logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Who will you vote for on election day, and why?, Debate your side, and explain what will motivate you to vote.
net2007
post Nov 3 2008, 02:36 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Well we have until tomorrow to make up our minds. Its been interesting, and fun debating this election with most of you, especially the Obama supporters who I usually disagree with on nearly everything. tongue.gif

Some of us have voted already, some have made up their minds and will vote by Tuesday, and I assume many people have yet to decide. I want to hear what is motivating the members here to vote. Whether it be specific issues the candidate supports, their credibility as you see it, their personalities, or even if you just like the way they dress. I think and hope most people think a little deeper than appearance but lets debate any possible motivation that will determine your vote and feel free to explain your local state elections if you wish.

Questions for Debate (answer any or all)....

1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?

2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

5. What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above?

6. Are their any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?


(answer the last question as soon as the election is determined an obvious win for either candidate) I'm guessing this will end up being in the wee hours of the morning on Wednesday.

7. Are you surprised by the outcome of the election, and was it closer or tighter than you expected?


================================================================================
================================================================================
=



Intro

I'll vote for John McCain for president which will come to little surprise to most of you. I'm going to turn this post into a whopper explaining why since many people are accusing McCain supporters of being less issue oriented and more oriented around attacking Obama for his associations. If you ask me in most cases people are just asking questions about his associations.

Anyway, Mike Huckabee was the candidate I was most interested in but unfortunately he lost the primary before North Carolina even voted in it. I want to explain why McCain will get my vote on Tuesday, and why I believe he is the right choice and even a little on what does disappoint me about him. I don't want to sound like I'm part of the McCain campaign and that this man is right about everything, although this post will be primarily about why I'm going to vote for him, obviously. Truth is I have to give at least some credit to Obama as a conservative but more importantly as an individual who believes Obama is a good man and a tough candidate, despite the criticism I give him and despite the fact that I oppose much of what he stands for. I don't think he's ready to lead and I don't agree with most of his politics, but I don't believe he is a Muslim extremist either. I'll start with some brief criticisms on McCain, then list the top 5 reasons I support John McCain.......


Criticisms

McCain is not a great speaker especially when compared to Obama, and although I agree with McCains message and see him as more fit to lead, the repetitive
campaign talking lines get old, and he never engaged Obama near enough in Debate. McCain also comes off as a quite a typical negative campaigner at times with misleading campaign Ads just like Obama. As far as personality, policy, and debate skills I ended up liking Mike Huckabee the most. He was quite a campaigner too considering the limited amount of money he had. McCain fell at about my 3rd favorite Republican candidate, but he is doing better than I thought he would do. The race is close but some of his campaign moves have been questionable, like suspending his campaign for the economic crises only to leave Washington shortly after. As far as policy goes I agree with him on most things especially when compared to Obama. The five reasons below explain why........


Reason Number 1. (The War in Iraq)

This war has been central to my support for those who see its importance. I would even consider voting for a Democrat if they supported this war, and if their economics made more sense to me. The War in Iraq has stirred up some of the most controversial and heated debates on sites like this. I support it for a few fundamental reasons. One of the most important reasons is the sacrifice that our soldiers make when they fight it. To some this is a discouraging factor, many ask is this really worth the blood and sweat? Is it worth the time and effort? I like many, including soldiers who actively fight in this war see the importance of following through. I know many people disagree with this for their own reasons and that many of those reasons are real and heartfelt but I want to explain why I disagree.

The sacrifice our men and women make in a time of war, are worth it, even for many of our soldiers, if you truly believe in its cause. I do, and one of the criticisms I've gotten for displaying this support as a civilian is that I support putting our men at risk for my own selfish reasons, and my own political beliefs. My response to that has always been that our soldiers enlist in our military for their own reasons, they are also grown men and women who are well aware of the risk involved. We don't have a draft military and this is important to note. With all the opposition to this war the reason I support it today is just as clear as it's ever been. I want to share a video with you of one of our soldiers who supports the Iraq war and McCain after having lost his leg in combat. This short video has become the most watched election related video on youtube with over 11 million hits. This is not an ad paid for by the McCain campaign either although this soldier obviously does support him......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ele...008/7699509.stm

I've presented this video a couple times recently including on this site because I think it sends an important message, and is certainly a must see. I may not have walked in this mans shoes, but the bravery and dedication of men and women like this inspire me as an American, and it reminds me why its so important that we succeed in Iraq. With all the political rhetoric that surrounds this war its stories of men like this that cut through that and help me remember what's important.

Beyond the sacrifice, there were motivations for fighting this war, most of which I agree with, and the condition in Iraq over the last year has been one of improvement on multiple levels. I've debated this before but I'll go over it again relatively briefly starting with why I believe we are in Iraq.

So what motivations were there to fight this war?

Some say the reasons for fighting this war was to ensure the stability of the global economy and our economy, there is a lot of oil in the middle east. We import most of our oil from this region, therefore to some extent the stability of the middle east is important in that respect. Some in turn call this a fight for oil. War protesters sometimes hold up signs saying "No blood for Oil". If this were the only reason I believed we were in Iraq I wouldn't be supporting our presence their.

However, some people say this war is about our national security.

Some people say Iraq plays an important roll in our success in the war on terror.

Some people say this is about giving Iraqis the opportunity to live a better life free from the dictatorship of the Saddam regime.

Others say we needed to find out if Saddam had WMD.

So who had it right? I may not be a national security expert by any stretch of the imagination, but in my opinion, and from all I've learned, these were all valid motivations for fighting this war. All of the above apply to some extent, I would elaborate on this again like I have in the past but I don't want to turn this post into another 50 page review of the Iraq war, or The War on Terror.

To make this section as short as possible, I'll present two of my forums that debate my position on this war, as well as presenting some facts. The post below contained most of the research I had done on this war, and Afghanistan, this time last year. It's about 50 pages long and contains almost 100 links from a number of sources......

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry228304

It was closed before I had a chance to do a final proof read, or get any responses because it was too big and the moderators felt it would have spawned too many different types of debate, but it explains my position on the war and presents some of the most creditable information I could find last year. Hopefully most of the links haven't gone dead by now. I later took one of the sections of that post and made it into a smaller post about WMD and Saddam which can be read and replied to here...

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=15779&st=0


So where do we stand today in Iraq?

America and Iraqis have come a long way in the last year. I feel that many Americans are unaware of this utter turn around we have seen in Iraq. For those who have been paying attention violence is now at a 4 year low in Iraq, the Iraq Security Forces or (ISF) have now taken primary control over the majority of it's provenances, and they are doing the majority of the fighting and dieing in this war today. Political and military accomplishments in the last year have even surprised me. Iraqi civilians have returned home by the thousands in the last year because Iraq today is not the Iraq we were reading about and hearing about on the news last Summer. I want to present a few links that demonstrate this, the first is the most important and is primarily statistical data about violence levels in Iraq over the last year and prior....

http://understandingwar.org/files/Iraq%20S...mber%202008.pdf

Take notice to the bar and line graphs on pages 5,6,8,9,10,11, and 12. These are self explanatory and easy to read supposing you can read a bar or line graph, I'm confident everyone here can. wink.gif Beyond that it's been the stories and reports coming out of Iraq in the last year that have really been promising. Even considerably liberal news sources have been reporting this progress now and then. Let me put it in the words of our most liberal Democratic senator, Barack Obama.....

"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated"

Link....

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9287

Considering he basically still believes this war is a mistake and always has, and considering that he believes the surge is a strategy ultimately doomed to failure, that says a lot coming from him. You don't get much more further to the left than Barack Obama, yet even he admits to some extent that this surge has helped Iraqis and improved the situation. Along with the link above the following two are clear indicators of why Obama would say such a thing. By the way I've deliberately included one source that can't be considered a Right Wing conservative source that being "the LA times"......


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2007/jul/31/goodnewsfrom

Excerpt from the above link.....

"Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack (both pages contain links to their writings over the past few years) said that morale had improved in US military units there and have confidence in General David Petraeus. They say that Americans and Iraqis are working better together, with ordinary Iraqis turning against "Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army".


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...0,4099051.story

Excerpt from the above link.....

"The situation in Iraq has improved dramatically as a result of the surge, innovative counterinsurgency tactics and improved outreach by U.S. forces to local elites. The level of violence is drastically reduced, and so is the U.S. casualty rate. Al Qaeda in Iraq is reeling. Its leadership has been decimated; its ability to mount major operations has been considerably reduced; and, according to Al Qaeda's own internal communications, the terrorist organization is having serious trouble attracting and motivating new recruits."

Media reports like this have been numerous in the last year, although the issue of the Iraq war does seem to be on the back burner for the time being. I've always supported this war effort, but today I hold more confidence this can work than I ever have before. John McCain's position on the Iraq war is to finish the Job, and good for him, he also criticized the approach Bush used going into the war, which was to go in with an insufficient amount of troops, 1/3 the proper amount. This cost us two years of out of control violence that I believe would have never happened if Bush and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld had been better prepared and listened to their critics.

This is a story from early 2007 that explains this a little, its the quickest thing I could find to demonstrate that McCain was critical of Bushes tactics....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2390.html

Excerpt.....

McCain "The president listened too much to the Vice President . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense."

McCain added: "Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."


McCain's strong point in this election has always been national security and foreign policy, and for good reason, he served for our military for over 20 years, flew in missions over Vietnam, and earned a rank as high as Captain........

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ilitary_record/


Reason Number 2. (The Economy)

I don't really understand specifically why Barack Obama is viewed by so many as the cure to our economic problems, it doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps someone here can clarify that. I believe that its largely "but not solely" because Obama is not a Republican. George Bush has been ineffective in many ways as president, we all know this, so many people tend to join every politician under the Republican party at the hip on nearly every issue.

I want to talk primarily about taxes and spending in this section.

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/taxes.htm

The Obama plan basically states that no family making less than $250,000 a year will see their taxes increase, but he will increase taxes on businesses and people making more than this. Obama, and Vp pick Joe Biden, and former candidate Bill Richardson have stated that the amount is not $250,000 at times.

The following videos show side by side comments coming from Barack Obama where he states different amounts at different times...

http://patriotroom.com/?p=3626


Barack Obama "If you make 250,000 a year we will not raise your taxes, we will cut your taxes"

Barack Obama "If you make less than 200,000 a year you will get a tax cut"



Now many say they state a different amount at times simply because the plan they created states a different amount between families and single people, but in the above video you can easily gather the amount is stated differently in regards specifically to families. I'm wondering, like many, why so many people including Obama keep redefining his plan. Who exactly is rich? However lets give Obama the benefit of the doubt, because even if he has not changed his plan repeatedly, I disagree with it.

I actually use to think increasing taxes on the more wealthy was a good idea. Three things have changed that position for me this year, one being the state of our current economy, secondly the fact that I learned the rich already pay way more in taxes than the middle or lower class, and keep in mind thats under the Bush administration. Lastly Obama's plan includes businesses, and its true that businesses that generate more money, create more Jobs. There are businesses that are not multi-billion dollar super tyrant businesses that are struggling and will be taxed more under this plan. Obama's tax plan will increase taxes on some of these businesses which may equate in these cases to people being laid off or wages being reduced.

I want to provide a little substantiation for the paragraph above......

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/novem...-pays-the-taxes

First off the link above is extremely informative in backing the case that the rich already pay far more in taxes, take a look at the bar graphs in that link. It shows under the Bush administration who is paying the majority of the taxes. It is true that Bush cut taxes slightly on big businesses and the rich but guess what? Under Bush the richest 25% of the nation still pays 85% of Americas income tax, in other words the vast majority of it. The bottom 50% of the nation, income wise, only pays 3% of this nations income tax. Thats under Bush and I don't think everybody knows it, in fact I didn't know that until I looked it up. Its amazing the effect that misleading campaign ad's, and attacks on Bush can have, simply amazing.

The link below shows some of the controversy about the effect Obama's tax plan could have on businesses.....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html

Here is a excerpt from that link......

The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what's important. Economists know what matters is the tax rate that's applied to the bulk of small-business income. Make no mistake about it: Obama's plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

Now there is no doubt the plan will increase the amount of taxes on overall small business profits as a whole, but there seems to be a dispute here on the number of businesses that will actually pay up because John McCain has said that 23 million businesses would see their taxes go up and be effected under Obama's tax plan. Many others are claiming this is a gross exaggeration. There appear to be numerous sources claiming that Obama's plan will increase taxes on a huge chunk of businesses, while some say it will be as little as a million businesses that see the increase.

So some say it will only effect about 5% of businesses, others say it will effect over 50% of businesses. John McCain claims its a whopping 23 million out of the 27 million businesses in America that will see the increase. This is the type of thing that confuses the hell out of people. In any case this plan is a tax increase on small businesses, exactly how many businesses see the increase is what nobody seems to agree on.

The only thing that's important to me is the following question......

Is a tax increase of any kind a good idea given the fact that so many businesses are struggling today?

I found out that business tax rates in America as a whole already exceed rates in most other nations today.......

http://www.taxfoundation.org/competeusa

from the link above.....

Just 20 years ago, the U.S. led the world in cutting business taxes to make our economy more conducive to job creation. Since then, every other industrialized country on Earth has cut its business taxes while we stood still. Today, only Japan has a higher business tax rate than the U.S.

Obama states on his site that his plan is an overall annual tax cut because his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Yet since his annual spending plan exceeds McCains spending plan, how will he offer what he calls an overall annual tax cut while spending more, without cutting into the national deficit? I'll get into spending next but I want to get into one final point on Obama's tax plan and go over McCain's briefly.

The way Obama is able to claim he will deliver an overall annual tax cut, and not raise taxes on 95% of Americans, is by sending tax credits in the form of a check to certain lower income groups. However its important to note that a third of all Americans Do not pay income taxes at all. This means that he will be sending money to many people who have no tax liability for various reasons. In other words millions of people that generate nothing to our economy, "many of which don't intend to" will get a check primarily from those who earned this money, and on top of that the increase on the upper class doesn't entirely pay for Obama's tax plan, so where does the difference in money come from?

Here is one last link in regards to this.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

The following is from the link above......

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

John McCain's tax plan doesn't make these drastic changes and although people are comparing him to Bush because of this, I give him credit. There is no way Obama will be able to pay for his tax plan while increasing spending without further pushing our country into debt, I just don't see how it's at all possible. Anyway McCain's plan can be viewed at the link I presented before but the biggest change he wants to propose is to "Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent" I think thats a good Idea since this country leads the world in high cooperate taxes as of now......

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html

Spending

As for spending Barack Obama is proposing more than McCain in spending. How much more? The National Taxpayers Union states that.........

McCain (R-AZ) would increase yearly federal spending by $92.4 billion, compared to Sen. Obama's (D-IL) $293.0 billion.

Which means Baracks overall spending plan, including his foreign policy, will call for about 200 billion more a year in spending than McCains......

http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=...p;org_name=NTUF

So why Obama is seen as better for the economy by so many people is beyond me.


Reason Number 3. (Energy Policy)

Where I stand on energy is that I basically think we need to reduce drilling in foreign counties dramatically, but increase it locally, at least in the immediate future. More importantly I think we should increase production of energy with alternate clean sources so that we can eventually reduce overall oil consumption and fossil fuel consumption in general. There are many different types of alternate energy that are practical and expandable from what I know. Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and Geothermal are some of the most promising that I know of.

Here are both McCain's energy plan and Obama's plan, as stated on their websites.........

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/Issues...ef1468e96f4.htm

Our energy problem is an ongoing one, it isn't easy to supply energy to a country with a population of over 300 million and some of the most developed cities in the world. Whoever the next president is we're not going to eliminate emissions overnight and 90% of America isn't going to be driving electric cars in 4 years. This will continue to be a slow and gradual process of change to cleaner more effective energy sources. I've read over both their plans and read criticisms of each. They both talk about increasing alternate sources of energy, but I believe McCain has the more realistic plan for one crucial reason.

That would be nuclear energy. Before I talk about that I would like to comment that I give Obama more credit on energy than on the other 2 issues I've mentioned. However since both are promising increasing efforts on creating alternate energy sources, and clean coal, I do want to state why I personally believe McCain has the better plan.

The biggest thing is nuclear energy, it has been tried and tested more than any other alternate source that doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Its practical, its extremely efficient, and it produces more energy than other alternate sources, but its also feared and even misunderstood by many. While there are dangers that go along with producing energy this way, we've been doing it since the 1950's and have just over 100 operational Nuclear reactors in America today supplying about 20% of our energy. The worst accident that occurred, in America, was at a plant on Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. It was a partial core meltdown and resulted in some radiation being leaked, but no deaths or injuries were attributed to this accident. We have never seen the feared full core meltdown scenario play out ever since we've had Nuclear Plants running in America.

It was the Three Mile Island event that in part killed the production of nuclear power plants in America, by effectively spooking the nation. We haven't built a new Nuclear power plant in America since the 1970's. I've touched on this before but I think the hazards surrounding Nuclear power plants were exaggerated in part because it became very popular early in the cold war era when there was a lot of fear surrounding atomic energy but it has indisputably become safer with time.

Some fear that these plants could be attacked by terrorist causing a significant radiation leak, but thats been blown out of proportion as well from what I gather. These power plants are the most structurally secure types of power plants in the country. They were designed to withstand natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes, and although they were not designed with plane attacks in mind, the chances of a plane crash causing one of these plants to release radiation is slim due to their structure. Since they are designed with several layers of steel reinforced concrete to prevent radiation from leaking in an accident, there is little chance a plane could damage the reactor core.

The amount of radioactive waste these plants release is also very small and far less damaging relative to the waste produced by fossil fuel electricity generation. They produce no greenhouse gases either which is crucial, and since they use water for cooling, steam is what you see pour out of the "steam towers." The steam contains no radiation.

Sources....

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RS21131.pdf
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power...-wna-wmitnfc-52
http://www.threemileisland.org/science/pdf...power_works.pdf

The reason why I think Nuclear Power is important as an alternate energy is because it is a tried and true technology that has already been proven practical on a national scale.

As far as what each candidates plans on this type of energy John McCain has proposed that we start building new nuclear power plants in America. He has proposed a plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. They take about 5 years a piece to build but we need to get started on options like this. The 104 active nuclear power plants in America today already spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America.

McCains nuclear energy plan...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/18/mc...r-construction/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

Obama has been far less specific on his plan for Nuclear energy. He claims he's open to the concept but all he claims is that he wants to dispose of nuclear waste more effectively, but I don't get the impression he wants to increase energy production through nuclear power by building more plants. He seems vague as far as what he would do, but it sounds to me like it would be more of the same of what we've had in the last 30 years. Saying "more of the same" in regards to Obama is fun, lol. He's probably said that about McCain as much as he uses the mens room.

Obama on Nuclear energy...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...a-goes-nuclear/
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...eedName=topNews

One last point on energy is that I think McCain also has the edge on local oil drilling. He and Palin are much more likely to increase local drilling than Obama and Biden. I've gathered this from comments both campaigns have made, and lets face it if we are to reduce foreign drilling in the near future we will have to increase it locally. The automobile industry will be largely dependent on oil for years to come so I see local oil drilling as an important stepping stone to energy independence. Although In the long term it will have to be reduced locally as well. These sources are being depleted, and it has a negative impact on our environment in general. So eventually oil drilling should and will have to be be dramatically reduced.



Reason Number 4. (Character / Press Coverage)

Since this post is getting long I'm going to start with press coverage by quoting a comment of mine from another forum about how slanted the media has been for Obama......

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry261683 from (post #82).........

.........I've spent a lot of my time taking an interest in this election and to me the slant in our media in general is painfully obvious. The most hated and criticized news network by the left has become FOX News. While I think they stretch reality by claiming to be 100% "fair and balanced" they have certainly beat the competition in terms of offering the most balanced coverage. The Pew research organization has backed that suspicion of mine with studies that show that the audience of Fox news is more politically diverse than either CNN or MSNBC. More recently the Center for Media and public affairs did a study that concluded that the coverage of this election was more evenly positive and negative on John McCain and Barack Obama by Fox News. Both these facts can be read about below....


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/08/...s_watchers.html
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

I comment on this all the time and have been very specific on it. I think that media bias has gone a long way to smear john McCain's image to a greater degree than Obama although Obama does get his share. That's substantiated in polls like the ones above and others but I see this slant in the media myself all the time, and I mean all the time. The reason so many people are claiming the Media is slanted toward liberals is because in general it is, and so is Hollywood.

The simple fact that McCain is Republican will be the primary thing that determines this election for Obama if he wins. This explains why so many Obama ads make this argument of more of the same, and its why these ads and the media try relentlessly to compare McCain to Bush. This doesn't necessarily move me any closer to McCain than I already was but in increases the amount of criticism I have on Obama and Democrats in general when they repeat these bumper sticker campaign lines about McCain and Bush.

We all know McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 but what many don't debate is the fact that he has been criticized by Republicans for years specifically because he has voted with his party as little as 67 percent, and 77% in 2005, which is quite uncharacteristic of a Republican. It's also uncharacteristic of a Democrat to vote in such low percentages with their party. Most Democrats and Republicans vote with their party 90+ percent of the time, including Obama who has always voted with the Democrats in higher percentages than McCain has voted with Bush. Point is that Obama would have been able to draw this comparison with most Republicans, making the argument highly misleading, in a similar way the "Bush tax cut on the rich argument" is misleading.........

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_i...voted_with.html


Reason Number 5. (Experience Vs. Promises)

To conclude this post I do know for a fact that John McCain has much more experience in the Senate and Congress than Obama to be running for president. McCain began his political career the year I was born, 1982. He's been in politics as long as Ive been alive and has quite a long history in our military as well which most of you know. Obama on the other hand had a senate seat in Chicago that began in 1996 in what was in Illinois 13'th District. His most significant and highest role in our government as of now began January of 2005 in the U.S. Senate, which means he held that position for only 2 years before he decided to run for president. This makes Obama one of the most inexperience candidates ever to run for president.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_and_Sen...82%E2%80%932000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama

Bottom line is he ran a campaign based on promoting change and criticizes Bush for fiscal irresponsibility, then uses that to criticize McCain, yet Obama's plan will cost more than McCain's and he has out spent every single candidate in this race which originally included 15 candidates in the primary plus two additional independent candidates. I'm confident he's outspent any campaign of any kind in all of human history. Thats a bold claim, but I do know for a fact that he outspent any candidate in this election, and held the most expensive Democratic convention in history, which I've shown, and I don't see how you top that. So he will spend more than McCain based on his plan, and has already outspent everyone in this race to get elected, yet he's using an argument that states that McCain will be fiscally irresponsible like Bush? Thats not change to me, the technique of pointing fingers and promising something different is as old as politics in America, and spending too much has been a problem of this country for years so he may win this election primarily on party affiliation.

I've been joking around that Bush may become the only president in history to win 3 elections. Once in 2000, again in 2004, and lastly in 2008. If Bush wins a 3rd election the presidency will belong to Barack Obama. Bush is quite a campaigner apparently, he won 2 very close elections for himself, and now has become Obama's most important campaigner.

Little sarcasm there at the end but Id like to hear anyone explain their side and respond to any of the information above or talk about who they will be voting for. This post addressed a lot of side issues but as long as its ok with the moderators to debate some of the additional things I mentioned like Nuclear Energy, its ok with me if its in relation to the topics somehow.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 3 2008, 07:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 35)
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 4 2008, 07:53 AM
Post #21


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?

I've voted already. Nothing was going to discourage me from doing so.

2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

I voted for the one who appears to be more interested in the well-being of America's people, who believes that government is there to serve the people.

3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?

All the harping on So-and-So is going to raise your taxes, when it is well known that both political parties do it anyway, the differences being which economic stratum and for what reasons. It's as if it is the only issue that matters to some campaigners.

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

The altruism and honor that one of them has demonstrated in the past.

5. What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above?

CNN, msnbc, sometimes public television, our local paper, friends, and AD, especially the links that posters here provide.

6. Are the[re] any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?

Already voted for them. I would like to see our local U.S. Congressman defeated this time, especially since he said that he would stop running after so many years and has not kept his word. He has been one of the Bush yes men for about 90% of the time (like McCain) and he only got bent out of shape, it seems, when he was not made privy to intelligence information by Bush & Co. even though he chairs the House Intelligence community. Aw gee, to be treated like the rest of us peons; such a slight can't be remedied, I suppose. Now he's running against the administration he supported for 8 years. Double dealer.

I can't wait for this to be over!

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 4 2008, 07:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 4 2008, 01:24 PM
Post #22


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,342
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



gd d u reliz da pipl rd dis n smrphns? pr btrys! fk yr btrys!

Well, whatever.

I voted for Obama. I voted for Obama because it will tick off the screwy right wing. It will tick off the terrorists. It will tick off the world of fascism nazi corrupted money mongers war mongers fish mongers . . .

and i get a tax break

maybe health care

and a clear conscious

pfffft

vt!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oleperfesser
post Nov 4 2008, 02:23 PM
Post #23


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 9,722
Joined: October-21-08

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 3 2008, 04:04 PM) *
QUOTE(oleperfesser @ Nov 3 2008, 02:53 PM) *
Anyone join me in advocating the repeal of the 22nd amendment?

Hell no.


Well, the 22nd amendment essentially forces us to reject an experienced president after a second term, regardless how accomplished he may be, and to replace him with someone untried. How smart is that? From what you say, you probably won't agree with me that the country would have been much better served had Clinton served a third term -- but could he have been worse than George W. Bush? Since the Republicans pushed through the 22nd, in fear of yet another Roosevelt, we have had only three presidents who completed two terms and might have considered third terms -- and the first two were Republicans. It IS likely, I think, that neither Eisenhower not Reagan would have sought third terms, on account of their age, but to turn away a younger, vigorous, successful president like Clinton after two terms is VERY bad management policy, I think. Surely no well-run corporation would do it.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Nov 4 2008, 02:33 PM
Post #24


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



If you are voting who will you vote for President and why?
I wrote in Bernie Sanders, the real MostLiberalSenatorô.

What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?
McCain and Obama's voting on FISA and the bailout. McCain is a nut when it comes to foreign policy. Obama isn't far behind. The Christian undertones in both campaigns.

What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

Obama will be able to pull off a win without resorting to GOP tactics. Most liberals/Democrats had given up on the idea of winning a general election with positive slogans. That's impressive. McCain actually putting up with a female veep.

What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above?
Senator websites, Senate roll call information, blogs (I'm embarrassed to admit how much humor shapes my political outlook), some news articles, though I ignore most (gotcha campaign moments are only worth mentioning if they're funny), and the fuzzy "plans" both campaign websites put out that ignore situations. We're looking at $13 trillion in debt, rising inflation, Obama is on the record as saying he'd keep Hank Paulson as Treasury Secretary and he still wants to offer universal health care? Get real.

Are their any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?

Not really, though I'm glad the Ohio Democratic Party had enough sense to replace the AG after a sexual harassment scandal. I think I went through 11 touch-screen (ugh) pages of candidates, issues and bonds. I voted for most tax increases dealing with roads, sewer, trash, etc., and noticed way too many unchallenged names. I still can't believe we vote for coroner. My God. Coroner? This is strictly a merit promotion based on scientific knowledge if there ever was any, or should beónot a political opportunity. But hey, if I can vote for a state supreme court candidate based on ideology to make judges "accountable" to my bias, why not screw around with the justice system from the bottom too?

This post has been edited by Lesly: Nov 4 2008, 02:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 4 2008, 03:45 PM
Post #25


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE
Royucker



8) Anytime a candidate is so attractive to the college crowd, it gives me pause because I remember how much I thought I knew back then and how stupid I now realize I was. I remember how out of touch those professors actually were and how much truth there is in the old saying those that can do, those that can not teach.


I know what you mean, and influence is a strong thing. I think often times those with influence over a younger crowd can effectively use that influence to promote their personal political beliefs, I've seen this type of thing myself. In many cases I don't see a problem with this if the person can present their opinion as if its disputable, but often times this in not the case. As individuals the best thing we can do is to remember that there are no shortage of people who use their position, whatever it may be, to promote their personal beliefs. Sometimes its a college professor, other times it may be the head of a newspaper, or someone with influence within a news network. I'm pretty skeptical by nature to take the opinions of one person and believe everything they say, especially on political issues. Getting second opinions and researching facts is always a smart approach.

I voted for John McCain this morning at the Senior Opportunity Center in downtown Asheville. This is an extremely liberal town, that is sometimes called little San Fransisco. So outside the voting location were only Obama supporters handing out information. One lady approached me and said here is a Democratic "Cheat Sheet" as she called it. She encouraged me to vote a straight democratic ticket, and told me those were the bast candidates. This isn't uncommon but I feel sorry for anyone who walks into their voting location and actually gets persuaded that easily.

AuthorMusician
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 4 2008, 09:24 AM) *
gd d u reliz da pipl rd dis n smrphns? pr btrys! fk yr btrys!

Well, whatever.

I voted for Obama. I voted for Obama because it will tick off the screwy right wing. It will tick off the terrorists. It will tick off the world of fascism nazi corrupted money mongers war mongers fish mongers . . .

and i get a tax break

maybe health care

and a clear conscious

pfffft

vt!


So you voted to tick off the conservatives, the terrorist, the fascist NAZI's, and the War mongers? Well I'm conservative, I support this war and although Ive been called a war monger because of my support, I don't consider myself one. I don't feel ticked off, but interesting motive.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 4 2008, 03:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Nov 4 2008, 04:30 PM
Post #26


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,456
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(oleperfesser @ Nov 4 2008, 10:23 AM) *
Well, the 22nd amendment essentially forces us to reject an experienced president after a second term, regardless how accomplished he may be, and to replace him with someone untried. How smart is that? From what you say, you probably won't agree with me that the country would have been much better served had Clinton served a third term -- but could he have been worse than George W. Bush?


Repealing the 22nd might have looked good in 2000, but here in 2008 the amendment looks like a stroke of genius.

And really, even in 2000, people were ready for a change. I would have been happy with Gore. But that's just me and the popular vote talking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 4 2008, 05:51 PM
Post #27


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007)
I know what you mean, and influence is a strong thing. I think often times those with influence over a younger crowd can effectively use that influence to promote their personal political beliefs, I've seen this type of thing myself.

Of course such influences don't have any sort of special effect over young adults.

The same kind of influences operate on all Americans of all ages and politcal persuasion. Most Americans are socialized into their political beliefs, very few examine them carefully for themselves.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oleperfesser
post Nov 4 2008, 08:57 PM
Post #28


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 9,722
Joined: October-21-08

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Nov 4 2008, 11:30 AM) *
QUOTE(oleperfesser @ Nov 4 2008, 10:23 AM) *
Well, the 22nd amendment essentially forces us to reject an experienced president after a second term, regardless how accomplished he may be, and to replace him with someone untried. How smart is that? From what you say, you probably won't agree with me that the country would have been much better served had Clinton served a third term -- but could he have been worse than George W. Bush?


Repealing the 22nd might have looked good in 2000, but here in 2008 the amendment looks like a stroke of genius.

And really, even in 2000, people were ready for a change. I would have been happy with Gore. But that's just me and the popular vote talking.


Well, yes, I liked Gore -- but why does the 22nd seem like such a good idea this year? GWB would have been defeated no less certainly than Cousin John -- more certainly -- so the 22nd doesn't affect GWB. But, what if we were to team the repeal with a provision for the president to face a recall election if enough petitions are filed? The recall election should be conducted under majority rule -- unlike California's! No limit to the number of terms, but if recalled, can never be a candidate again. Buy that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 4 2008, 09:20 PM
Post #29


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1. Do you plan to vote on election day, have you voted already? If you don't plan to vote, what discouraged you?

Just returned from voting... the polling place was pretty empty then, but they said it had been very busy that morning. I hear we're on track for a record turnout. I hope so. I think it is a disgrace that we're the supposed leader of the democratic world, yet have the lowest voting turnout.

2. If you are voting who will you vote for President and why? Specifically why, any reason you can think of that is important to you.

I voted for Bob Barr. In general, my philosophy is more in line with the Libertarian party. In particular, they seem to be the only fiscally conservative party left, and I also strongly believe that there should be limited government involvement in personal matters.

3. What, if anything, has turned you away from the candidates you don't support?

I considered voting for both Obama and McCain, but have issues with both of them. I think Obama really is about as liberal as you can get, although I do like many of his programs. I think as a country we're probably in a spot where some government programs are probably a good thing. I also think Obama has a pragmatic approach to thinks which would temper his more liberal leanings. However, I am concerned that the almost certain Democratic Congress will run roughshod over him.

McCain I like personally, but he ran, IMHO, a terrible campaign. Having been in government all those years, he should have had a much better idea of what he wanted to accomplish when he was elected. I like his emphasis on eliminating government corruption and funding of pet projects, but there needs to be more of an agenda than that. His energy plan wasn't bad, but it also struck me as something that only came about when gas prices spiked. You don't start a 40 year program because of a temporary spike in prices.

4. What do you like or admire about any candidate who will not get your vote?

I think Obama really is a fresh change, and we could probably use that right now. He strikes me as both smart and pragmatic... two qualities I think are very important in a President. I think McCain's ideas for government reform were good, but wasn't sure he could even get support within his own party for them.

5. What are your primary news sources for learning about candidates, whether it be specific local or national news networks, online sources, newspapers, or all of the above? All of the above, with a skepticism for all of them. Just because something is in print (or online) doesn't make it true.

6. Are their any interesting state/local politicians you plan to vote for?

I really like Senator Cornyn.. he's the reason I didn't vote straight Libertarian. I have e-mailed him several times, and received a pertinent response each time, including having copies of legislation sent to me to clarify the things I was asking about. Without knowing anything about his philosophy, that really struck me ( I e-mailed our other Senator each time, and never even received a canned response). Anybody that concerned about responding to their constituents is going to be more concerned about their issues.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 5 2008, 12:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quick
post Nov 4 2008, 10:07 PM
Post #30


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Member No.: 6,407
Joined: August-22-06

From: USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 4 2008, 04:20 PM) *
[b]
I voted for Bob Barr. In general, my philosophy is more in line with the Libertarian party. In particular, they seem to be the only fiscally conservative party left, and I also strongly believe that there should be limited government involvement in personal matters.


With all due respect, that is one more vote McCain could have used. Third party candidates are a waste of time. I cannot imagine your voting for Obama, notwithstanding you kind words above about him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Nov 4 2008, 10:21 PM
Post #31


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(quick @ Nov 4 2008, 05:07 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 4 2008, 04:20 PM) *

I voted for Bob Barr. In general, my philosophy is more in line with the Libertarian party. In particular, they seem to be the only fiscally conservative party left, and I also strongly believe that there should be limited government involvement in personal matters.


With all due respect, that is one more vote McCain could have used. Third party candidates are a waste of time. I cannot imagine your voting for Obama, notwithstanding you kind words above about him.


"With all due respect" you should respect democracy at work, quick.

Third party candidates are not a waste of time. They represent the views, hopes and aspirations of millions of voters who do not feel obligated to play the Democratic Tweeledee or Republican Tweeledum game.

I seriously doubt Dontreadonme, ConservPat, Victoria Silverwolf, Lesly, lederuvdapac or any of the other non-aligned independent members feel they have wasted their time by making a vote based on conscience and not simply what's offered up to them that represents no choice at all. I have voted independent in the past (and may again in the future) and nobody can make me feel weird by going a different route than the majority.

What is a waste of time is not voting and then griping about the lousy choice made by those who do.

If Hobbes feels John McCain does not correspond with his concept of conservatism he hardly owes him his vote. It is also quite possible to have kind words to say about a candidate, yet not support them. I have great respect and admiration for what McCain has accomplished in his life, but not enough to vote for him when I have a choice I'm quite happy with.

When you think about it like an American and not a partisan it starts making sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ConservPat
post Nov 4 2008, 10:26 PM
Post #32


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,191
Member No.: 415
Joined: January-31-03

From: Boston
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



Amen, Nighttimer, amen.

Whether or not McCain could have used Hobbes' vote is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, evidently, McCain did not earn it. The same can be said of McCain and Obama about my vote. Third parties are not a 'waste' of anything. There is no such thing as a 'waste' in a democratic process; unpopular choices, absolutely, but not 'wastes'.

But so goes the duopoly mentality that the major parties are entitled to the votes of those disaffected with them. Such is not the case. My vote will be earned, not ceded.

CP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Nov 4 2008, 10:58 PM
Post #33


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Amen to the Amen!

When we voted, our daughters asked us who we thought was going to win, and we told them probably Obama. They asked why we voted for Barr when we knew he wasn't going to win. We told them that it's better to vote for who stands for what you believe in rather than waste your vote on someone who didn't. Principle matters and character counts. My definition of anti-American is casting those values aside because of fear or ignorance and truly wasting your vote.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 5 2008, 12:49 AM
Post #34


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Hey guys I probably wont reply much here till tomorrow, I'm too caught up with the results coming in. McCain has at least a puny lead as of now with 13 electoral votes for McCain and 3 for Obama, which as of now means absolutely nothing. Anyway I might catch you guys in the chat room on and off tonight before I eventually get some sleep sometime late tonight. Very late tongue.gif

I made a poll to go along with this forum, since I didn't include a poll here yesterday.................

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry262017

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 7 2008, 10:47 PM
Post #35


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Since election day has past and we now have some solid numbers to go on, I'm going to answer the last question I presented.......

7. Are you surprised by the outcome of the election, and was it closer or tighter than you expected?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

The electoral vote count ended up being 163 to 364 Obama, and with 99% of the popular vote in as of now Obama has 65,136,563 votes to McCains 57,190,289.

The reason the Popular vote is so close, yet Obama has twice the electoral votes is because Obama narrowly won several swing states which means he collected all the electoral votes in such states.

The popular vote is the best way to figure how close any election is. This is why we never heard the end of Bush losing the popular vote against Gore in that election.

Anyway by the numbers.......

65 million votes (Obama) 52%
57 million votes (McCain) 46%

This means Obama won the popular vote by 8 million votes, and considering all the votes casted thats a 6% margin in favor of Obama. This is about what I expected in terms of the Popular vote, I had a feeling Obama would probably win by a narrow but safe margin. As for the electoral turnout I was way off, I thought Obama would receive somewhere around 30 more electoral votes than McCain.

If the demographics in the U.S. were a bit different this could have easily been the case with the same popular vote results. Lets say for the sake of argument that we could subtract McCain votes from Texas, Alabama, and Georgia, where McCain did well, and add them to states like Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, where McCain narrowly lost. If you did this across the board it may even be possible to spread the votes out in a way that would give McCain the win by having multiple narrow state wins across the country.

Of course the same could be done with Obama as well by taking some of his votes from New York and California and adding them to states where he narrowly lost which would in turn increase his electoral vote advantage. I think the whole system should be changed in both the primaries and the general election. It would make much more sense if the popular vote was the determining factor instead of delegates and electoral votes. That would mean technically every vote would count.

Anyway IMO this election was not a landslide victory for Obama vote by vote considering 46% of those that voted, casted their votes for McCain. Obviously there is quite a bit of opposition to Obama.

For fun, I want to compare the nation as a whole to Americas Debate regarding the election results.........

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry262017

When I did this poll I was interested in seeing if I could figure out with numbers if this website is more conservative or liberal than mainstream America.

Although the poll still might get more votes, as of now 50.00% of the site who voted in this election, and participated in the poll voted for Obama with 18 members saying they voted for Obama to be specific. 5 Members on this site that participated in the poll, including myself, voted for McCain, thats 13.16%.
So far Bob Barr got more votes than McCain from this websites regulars.

Now this poll of mine obviously doesn't include all members on this site that voted in this election by a long shot. But these results are a reflection of the atmosphere generated on this site by our regular posters.

America as a nation voted for Obama by a 6% margin over McCain, The poll I did shows as of now that Americas Debate regulars voted for Obama by 37% margin over McCain. According to the poll, and looking at our regular posters, the number of independents and libertarians combined also outnumbers McCain supporting conservatives.

This helps confirm that the atmosphere generated on this site by our regular posters is considerably more liberal than it is conservative. Now this is just the regular posters as of now, and the results of that poll obviously don't reflect what the results would be if everyone who is registered on the site voted in it, but it helps confirm what I figured since I first joined this site. That the atmosphere here is quite liberal.

Thats not an attack on the site, and hopefully the mods don't mind me launching this opinion, but I thought it would be interesting to mention with more than a wild guess. Like I said in the opening post Its been interesting debating with most of the liberal members here. Ive had as much fun debating here as I have at sites that lean conservative.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 7 2008, 10:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gordo
post Nov 8 2008, 05:23 AM
Post #36


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 864
Member No.: 6,220
Joined: June-28-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



The candidate I picked I voted for over the following issues.

Despite the fact I am unhappy with the democratic party on many issues they are still a far cry better then the republican party will ever be when it comes to any kind of environmental protection really. Its just a simple point that in regards to mainstream politics, such as in which of the two evils, the democrats are historically the only party that supports any kind of green legislation. I know that the EPA was started by a republican, but I have not come to witness any kind of green political thinking coming ever from the GOP.

The handling of the war on terror. I see a connection to resources at play here. I think international security for the U.S should be in the form of energy independence. I think our very survival as a nation depends on this now and into the future. I don't see the GOP as something of a party that will react to fossil fuel well enough to put its use down. I just don't see the hydrocarbon industry ever going away. I think this needs to happen and of course I think its beyond easy to see that this has to occur not only in the private sector but the public one.

I think any realistic strategy to move away from that industry requires the generation of new alternative energies sources. So if I had to pick an administration that would support it I do not think a McCain one would do this, and the only other option I had to cast my vote on was Obama, so I picked Obama because the GOP hates the environment. I also do not think McCain would really change the from the current doctrine for the war on terror, or it would be just the same administration in regards to such.

I guess lastly it would be the economy, which probably has most people stirring. I think its easy to play connect the dots with the economy to this administration for the political side of it. I think its only common sense to make sense of what has been going on, which is steady decay and nothing really going on to stop that. Now with fear and somewhat chaos coming to bear I think my vote for change, ultimately is somewhat in line with most other voters, as in the currant vision has to go. McCain to me again in regards to such a large issue and the fact you only have two sides to vote for, seemed to be someone that would just continue on with the same policy really that could be blamed for much of the current trouble.

So I guess I just balanced it out for myself. I was amazed the green party had some votes, that is pretty neat. I don't belong to the green party but for it to get as many votes as it did is pretty cool.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: May 21st, 2018 - 10:56 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.