Thread: Who will you vote for?

I tried to pick the 10 most popular candidates. I didn't add an other option because I couldn't pick who to get rid of so if your candidate isn't on here just post who you'd vote for.

This is for the US for anyone from other countries all adamant that I didn't mention that.

Ron Paul, only person actually running for the people.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Ron Paul, only person actually running for the people.

Yeah, the people of Al Qaeda.

I picked Giuliani, the only person who has shown that he is capable of reducing the Hell out of large scale evil behavior.

I go for Giuliani or Obama.

I like Ron Paul better on the Republican side. He's very well-spoken and rational about major policies, and, most importantly, is open to debate.

And, to one-up Universal Mind's hyperbole, I accuse all of the other candidates of being in league with Al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, the people of Al Qaeda.

I picked Giuliani, the only person who has shown that he is capable of reducing the Hell out of large scale evil behavior.

I would encourage you to prove to me that he is in league with Al Qaeda. None of the candidates are running for the people of Al Qaeda.

Ron Paul happens to be the only person with the interest of the middle class and lower class in mind as well as breaking down party borders. When confronted during the first fox debates they asked him why he was seeking the nomination of the Republican party if so many Republicans seem to be against him. His response was that he is not running for the republican party but for the American people.

Also, in all factual evidence Rudy doesn't know the first thing about running a country. He was mayor of New York, that doesn't include any experience in foreign relations, military rule or national rule. In fact wasn't it said that he bailed on the Iraq study group? He has no interest in running this country properly. The ONLY reason his is a candidate is because he was there on 9/11 that is the ONLY ONLY ONLY reason he has any funding or support to run for president. And last time I checked that isn't proper experience for running a country. Lots of people were there on that day, they didn't run around campaigning off of it to make money.

In fact when I went to wikipedia so I could give you some support to prove my claim I found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controv..._Rudy_Giuliani

Originally Posted by jaasum

I would encourage you to prove to me that he is in league with Al Qaeda. None of the candidates are running for the people of Al Qaeda.

I don't think he is in league with Al Qaeda. I just think he agrees with them about what American foreign policy should be and says things that inadvertently work as an advertisement for their cause. He says exactly what they want said to the public, and I have yet to hear him say a single thing bad about them. Can you find such a video? If Al Qaeda could vote in the United States, they would unanimously vote for Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Ron Paul happens to be the only person with the interest of the middle class and lower class in mind as well as breaking down party borders. When confronted during the first fox debates they asked him why he was seeking the nomination of the Republican party if so many Republicans seem to be against him. His response was that he is not running for the republican party but for the American people.

I agree with Ron Paul on domestic issues, as far as I know, but he is so far out of this solar system with his foreign policy views that there is no way I would vote for him. Harry Browne was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1996 and 2000. He was almost superhuman when it came to understanding and offering solutions to problems. I thought he was the greatest candidate of all time, until I came across his foreign policy views. He was on a talk show saying we should not go into Iraq. The host said that the Hussein regime was trying to find a way to make nuclear weapons, and Browne's response was, "The United States has nuclear weapons." That mentality made him so dangerous that there was no way I could support him. Foreign policy is way too important of an area for a candidate to be wrong.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Also, in all factual evidence Rudy doesn't know the first thing about running a country. He was mayor of New York, that doesn't include any experience in foreign relations, military rule or national rule. In fact wasn't it said that he bailed on the Iraq study group? He has no interest in running this country properly. The ONLY reason his is a candidate is because he was there on 9/11 that is the ONLY ONLY ONLY reason he has any funding or support to run for president. And last time I checked that isn't proper experience for running a country. Lots of people were there on that day, they didn't run around campaigning off of it to make money.

That is not true. Giuliani lowered the Hell out of the crime rate in the biggest city in the United States. He reduced the murder rate in New York by 66%. Not 6%. 66%!!! That is a fact. He has shown that he can actually bring about extreme results in dealing with villains. He is also liberal on a lot of the issues where it makes sense to be liberal. He is pro-choice and supports gay marriage rights. He is an excellent candidate for president.

^^ Gun control, n more popo

Sadly for my first time being able to vote, I dont believe anyone on the list deserves to be president. But out of all, I'm going to vote for Rudy. I'm moving out of the country if Clinton or Paul are elected. I dont really wanna debate about this either so don't hate on me.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think he is in league with Al Qaeda. I just think he agrees with them about what American foreign policy should be and says things that inadvertently work as an advertisement for their cause. He says exactly what they want said to the public, and I have yet to hear him say a single thing bad about them. Can you find such a video? If Al Qaeda could vote in the United States, they would unanimously vote for Ron Paul.



I agree with Ron Paul on domestic issues, as far as I know, but he is so far out of this solar system with his foreign policy views that there is no way I would vote for him. Harry Browne was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1996 and 2000. He was almost superhuman when it came to understanding and offering solutions to problems. I thought he was the greatest candidate of all time, until I came across his foreign policy views. He was on a talk show saying we should not go into Iraq. The host said that the Hussein regime was trying to find a way to make nuclear weapons, and Browne's response was, "The United States has nuclear weapons." That mentality made him so dangerous that there was no way I could support him. Foreign policy is way too important of an area for a candidate to be wrong.



That is not true. Giuliani lowered the Hell out of the crime rate in the biggest city in the United States. He reduced the murder rate in New York by 66%. Not 6%. 66%!!! That is a fact. He has shown that he can actually bring about extreme results in dealing with villains. He is also liberal on a lot of the issues where it makes sense to be liberal. He is pro-choice and supports gay marriage rights. He is an excellent candidate for president.

Ron Paul's stance on foreign police stood before the 9/11 attacks and before any official release for Al Qeada. He has the most consistent voting record in congress and it always is voting to benefit the American people. Even when congress voted to award his friend (Ronal Reagan) he voted no, because in order to mint the award he would have been presented it would have cost 40,000 tax dollars, though he was a huge supporter of Ronal Reagan he voted no simple because it would spend tax dollars. And Ron Paul was all for funding the military and mercenaries to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qeauda. It was our government that saw Saddam Hussien guilty and now we are turning to Iran and seeing them as just as much as threat as the people who attacked us.


Exuse typos, I am drunks as hell right now.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think he is in league with Al Qaeda. I just think he agrees with them about what American foreign policy should be and says things that inadvertently work as an advertisement for their cause. He says exactly what they want said to the public, and I have yet to hear him say a single thing bad about them. Can you find such a video? If Al Qaeda could vote in the United States, they would unanimously vote for Ron Paul.

Where do you get any of your information? In his latest video, Bin Laden says that the entire point was to increase U.S. debt by unprecedented war spending.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I agree with Ron Paul on domestic issues, as far as I know, but he is so far out of this solar system with his foreign policy views that there is no way I would vote for him. Harry Browne was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1996 and 2000. He was almost superhuman when it came to understanding and offering solutions to problems. I thought he was the greatest candidate of all time, until I came across his foreign policy views. He was on a talk show saying we should not go into Iraq. The host said that the Hussein regime was trying to find a way to make nuclear weapons, and Browne's response was, "The United States has nuclear weapons." That mentality made him so dangerous that there was no way I could support him. Foreign policy is way too important of an area for a candidate to be wrong.

The U.N. had already established that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. You are acting like it was already proven that he had them.

Ron Paul, while I disgree with him on several unmentionable issues, is the best candidate because he listens to reason and the U.S. constitution. For instance, he doesnt believe abortion is a morally responsible choice, but he would make the legislation of it more of a local issue, supporting community choice when it comes to a very unclear and somewhat ambiguous moral dilemma.

Any candidate that openly supports reducing the concentration of power in Washington also supports the removal of a massive apparatus that is radically corrupt.

Redistribution of power from federal to local = freedom

Kucinich all the way, baby! He was the only one save Paul who voted against Iraq, and if elected prez he will pull us out of NAFTA and the WTO.