AF U.S Presidential Poll!

Who are you voting for and why?

I want Ron Paul. He's bringing back the power of the constitution, eliminating income tax, implimenting a Fairtax, leaving issues like abortion and death penalty up to the states, taking us out of the war, and restoring Liberty to the US! Not to mention he has experience. BE-YAW!

Read up on Fairtax. He wants to implement it. It means we only pay 23% on goods and services. We don't get taxed on income. You realize that this mean more spending, and less taxing. More money in our pocket, and less in the Fed's. They get plenty of it as it is.

wow, what an over simplistic and mildly wrong description of what fairtax means.

Please explain how that is mildly wrong.

Also, that's a great idea. That almost entirely relieves people with lower income of taxes. Food isn't taxed, water/electricity/natural gas isn't taxed, rent/mortgage payments aren't taxed. A $60,000 luxury car is taxed, a $10,000 diamond necklace is taxed. Not to mention eliminating all the useless people at the IRS (whadda'ya bet I get audited next year for saying that?).

wow, what an over simplistic and mildly wrong description of what fairtax means.
I tried to dumb it down a bit. If you'd like to add/ correct what I said, please do. Maybe I am ill informed. I gathered my info from the Fairtax webpage.

Maybe I am ill informed. I gathered my info from the Fairtax webpage.

Posting it might help. See link below.

Click here (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main)

So you would agree to pay $4600 taxes or more since it may vary on a car that costs for example $20K? :screwy:

Someone would get screwed and it won't be the rich or the greedy corporations. :shakehead

Not sure how I feel about it, I'll have to take some time and do the figures myself. I used the calculator on the fair tax site and it said I would end up paying less in tax. I then tired several other incomes and variables and it always said that the fair tax had a lower rate, so I'm calling bullshit on their calculator until I actually run the numbers. I do know it will be bad for all the money I've got in Share Certificates, Savings, and Money Market accounts because it has already been taxed once, and now I'll have to pay taxes again when it comes time to spend it.

It's not so much about what it is they say they're going to do as it is what they say they're going to do. Seriously, like this would end up happening. Well heck, for that matter I want Clinton. She said for every newborn the family would get $5000 I think. Maybe it was more. I can't recall, but $5000 would be sweet!

:rolleyes:

Also, wasn't Ron Paul the idiot that said he wanted to make a United America? I can see Mexico and Canada beaming with excitement. Why become apart of something when things now work fine and you can use it almost whenever you want.

I'm still sticking with Edwards and I don't really remember why anymore. Its very hard for me to sit there and listen to what a politician says nowadays.........................................

My avatar says it all..

Ron Paul FTW

by mildy wrong I meant that it has more implications than simply more money in your pockets. Also, it's closer to spend less = less tax which is the bit that I'm most unsure on.

In fact, I'm not sure if fairtax is about giving you more money. As far as I can tell, the main purpose is to make the whole taxing system more transparent and efficient and thus saving money in clerical/admin work etc. What it doesn't seem to take into account is that a lot of the assumptions are based on current prices based on the current tax system and as such the numbers they give are going to be misleading.

:rolleyes: Keep voting Republican because you're scared shitless about the current state and future of the US economy.

Here's an insight to the wise - the current Republican administration is largely responsible for the current US economy crisis.

If I could, my vote would go to Obama.

:rolleyes: Keep voting Republican because you're scared shitless about the current state and future of the US economy.

Here's an insight to the wise - the current Republican administration is largely responsible for the current US economy crisis.

If I could, my vote would go to Obama.
Just a little input, Clinton (a democrat) is the one who outsourced all of our companies to China, in the long run hurting us. And because there is a republican in office right now, he's getting the blame.

Also, about the fairtax, @ drunken monkey: The fairtax will make the tax system simpler as you said yes. It will eliminate the IRS. I did some calculations and will all local federal and state taxes taken into consideration, a fair tax would help everyone, unless in some cases you are in the $0-$5,000 a year range, then its about even.

Keep in mind, we get taxed when we make our money, AND when we spend it with the current tax system.

It is naive to think that it will remove the IRS.
Who's going to collect the tax?
Who's going to manage the system?
Who's going to do the random spot checks?

Also, don't forget that the current salary rates are in part determined by the current tax system.
Those who earn $50,000 know what they are getting in their pocket in accordance with the tax system. If the tax system changes, it isn't guaranteed that the salary rates aren't going to change accordingly.

Just out of interest, why do you say the mass outsourcing is the cause of your countries economic problems?

Why would you need the IRS if taxes were collected by the states? The IRS is for federal tax collecting. The states would manage the taxes more so than the feds. So the IRS would be gone, but smaller, more sufficient establishments will be put in place by the states.

call them what you want, it's still going to be a tax collection organisation with the same sort of problems as before. The only difference is that a simpler, more transparent taxing system means there should be less of those same problems. It doesn't mean that there won't be any problems.

Question; how are they going to check that
i) you are spending what you say you are spending
ii) you are paying what the stores say you are paying
iii) you are paying a fair amount for the things you are buying?

If anything, this kind of tax produces an environment that are even harder for the government to verify which leads to perhaps, more checks in the system.

Also, wasn't Ron Paul the idiot that said he wanted to make a United America? I can see Mexico and Canada beaming with excitement. Why become apart of something when things now work fine and you can use it almost whenever you want. I'm not aware of anything like that, if he did I'd like to see it. I find it doubtful, though, considering his numerous public stances against such a thing. He even opposes many of the other international organizations. He wants America to be run by Americans, citing that such organizations allow foreign non-elected officials to have a say in the US government.


Article by Ron Paul:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm

"
A North American United Nations?

August 28, 2006
Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.
According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.
Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.
Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:
"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007"
Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?
The website also states SPP's goal to "mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?
Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized [I]Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.
Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.
This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States."






http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.
NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.
And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.
Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.
We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.




:rolleyes: Keep voting Republican because you're scared shitless about the current state and future of the US economy.

Here's an insight to the wise - the current Republican administration is largely responsible for the current US economy crisis.

If I could, my vote would go to Obama.

He is definitely not an average republican, and nothing like the current administration. He's a libertarian and constitutionalist. His goal would be to basically undo everything the current administration has done, as well as everything that has gone against the constitution. It seems that he would be the choice of people in other countries, due to his desire for the US to butt out of other countries' affairs.


Taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Foreign policy


Nonintervention

Paul's foreign policy is one of nonintervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism),[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-5)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-patriotism) which avoids war of aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression) and entangling alliances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entangling_alliances) with other nations, in the tradition of Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington), Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), and Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison). He is the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_presidential_candidate) to have spoken out and voted against the Iraq War Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Resolution) in 2002.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-war0902)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-war1002) In 2003, he said that war must be fought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress), and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as planned. He added that, "The American public deserves clear goals and a winning exit strategy in Iraq." [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-6)
Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe among others.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-townhall2) He denies being an isolationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationist): he advocates "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations".[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-rp08war) National Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Journal) rated Paul's overall foreign policies as 20% conservative and 77% liberal in 2006 (28% and 72%, respectively, in 2005).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-aap)
He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-patriotism)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-7) and supports free trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade), rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement) (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization) (WTO). He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_aliens_%28U.S.%29),[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-immig) and opposes birthright citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli_%28U.S.%29) and amnesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty).

International organizations

Paul supports ending participation in and funding of organizations he believes override U.S. sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty), such as the International Criminal Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court), the United Nations, the Law of the Sea Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Sea_Treaty), the WTO, the NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_Ameri ca).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-8)

Iraq

Paul objected to and voted against the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution),[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-war0902)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-war1002) and continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq), charging the government with using the War on Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror) to curtail civil liberties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties). He believes a just declaration of war after the September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks) would have been enough against the actual terrorists, Al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda), rather than against Iraq, which has not been linked to the attacks.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-rppr01) When America seeks war, Paul believes Congress must fully approve it with a complete declaration of war, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory. However, the original authorization to invade Iraq (Public Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law) 107-243), passed in late 2002, authorized the president to use military force against Iraq to achieve only the following two specific objectives: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-9) Accordingly, Paul introduced legislation to add a sunset clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_clause) to the original authorization.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-10)
During the 2003 invasion, he found himself "annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that he was taught as a Christian. The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-nyxm) Paul's consistent opposition to the war expanded his conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism) and libertarian Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Republican) support base[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-11) to include liberal Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party).

Iran

Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-12) He claims the current circumstances with Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) mirror those under which the Iraq War began, and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] In the U.S. House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_of_Representatives), only Paul and Dennis Kucinich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich) voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the U.N. to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad) with violating its genocide convention and charter.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-13)

Darfur and Sudanese divestment

In a National Public Radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio) interview, Paul advocated a "moral statement" rather than direct military humanitarian intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention) such as in the Darfur conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict) or Rwandan Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] In his speech before the House on a related bill, H. Con. Res. 467[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-14), Paul rejected the proposal for "[urging] the Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the UN Security Council fail to act." Paul argued the unrelatedness of the proposal to "the US national interest" or "the Constitutional function of [United States] military forces".[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-15) The resolution passed unanimously, with Paul among 12 non-voters.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-16)
Paul was the only "no" vote on House Resolution 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (passed 418-1-13), which intended to "require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, [and] to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies."[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-17) Paul cited the past ineffectiveness of sanctions against Cuba and Iraq as evidence against divestment from businesses connected to the Sudanese government.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-18) Proponents of Sudanese divestment legislation cite recent advertisement campaigns by the Sudanese government, and the complete withdrawal of large suppliers such as CHC Helicopter Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHC_Helicopter_Corporation), Rolls Royce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls_Royce), and ABB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABB_Asea_Brown_Boveri), as evidence of the effectiveness of Sudanese divestment.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-19)

International trade

Paul is a proponent of free trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade), and opposes many "free trade agreements" including the North American Free Trade Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement) (NAFTA),[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-cafta) stating that "free-trade agreements are really managed trade".[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-20) He says they serve special interests and big business, not citizens.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-dobbs423) He often proposes instead that the U.S. engage in unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at home (similar to Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong)'s approach), rather than send massive, unaccountable foreign aid.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)][Neutrality disputed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV) — See talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul)]
He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_American_Free_Trade_Agreement) (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-cafta) He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement), the U.S.–Singapore FTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Singapore_Free_Trade_Agreement), and the U.S.–Chile FTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-Chile_Free_Trade_Agreement), and voted to withdraw from the WTO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO). He believes that "fast track" powers, given by Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress) to the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) to devise and negotiate FTA's on the country's behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTA's.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-dobbs423)
Paul also has an above 83% pro fair trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade) voting record in the House of Representatives according to Global Trade Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Trade_Watch).[18] (http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2007/08/how-the-prez-ca.html)

Borders and immigration

Paul believes that the government, neglecting a Constitutional responsibility to protect its borders, has concentrated instead on unconstitutionally policing foreign countries.[Neutrality disputed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV) — See talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul)][35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-21) During the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War), he supported Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative),[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-22) intended to replace the "strategic offense" doctrine of mutual assured destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction) with strategic defense.
Paul's immigration positions sometimes differ with libertarian think tanks and the official platform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform) of the U.S. Libertarian Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party).[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-23) He believes illegal immigrants take a toll on welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_provision) and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal immigrants, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-immig) Paul's Congressional voting record earned a lifetime grade of B and a recent grade of B+ from Americans for Better Immigration.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-24)
Paul believes all immigrants should be treated fairly and equally[Neutrality disputed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV) — See talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul)], under law, through "coherent immigration policy". He has spoken strongly against amnesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty) for illegal immigrants because he believes it undermines the rule of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law), grants pardons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon) to lawbreakers,[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-25) and subsidizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy) more illegal immigration.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006), authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico. He believes it a folly to spend much money policing other countries' borders, such as the Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq)–Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria) border, because he thinks the U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-26)
Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_Ame rica).[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-27) He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship", in order to address welfare issues.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-28)[Neutrality disputed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV) — See talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul)]

Terrorism


Letters of marque and reprisal

Paul, calling the September 11, 2001, attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001%2C_attacks) an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_marque_and_reprisal), authorized by Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Sect ion_8:_Powers_of_Congress), would have targeted specific terrorist suspects, instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-rppr01) Paul reproposed this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-29) He voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists) in Afghanistan.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-AUMF)

Investigation

Paul supports reopening investigation into the attacks to discover why the Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) did not act on 70 internal field tips: "We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention."[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-gallagher) He also advocates investigating why the various intelligence agencies could not collaborate on information to prevent the attacks while spending $40 billion per year.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-gallagher)[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-reason911) He has called the 9/11 Commission Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report) a "charade": "Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends."[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-charade)

Rejection of conspiracy theory

Paul does not believe the World Trade Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center) and Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon) attacks were a government conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28political%29) and has explicitly denied being a 9/11 truther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_truth_movement), arguing the issue is not a conspiracy but a failure of bureaucracy.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-gallagher)[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-reason911) He believes the 9/11 Commission Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report)'s main goal was "to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not ... to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war .... Some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done."[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-gallagher)[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-30) He does not think the government would have staged such an attack.[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-31) When asked whether "9/11 was orchestrated by the government", Paul emphasized, "Absolutely not."[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-32)
John Gibson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gibson_%28media_host%29) of Fox News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News) confronted Paul about being interviewed by Austin Texas radio talk show host Alex Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones). Gibson asked Paul to "say right here and now that you completely disavow the 9/11 truth movement and the whole idea that the U.S. government was in on the 9/11 attack", which Paul immediately did.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

U.S. embargo against Cuba

In 2000, Paul voted to end trade restrictions on Cuba. [51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#_note-33)

This will be the first presidential election that I will not be prohibited from voting in and I fully intend to vote for Obama. But I do not claim to know all his policies or positions. There's a lot to keep up with and I honestly have not taken the time to research all the candidates as deeply as I should for a position of such importance.

The reason I will vote for Obama is that I believe he has great potential to do good in communities like the one I grew up and live in. Being a black man makes him no more or less deserving of the position, but I think if he gets in office then maybe more black people will pay attention to, and more importantly, trust the office and government supporting it. I think he has the best chance of not only properly identifying with the black community but having the community listen to the message. I know he didn't exactly grow up in the same environment as many poorer black people, but I think he could be the catalyst for change there. I could be wrong, he could turn out to be a complete disaster crushed by the mile high expectations and pronounced lack of governmental pedigree. Maybe the black community will turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to him, labeling him a puppet controlled by the rest of the "white" government. But I don't see how he could screw up much worse that the guy in my avatar.

I guess you could say my reasons for voting are self-serving and that I'm considering the well being of my community over that of the entire country, but thats why we all only get 1 vote. :2cents:

This will be the first presidential election that I will not be prohibited from voting in and I fully intend to vote for Obama. But I do not claim to know all his policies or positions. There's a lot to keep up with and I honestly have not taken the time to research all the candidates as deeply as I should for a position of such importance.

The reason I will vote for Obama is that I believe he has great potential to do good in communities like the one I grew up and live in. Being a black man makes him no more or less deserving of the position, but I think if he gets in office then maybe more black people will pay attention to, and more importantly, trust the office and government supporting it. I think he has the best chance of not only properly identifying with the black community but having the community listen to the message. I know he didn't exactly grow up in the same environment as many poorer black people, but I think he could be the catalyst for change there. I could be wrong, he could turn out to be a complete disaster crushed by the mile high expectations and pronounced lack of governmental pedigree. Maybe the black community will turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to him, labeling him a puppet controlled by the rest of the "white" government. But I don't see how he could screw up much worse that the guy in my avatar.

I guess you could say my reasons for voting are self-serving and that I'm considering the well being of my community over that of the entire country, but thats why we all only get 1 vote. :2cents:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Excellent page. Thanks Blazee

but thats why we all only get 1 vote. :2cents:

I see alot of people are counting their chickens before they hatch. Long way to go before November 4. :rolleyes:

Actually you could get to vote twice for your candidate. Once in the primaries and once during the actual presidential election on November 4 providing the candidate wins the party's nomination. Don't forget he or any other candidate for that matter has to win his/her party's nomination based on the results of the primaries and caucuses.

As far as the Democratic Party results to date Hillary 2, Obama 1. See link below.

2008 Democratic Primary Results
Click here (http://news.aol.com/elections/primary/main/democrats)

:popcorn:

Illinois primary is coming up sometime soon. I got the flyer on the fridge, so I'll be voting for Obama at least once. I'm none too concerned about Hillary. There are many states yet to go.

A very important benchmark will be "Super Tuesday" February 5 which not only includes Illinois but 23 other states. It will be interesting to see the results because it may positively indicate or at least place a specific candidate in the lead for their party's nomination.

As far as Hillary I'd be concerned because she could win the Democratic Party nomination. :eek:

IMO Obama has an uphill battle especially with gaining the Hispanic vote and people associated with the U.S. Military and Veterans. :grinyes:

Question; how are they going to check that
i) you are spending what you say you are spending
ii) you are paying what the stores say you are paying
iii) you are paying a fair amount for the things you are buying?

i) It doesn't matter what you say you are spending. The tax is collected at the point of sale. If you're a few dollars short, and you ask the cashier to remove the current 6% (here, anyway) tax, what do you think they would do? Having a higher percentage tax wouldn't be any different.

ii) How do they do that now? Some sort of already present state organization? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I really don't know, but that would make sense.

iii) Who's doing that now?

About "spend less=less tax"... you're probably partially right. What you have to think about is all the super-rich idiots (IMO) who will spend millions just to have more stuff than the idiot (again, IMO) next door and a 1/2 mile away. At the same time, there is really no more incentive to pinch pennies than with the current tax system. Why would you spend less just because you can avoid taxes that way? Maybe there is something I'm not thinking of, but it seems to me that there would be no reason to save more money than you could reasonably use in your lifetime, plus a safety area incase you live too long. But how is that different than what people do, or at least try to do, now? At any rate, that money will be spent, whether by the earner or by whomever inherits it.

Yeah I'm going RP too. I pretty much think the U.S. needs to work hard on getting back to it's roots. And paying the military more...ha!

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/18/Howard_Dean_narrowweb__200x233.jpg
If Only you weren't a psycho howard dean...

^ Have you seen the Chapelle show remix of it? Funniest thing ever.

Just a little input, Clinton (a democrat) is the one who outsourced all of our companies to China, in the long run hurting us. And because there is a republican in office right now, he's getting the blame.


Agree'd clinton set us up for the fall, I wonder how many people think about that instead of the whole presidential scandal :lol:

Ron Paul is a foreign policy nightmare. He is Herbert Hoover all over again. His policies are essentially isolationist. We need a FDR, not a Hoover.

Does anyone really think that pulling out of NATO and the UN is a good idea? We live in a globalized world. What happens in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world effects us as well. The fact that we are not on the Eurasian continent does not mean that we are isolated from what happens there, or anywhere else. This isn't the 18th century, you can move people and things around the world in a day and information all over the world in an instant. WWII is the perfect example of what happens when the free world thinks that isolation works. We let Hitler take half of Europe before we reacted and it resulted in one of the greatest tragedies in human history and definitely the largest war in human history. We must interact with other countries in more fields then just trade. Alliances and international organizations like the UN are key. We don't need a non-interventionist foreign policy, we just need to be smarter about what we are doing abroad.

Paul seems to forget that Madison and the writers of the constitution intended it to be a living-breathing document that is capable of changing over time to fit the needs and conditions of the time. Jefferson once wrote that he was suprised that the constitution had remained basically the same between 1789 and his presidency. Over our history our politicians have wisely adopted the constitution to do what was needed. Lincoln and FDR, arguably our two greatest presidents, both made the federal government more centralized and focused on the rights of the federal government and the nation as a whole, not the states. When Paul says he wants to "go back to the constitution" he really means that we should go back to how we understood the constitution well over 200 years ago. As Thomas Paine said, it is not right for a generation to impose their will on the following generations. Every generation needs to make up their own minds about government. The Constitution isn't, nor was it ever intended to be, a static, unchanging document.

Besides, you might as well vote for someone who has a chance. Paul's liberatarian message has been heard and rejected by the Republican party.

Personally, I am a John McCain fan. He has by far the most foreign policy experience of anyone in the race, he is the only one that has shown to be capable of working with both parties in congress, he has real military experience, and I agree with much of his foreign and domestic policies.

Need evidence of his foreign policy credentials? Just look at Iraq right now. Notice you don't hear about it very much since it was shown that the surge worked and Rumsfeld was removed? McCain has been a major proponent of needing more soldiers in Iraq since day one and attacked Rumsfeld often about his policies in Iraq. Iraq wasn't wrong, just the stupid way we went about it was. Bush and Rumsfeld were foolish enough to believe that all we needed to do was overthrow Saddam and everything would be alright, even though the military and McCain both tried relentlessly to tell them they were wrong. As far as we can tell, as far as the military is saying, the surge has pretty much worked.

Are you a Republican that actually wants to win this one? McCain is the only Republican candidate that has been shown to beat leading democrats in a national election in any poll. This is because independents and democrats trust him to actually work with him. McCain is a moderate republican when it comes to domestic issues. He is not a social conservative like Mike Huckabee (or George W. Bush to a lesser extent) that so many are afraid of. He has a long track record of working with both sides (remember the filibuster controversy and the gang of 12 a few years ago?).

Finally, I trust him because he is willing to disagree with his party and with public opinion, a rare thing to find in a politician. This is proof enough to me that he genuinely does what he thinks is right and is honest about it. He does what he says he is going to do. He makes intelligent position sticks with his positions instead of changing with the winds of public and political opinions.

Ron Paul is a foreign policy nightmare. He is Herbert Hoover all over again. His policies are essentially isolationist. We need a FDR, not a Hoover.

Does anyone really think that pulling out of NATO and the UN is a good idea? We live in a globalized world. What happens in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world effects us as well. The fact that we are not on the Eurasian continent does not mean that we are isolated from what happens there, or anywhere else. This isn't the 18th century, you can move people and things around the world in a day and information all over the world in an instant. WWII is the perfect example of what happens when the free world thinks that isolation works. We let Hitler take half of Europe before we reacted and it resulted in one of the greatest tragedies in human history and definitely the largest war in human history. We must interact with other countries in more fields then just trade. Alliances and international organizations like the UN are key. We don't need a non-interventionist foreign policy, we just need to be smarter about what we are doing abroad.




I think you may be mistaken. It was FDR that held an isolationist View. He was in office during Hitlers Rise to power. it was he that chose to do nothing. He was just as much an isolationist as hoover. maybe even more.

I think you may be mistaken. It was FDR that held an isolationist View. He was in office during Hitlers Rise to power. it was he that chose to do nothing. He was just as much an isolationist as hoover. maybe even more.

I disagree. FDR was a proponent of entering the war and pushed legislation to help the British and Chinese long before America officially entered the war. Congress was indeed rather isolationist as a reaction to World War I and avoided direct military action in Asia and Europe. FDR knew he couldn't get congress to declare war (which has always been congress' power, not the president's) unless America was attacked first, so he did what he could to provoke Japan and Germany. The oil embargo and other policies regarding Japan and Germany definitely provoked Pearl Harbor.

The point remains though, World War II would have been much less ugly had America, Britain, the USSR, and France had taken a stand much earlier. Instead, they chose to try to appease Hitler's appetite for conquest by basically handing him Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland. We simply cannot sit back and let these dangerous, backwards nations develop into real threats. America has been all over the world since World War II intervening where we saw the need. Some of these actions were correct (Berlin Airlift, Cold War Europe, transformation of Japan and Germany into capitalist democracies) and some were misguided (Vietnam, Bay of Pigs), but we have not seen another tyrannical dictator amass real power since World War II. This is because of our actions, not our inaction.

We ammend the constitution. Its able to change.

We ammend the constitution. Its able to change.

While this is true, if you ask any judge or lawyer, the people that really understand the laws of this country, not only do the words of the constitution change (in the form of amendments), but the understanding of those words change as well. For example, the executive branch is now far more powerful then the executive branch described in the constitution.

Why in the world would be want to go back to an understanding of the constitution that we held 200 years ago? We have come so far as a country since then. We went from being a backwards country that few thought about to being the world's greatest nation. We need to go forwards, not backwards.

The constitution is indeed an important document and the basis for our government, but we need to realize that the founding fathers wanted us to decide upon government for ourselves. They resented the British system that had been forced onto them by Englishmen that lived centuries before.

This is the most pathetic list of canidates the US has ever had.

The economy is hitting a rough spot. Though with 5% unemployment, a lot of other countries wish they had our problems :lol: We need the government to get out of the business of controlling business. The more they sink their fingers in the more it screws over everybody. Sadly, there is only name on the list who would do that, but is a complete wack job on most other issues (Paul).

The biggest drag on the economy are the entitlements. Its what put the kink on Japan, France and Germany over the last several years. They're starting to realize that they need to change some things or it will bury them in the red. Its to bad that our politicians don't see that same freight train heading our way every time they make another promise to fund another never ending social program.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

:werd: amen to that

i couldn't agree more yogs.

This is the most pathetic list of canidates the US has ever had.

I don't know if I would agree with that. In general, Democrats seem to be pretty pleased with their candidates. Most Democrats I've talked to feel they get to choose between two good, legitimate choices rather then the lesser of evils. They get to choose between returning to the Clinton era (Democrats are to Clinton what Republicans are to Reagan) or the prospect of change with Obama.

Many Republicans seem upset with the lack of an all-round Republican. Huckabee is a social conservative but an economic and foreign policy liberal. Romney is a good economic conservative, but his Mormonism scares many Christian conservatives, he has little foreign policy experience, and he seems to change his positions a bit. Rudy is rather liberal on social issues while conservative on foreign policy and the economy. McCain is a foreign policy conservative, but is fairly moderate on social issues and probably won't fight for the Christian right agenda like Bush promised to. Many Republicans really don't like McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform either. The Republicans seem to be well right in certain fields, but rather moderate or even liberal in others. There is no all-round conservative republican candidate with a real chance.

I honestly think the field of candidates in 2008 is better then at least 1996, 2000, and 2004. I will be very happy if it comes down to McCain or Romney on the Republican side (one or the other is likely according to the polls) and Obama on the Democrats. Much better then picking between Bush and Kerry or Bush and Gore or Dole and Clinton if you ask me. I feel that McCain is an absolutely fantastic candidate because of his ability to work with both parties, his huge amount of experience, and willingness to be in the media.

its good if you're a liberal. but even then, i truly think that people are going to have a problem with such a significant change in the whitehouse. i don't care what you say, in some way, EVERYONE is slightly rasist. Everybody. and i do think that going to affect Obama a bit, i truly do. as much as we like to thing our country is a culturally accepting melting pot, it isn't. Also, the fact that he was raised as a muslim very well may hurt him as well. I kno he went to a christian school after it all, but many people still kno he was raised a muslim. I really can't see Obama in the White House

Now, Hillary Oh hillary... She has already proven herself weak. Yeah, its nice to feel strongle about something, but to nearly break down on national TV is a definate sign of weakness, and is going to prevent her even farther from grabbing any votes from conservatives. Secondly, with her whole little 5000 dollar program, she has shown people shes just blowing steam out her ass. getting that kind of legislation approved would be a nightmare. Plus, now people know she's gonna hike up taxes even higher. If you don't agree with me, put her in office, and watch more of your fucking money disappear to our overpaid government.

I like bushes last ditch effort to aid the approval rating of the republican party. Tax breaks are always good, you wont see that with either of these two in in office.

I am by no means a supporter of either party directly, however i tend to be more conservative in economic issues, and just sligtly less conservative when it comes to social issues. I basically feel bad for the human race, since we're too fucking stupid to live life without the government controlling things. in a perfect world, Libertarian would be the way to go, but we've prooven time and time again that we as americans lack the intelligence to control all aspects of our own lives.

and no, none of the candidates for the Republican party look good
Rudy is a pussy, but he does have the bit of support for being mayor during 9/11

Ron Paul looks really good, but again, his foreign policy sucks. Still, He'll get my vote in the primary.

I'm going to be honest, and say that i really havent done enough research on the other candidates yet to give a valid opinion, but thus far this is what i've seen

I feel that McCain is an absolutely fantastic candidate because of his ability to work with both parties, his huge amount of experience, and willingness to be in the media.

Which is one of the reasons I will be voting for him. He is a very well-rounded politician IMO.

Let's get out and vote!
Let's make our voices heard!
We've been given the right to choose,
between a douche and a turd!

It's democracy in action,
put your freedom to the test!
A big fat turd or a stupid douche,
which do you like best?

Which is one of the reasons I will be voting for him. He is a very well-rounded politician IMO.

KEATING FIVE!!!!!

The man is a crook. Yeah, all politicians are, but this guy is an amnesty, anti tax cut, Ted Kennedy crotch sniffer. Don't trust him. Don't believe him.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

KEATING FIVE!!!!!

The man is a crook. Yeah, all politicians are, but this guy is an amnesty, anti tax cut, Ted Kennedy crotch sniffer. Don't trust him. Don't believe him.

The Senate ethics committee decided that John McCain and John Glenn (yes, the Astronaut/Senator) had only acted questionably and did not substantially interfere with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board's enforcement efforts. The concerns had to do with campaign finance, which John McCain has worked incredibly hard to fix since the 1991 hearing. Absolutely nobody can claim that McCain is soft on campaign finance anymore and I do not believe I have heard one Republican or Democratic contender bring up the Keating five. McCain has been the greatest advocate for campaign finance reform, despite the fact that his party is largely against it. While what he did almost 20 years ago was probably wrong, I feel that he has more then made up for it in his actions since.

I don't see what there is not to trust about McCain. He does exactly what he says he is going to do. He doesn't follow the Republican party line and he doesn't bend to public opinion polls. Working with Democrats should be encouraged by the Republican party, not discouraged, especially since Republicans are the minority party now. Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl, and Arlen Specter (all fairly prominant Republicans) were all major supporters of the the 2007 immigration bill as well.

McCain voted to extend the Bush tax breaks in 2005. He voted against the tax cuts in Bush's first term because he realizes that you can't cut taxes and increase spending at the same time as Bush and congress ended up doing. It simply builds up a huge deficit. McCain has long been an opponent of wasteful spending and pork-barrel legislation. You would be amazed at the rediculous projects (the bridge to nowhere) that congressmen attatch to bills.

Regarding trust, who else would you trust to be commander of the military? The only person in this field that I feel could make an educated choice about sending our troops into battle is McCain. He knows what it is like to be at war, he has seen the horrors of war first-hand, he knows what war is actually like because he has been through about as much as anyone could go through and still survive. He also has the foreign policy experience to know where, why, and how to fight a war. He berated Rumsfeld and advocated a surge as soon as Iraq started. He had incredible forsight on Iraq and the results of the surge have validated him.

, Ted Kennedy crotch sniffer. Don't trust him. Don't believe him.
LOL, lets keep it clean fellas.

This is a great Time article on McCain. Good read for anybody-
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1706450-1,00.html

Well, another one bites the dust.


AP
BREAKING NEWS

CLEVELAND - Democrat Dennis Kucinich is abandoning his second, long-shot bid for the White House as he faces a tough fight to hold onto his other job - U.S. congressman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22827738

Obama took SC by 55%. Good for him.

Hill's handlers need to get a clue and tell Bill to STFU, but, I'm betting they'll spin it out (again) to somehow try to minimize the black vote. I hope the black community galvanizes and kicks Hill/Bill's ass all the way back to the freakin' Arkansas trailer parks.

She'll always have a job in NY, though. God only knows why. No one in upstate NY around here wanted to have anything to do with her. The word 'carpetbagger' came up in conversations quite a bit. NYC needs to be its own territory, so it can stop sucking the life out of NY state.

Unfortunately, Obama faces some serious expectations that no one might be able to realistically meet. I'm not sure what might happen to the military and vet vote, since Dubya's administration has dropped the ball a lot on taking care of the vets who have put their necks on the line for this country. Might see some backlash there. Hill can't be counted on to take care of anybody but herself and her own interests.

If the hispanic and black voter blocs can get behind Obama, it could be a rout. Not sure how that one is going to pan out. One can hope.

A McCain vs Obama race might be better for this country. McCain would certainly be the choice for vets.

Unfortunately, Obama faces some serious expectations that no one might be able to realistically meet. I'm not sure what might happen to the military and vet vote, since Dubya's administration has dropped the ball a lot on taking care of the vets who have put their necks on the line for this country. Might see some backlash there. Hill can't be counted on to take care of anybody but herself and her own interests.

If the hispanic and black voter blocs can get behind Obama, it could be a rout. Not sure how that one is going to pan out. One can hope.

A McCain vs Obama race might be better for this country. McCain would certainly be the choice for vets.

I'd wait for Super Tuesday's results and the results from the rest of the country before making any judgment or speculating. Interesting to note Obama only got 25% of the white vote most likely meaning the majority of the whites in South Carolina voted for Republican John MCain last Saturday in the Republican version of that primary in which he won. Meaning race is an issue as it always is in this country.

Just my opinion, but I don't think he can count on the Hispanic vote or white woman vote. My wife (Hispanic) told me she will not vote for Obama for reasons I shall not mention. :grinno: As far as Vets mentioning Obama's name at the local VFW is not recommended and I disagree with your assumption Bush has dropped the ball on military issues. Any proof of that? The majority of the active duty military including National Guard and Reserves called to active duty fully support Bush as the Commander in Chief, have a very positive view of him, and quite to the contrary he has done alot for them during his tenure. Backlash? I doubt it. Most likely against the Democrats meaning the majority if they vote will vote Republican. :eek:....:2cents:


Obama won with overwhelming support from African Americans and also attracted about one-quarter of the white vote, more than many expected, according to exit polling.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004147837_carolina27.html

We can disagree a lot on Obama's viability and how much each voting bloc can/cannot be counted upon to vote for Obama, but we can definitely agree that it's a good thing he's in the race if it will reduce Hill's chance for the nomination.

As it stands now, my vote in Nov will be cast for "ANYBODY but Hillary." She needs to just GO AWAY. Even if her name was the only name on the ballot, I'd write in my cat's name before I'd choose her. She is nothing but a worthless, lying snake looking for power. She doesn't give a rat's ass about anything but the vote.

Me and my pint of Oatmeal Stout say so. :smokin: (it's some damn fine Oatmeal Stout, too.)

Bob, as long as it's not an inflammatory racist remark, why doesn't she want to vote for Obama? I think it's valid in this thread. Shit, the only people I have to discuss this with in this area are lower to middle class whites. Most of the non-white medical/surgical residents here are foreign nationals, they can't vote.

We can disagree a lot on Obama's viability and how much each voting bloc can/cannot be counted upon to vote for Obama, but we can definitely agree that it's a good thing he's in the race if it will reduce Hill's chance for the nomination.

As it stands now, my vote in Nov will be cast for "ANYBODY but Hillary." She needs to just GO AWAY. Even if her name was the only name on the ballot, I'd write in my cat's name before I'd choose her. She is nothing but a worthless, lying snake looking for power. She doesn't give a rat's ass about anything but the vote.

Me and my pint of Oatmeal Stout say so. :smokin: (it's some damn fine Oatmeal Stout, too.)

Bob, as long as it's not an inflammatory racist remark, why doesn't she want to vote for Obama? I think it's valid in this thread. Shit, the only people I have to discuss this with in this area are lower to middle class whites. Most of the non-white medical/surgical residents here are foreign nationals, they can't vote.I agree about Hillary. I'll vote for anybody but her.

I'd say Bob's on target about the hispanic vote, (from everything I've seen and heard since the day this started becoming about race,) Obama loses the hispanic vote the more it becomes an issue of Obama being "the black candidate" and not "the candidate who happens to be black". It looks like "they" hate blacks more than honkies do. :iceslolan

Two more bite the dust. Edwards and Giuliani are out of the race.

This isn't a presidential campaign commercial but I figured you guys would enjoy this. This is Chicago politics in 2008

MS7rx-k1v60

I would not trust Hillary or Obama,both anti-gun and I read about it in a magazine article,from 1st Freedom from the NRA which I am a member of.They both voted yes on gun control laws proposed.The NRA does not want them in office and will probally come out with attack ads on them later on them.

Man, hot off the press. Super Tuesday results. Clinton takes the big ones....California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. :eek:

TOP DEMOCRATS
2,025 delegates needed
Candidate Delegates*
Hillary Clinton 582
Barack Obama 485





BREAKING NEWS
NBC News and MSNBC
updated 27 minutes ago
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York won the mammoth California primary Tuesday night, NBC News projected, adding to wins in other delegate-rich states in the Northeast.

California was the big prize of the night, with 370 delegates. Because of the Democratic nominating rules, Clinton will win a majority but not all of those delegates. Combined with Sen. Barack Obama’s win in his home state of Illinois and his significant haul of delegates in numerous smaller states, the Democratic nomination was not likely to be decided Tuesday night, NBC News projected.

Clinton’s victories included New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey in addition to California, according to NBC News’ projections from official returns and extensive exit-polling data. She also picked up victories in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Arizona.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23019673/?GT1=10856

McCain is the leader in the Republican primaries.

TOP REPUBLICANS
1,191 delegates needed
Candidate Delegates*
John McCain 516
Mitt Romney 207
Mike Huckabee 142
Ron Paul 9 <--------:wtf:.........:lol:

Man, hot off the press. Super Tuesday results. Clinton takes the big ones....California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. :eek:

TOP DEMOCRATS
2,025 delegates needed
Candidate Delegates*
Hillary Clinton 582
Barack Obama 485


The Republicans did say early on that Hillary would be the best thing to happen to the Republican party.

I guess we might find out, unless Big Bill starts mouthing off again during the campaign. We can only hope. They probably have him sequestered away in some undisclosed location, heavily medicated.

Wooo McCain! Romney and Huckabee are just about done for.

We can disagree a lot on Obama's viability and how much each voting bloc can/cannot be counted upon to vote for Obama, but we can definitely agree that it's a good thing he's in the race if it will reduce Hill's chance for the nomination.

As it stands now, my vote in Nov will be cast for "ANYBODY but Hillary." She needs to just GO AWAY. Even if her name was the only name on the ballot, I'd write in my cat's name before I'd choose her. She is nothing but a worthless, lying snake looking for power. She doesn't give a rat's ass about anything but the vote.

Me and my pint of Oatmeal Stout say so. :smokin: (it's some damn fine Oatmeal Stout, too.)

Bob, as long as it's not an inflammatory racist remark, why doesn't she want to vote for Obama? I think it's valid in this thread. Shit, the only people I have to discuss this with in this area are lower to middle class whites. Most of the non-white medical/surgical residents here are foreign nationals, they can't vote.

I'd seriously vote for Stephen Colbert. If you read his books and listen to his jokes closely, he'd be a great president IMHO. His language skills are better than George's anyways. :icon16: And ,unfortunately, someone needs to stick a fork in Ron Paul.

Romney is done-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/romney.campaign/index.html

So what happend with this pole before being closed down? I recall someone announcing but never heard of it agian afterwards.

So what happend with this pole before being closed down? I recall someone announcing but never heard of it agian afterwards.

:confused:

What poll are you referring to SL? This one appears to be open but I think moot since many of the candidates listed have dropped out of the race.

There is a chance I might be thinking of another one but I could have sworn it was this one. A moderator came in here and said that another moderator had messed/corrupted the poll and so it was temporarily closed until that moderator could figure out what happend. It seems that, that was either in some other poll (though I could have sworn it was this one), or they deleted their post from this thread.