Who are you voting for?

[Stumpy]

Ron Paul...

 

[VaGent]

I remember Bill Clinton. Hell, I was on a security detail for him and Al Gore when they both came to Cleveland in the 90's. During that time, we had a zero deficit and a good economy.

IMO, Al Gore should have won back in 2000 and we wouldn't even be dealing with Bush. I don't know how you can win the popular vote by so much but lose the election by 5 electoral votes. That should have been the year that everyone learned that your vote actually counts.

GW Bush "bought" that election IMO & I firmly believe the court's vote's were paid for with BIG MONEY by those who wanted Bush in office no matter what they had to do. We will never know the truth but you are very observant over the electoral votes. BIG OIL & BIG BUSINESS wanted Bush in office for a reason & I'll always believe they got him in office by paying out BIG DOLLARS. And over the past 8 yrs Bush has done everything to make sure BIG BUSINESS WINS at any costs. And those costs today are being paid by you & me & everyone who lives & works in the USA. Just take a look at the national debt. Never in the history of this country have we owed so much money & it's all taken place since Bush became president.

Obama keeps telling us we need change & I agree but what really bothers me about him is the fact he has never once even stated how he would go about changing things or what he would change.

 

[Jim Oaks]

Ya, it's ironic how that election came down to the votes in Florida where George's brother was Governor. IIRC, there was to be a recount of the votes in Florida because it was so close and the court ruled that the recount would be unconstitutional.

 

[Totalled]

Ya, it's ironic how that election came down to the votes in Florida where George's brother was Governor. IIRC, there was to be a recount of the votes in Florida because it was so close and the court ruled that the recount would be unconstitutional.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Basically... Bush sued stating a recount and subsequently, Al Gore winning the election would cause "irreparable harm: to GW. So, the Supreme court ruled in his favor and the recount was stopped.

IMO, the best candidates from both parties were ignored by the corporate run media, for the "rock star" historic candidates... and we got what the media wanted us to have...

I'm sure as **** not voting for the neocon..

 

[Carlos Murphy]

vote, none of the above

I'm all for digging up Regan, ANY of the weak ass, self serving basTURDS now running will do nothing but screw the us in their "business as usual" manor.

The only difference between Clinton and Obama is that Obama has even LESS experance in running anything than Clinton...

 

[Speedwagon]

I think you fail history class. The electoral college is not required to vote the same as the popular majority vote. If 95% of the people voted for Al Gore, the electoral college is still well within their rights to put Bush in office. They don't normally do such a thing, but they can. Federally at least, this is the case. On a state by state basis, things may be different, as each state has the option to make an electoral college voter, vote as pledged.

So even IF people were paid off(which would be wrong), they can still vote however they want. Which means you can't say Bush didn't legitametly win, just because popular vote points in the other direction. If you can prove that he was bought into office, that's a different story.

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

How do you know how things were when Bill was President? You were under 10 years old. Two things that make success, being in the right place at the right time. Clinton came into office when the PC revolution was just beginning, then in 1994 the republicans became the majority in congress for the first time in a million years. The economy went wild, and he had absolutely nothing to do with it unless you accept the fact that he was leaving it alone while his only interest was in getting his weenie washed.

Also, W isn't going against the will of all the people. Not everything is as cut and dried as it may seem as you will learn as you get older. shady

Yeah, and they singlehandedly shut down foreign policy because Jesse Helms had a fit over operational money needed to support embassies around the world. In fact, the lights went off in most of them since we didn't pay the electric bills. Nice.

Republicant's had as little to do with the economy as the president. The dot com boom was taking off and everyone was riding along with it, at least until it went boom (no pun intended). Although I do give credit to both sides by managing to pass welfare reform. Finest example of bipartisan politics in a long time.

Also, GW now has the lowest rating of any U.S. president in history. It takes skill to beat a guy who killed native americans and stole their land

I think you fail history class. The electoral college is not required to vote the same as the popular majority vote. If 95% of the people voted for Al Gore, the electoral college is still well within their rights to put Bush in office. They don't normally do such a thing, but they can. Federally at least, this is the case. On a state by state basis, things may be different, as each state has the option to make an electoral college voter, vote as pledged.

So even IF people were paid off(which would be wrong), they can still vote however they want. Which means you can't say Bush didn't legitametly win, just because popular vote points in the other direction. If you can prove that he was bought into office, that's a different story.

It varies state to state. Some states have forced contract where the electoral college is required to vote based on the popular vote, and other states' electoral colleges can vote however they want.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Also, GW now has the lowest rating of any U.S. president in history. It takes skill to beat a guy who killed native americans and stole their land

They were still doing that in the 30's when they started the approval rating polls? Besides, at the time when that was going on most of the people that would have been bothered by the govt stealing the native americans land was the native americans... and they were not even citizans. The general population was all for cheap land and the chance to start a new life.

In the United States, presidential job approval ratings were introduced by George Gallup in the late 1930s (probably 1937) to gauge public support for the president during his presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_approval_rating

 

[snake]

I remember Bill Clinton. Hell, I was on a security detail for him and Al Gore when they both came to Cleveland in the 90's. During that time, we had a zero deficit and a good economy.

Wrong... We have had deficits for YEARS and no "balanced" budget in many decades. We spent BILLIONS of dollars a DAY more than we take in and have damn near forever. Been getting worse every year, even thru billyboob's tenure in office. That "balanced" budget was a very easily verifyable LIE. Nowadays no one is responsible for themselves, so it continues to get worse. Every natural disaster we pay for it, foreign or domestic. We bail everyone out, now we are going to fix the sub prime thing with borrowed tax money? What BS!! Don't beileve for a second we had a balanced budget in recent history despite what the clinton news network (CNN) says...

 

[gw33gp]

Obama may be inexperienced but I think he has a cool enough head to make the most right decisions. He has my vote.

 

[VaGent]

Obama may be inexperienced but I think he has a cool enough head to make the most right decisions. He has my vote.

What you have to be concerned about it what are the "right" decisions he will make. IMO there are far too many "unanswered" questions about things he has stated to suit me. He keeps talking about "change" & I agree we need to make some serious changes inside the Beltway. But what I want to know is what changes he is wanting to make, for whom they are going to effect & for what reason is he going to be making them. To say we need change is one thing. To NOT describe what those changes are & how he is going to go about changing them is another story. I have yet to hear him "confirm" on any subject how he plans to go about doing this CHANGE he is talking about.

And least anyone ever doubt it, do not ever think that Obama can do whatever he decides to do if he gets in the White House. Checks & Balances in our system do prevent that sort of thing to at least some degree. Bush & Cheney have done everything short of call out the troops on the US citizens to try & get their way on a lot of things. I have watched as well as the rest of you guys as we have lost a lot of FREEDOMS we had before 911 & many things Bush & Cheney wanted they have not been able to have. At least that is what we are being told anyway. Never since I was born & became old enough to know what was going on in this country have I ever seen the American Public LIED to in a total unabashed way as it has been with the present Administration. They have "thumbed" their noses up at us all on more then on occassion.

All I can say is I am very "leery" or Obama, his motives, his agenda, his followers & his methods of bringing about all this change he has been talking about. Only time will.

One piece of interesting infromation I have learned about but you don't hear much talk about it on the news. Are you guys aware of the fact that Obama's "security force" is much larger then the one Bush uses when he is out of the White House going around the country? I'll see if I can find the link to the articel & post it later. But the article is not the only way I heard about it either. AM I SURPRISED by hearing about this? Not in the least. With a name like OBAMA in this day & time it doesn't surprise me at all. Not that I think he is so scared but MORE like certain people or groups of people want to make sure he is not harmed in any way. Think about it.

 

[shadetree]

Yeah, and they singlehandedly shut down foreign policy because Jesse Helms had a fit over operational money needed to support embassies around the world. In fact, the lights went off in most of them since we didn't pay the electric bills. Nice.

I would be interested to know where you got this little tidbit of information. I don't remember anyone shutting down foriegn policy. But being that you were only 10 years old at the time, maybe your memory is better than mine. I don't know what Helms has to do with this conversation anyway.

Republicant's had as little to do with the economy as the president. The dot com boom was taking off and everyone was riding along with it, at least until it went boom (no pun intended).

When the republicans became the majority in 94, this was seen by businesses as a business friendly group of lawmakers, and felt the restrictions and intrusions of the democrats in the past would now not be a hindrance.

Also, GW now has the lowest rating of any U.S. president in history.

According to W he wasn't elected to be popular so is not worried about ratings. He does what he thinks best. I don't think we have been targeted by terrorists since 9-11, so he is doing his job.

It takes skill to beat a guy who killed native americans and stole their land

Native americans did their share of killing and stealing, so it is not as one sided as you would think. shady

 

[pillen140]

I
According to W he wasn't elected to be popular so is not worried about ratings. He does what he thinks best. I don't think we have been targeted by terrorists since 9-11, so he is doing his job.

Native americans did their share of killing and stealing, so it is not as one sided as you would think. shady

that was his defense for failure. thats like shitting your pants and saying you did it on purpose.

and wasnt this the natives land first? if someone came to my land(usa!) to take over, i would fight to the death.... wouldnt you?

 

[Carlos Murphy]

Lib

Obama may be inexperienced but I think he has a cool enough head to make the most right decisions. He has my vote.

He's just another liberal dumbercrat, none of those fuckers do whats best for our country, only what they see as good for their party and their pockets.

Clinton would be bad but Obama would be worst and I can't say ANYTHING good about McCain, for all the good he's done in congress he should have stayed in Nam...

 

[pillen140]

"if you have any white friends, get a whooow proeghoaihgao!"