee he'd be getting even better numbers than he's getting now.

I disagree that voting for someone based on race or sex is a bad reason to vote for someone. I think it is bad to preclude someone from your possible vote on the basis of race, but I don't think that it is bad to support someone because electing them would reduce racism. I wholeheartedly agree that it would be a mistake to elect someone who is not ready for the presidency. However, I don't think that political experience is an issue with Barack. He has had experience in the Illinois State Senate. A great many of our presidents have come from being governors, or other positions outside of Congress, because people appreciate the freshness of the candidate. That is what I think Barack has. He is fresh. He would provide a new voice in Washington, and represents change for younger Americans like myself. He would not provide a continuation of current politics.

As a non-american, can anyone here tell me which of these candidates (if any) avows to stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because I'd really like to know..

Originally Posted by Oneiro

As a non-american, can anyone here tell me which of these candidates (if any) avows to stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because I'd really like to know..

They say they will, but they won't. As soon as we start taking away troops, violence will peak

My favorite candidate is britney spears.... atleast she knows that this world is not perfect.

While im lucid , i will vote for Ron Paul..... he has my vote