Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin(Speedsolving Votes)

[Brett]

I cannot vote either, but I'm lobbying both my parents to vote McCain.

McCain is much more consistent on his policies than Obama. Obama has been changing his decision, plan, future, ideals in every speech, depending on where he's giving it. He's trying to please everyone in the most generic "You hate the government now, I'm different vote me" way possible. He's just being unrealistic.

In my opinion McCain isn't the most conservative of people now, which at the time is good for what needs to be done in this economy/"world police" status. (that we need to get rid of, btw)

 

[hawkmp4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
Be careful about who you call inconsistent.

 

[Brett]

First Point Iraq War: He's talking about his own plan as being quick, but the overall process before his plan has been slow.

Second Point, Confederate Flag: 8 years ago he said 2 different things about a flag that hasn't been used in nearly 150 years. Boo hiss. Republicans freed the slaves anyway

Third Point, Religious Right: How is he being inconsistant here? He likes the guy, says the guy "shouldn't be a figure of intolerance" and then has a meeting with him.

Fourth Point, Gay Marriage: He says "if you want to call it that" meaning he doesn't mind if people live together and are couples for life, then 11 minutes later he's more straightforward saying that it should be illegal.

 

[hawkmp4]

First Point Iraq War: He's talking about his own plan as being quick, but the overall process before his plan has been slow.

Second Point, Confederate Flag: 8 years ago he said 2 different things about a flag that hasn't been used in nearly 150 years. Boo hiss. Republicans freed the slaves anyway

Third Point, Religious Right: How is he being inconsistant here? He likes the guy, says the guy "shouldn't be a figure of intolerance" and then has a meeting with him.

Fourth Point, Gay Marriage: He says "if you want to call it that" meaning he doesn't mind if people live together and are couples for life, then 11 minutes later he's more straightforward saying that it should be illegal.

No, he's saying at first that the war and invasion would be quick and easy, then he says that it will not be easy but that the American people were led to believe that it would be, also stating that "many of us understood from the very beginning" that it would be a very very difficult undertaking.

With the flag, he says its offensive in many ways, a symbol of racism and slavery. But then he says he believes its a symbol of heritage.
And let me remind you- though they were called Republicans, at the time the Republican party was liberal, Democrats were conservative.

McCain says that no one should be pandering to the far left or far right, then he goes and does exactly that. Do as I say, not as I do..?

"Do you think gay marriage should be allowed?"
"I think that gay marriage should be allowed..."
11 minutes later-
"I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal."

Usually, if a national politician talks about something being allowed, he means that its legal, yeah?

 

[MistArts]

Barr/Root

the democlicans and republicrats both suck

Too bad the other people don't get much attention.

 

[ExoCorsair]

Ah yes for sure, but following other religious people like sheep doesn't follow. Just because generally Christians vote conservative, it doesn't mean that you should (I mean, just look at Bush, I'm sure most Christians would agree he was a bad choice).

I doubt most educated people follow religious beliefs blindly, as [American] society is stressing less and less on religion.

You can say that now because of what has happened in the past eight years. However, Bush is a much better choice than Kerry. Also, based on how Gore has turned out, it is a good thing that Bush was elected.

Also, Bush is not a terrible president; not as bad as, say, Buchanan or Johnson, and certainly not as useless as Garfield or Harrison. But history will tell.

 

[Lofty]

Vote Nader!
on topic: unfortunately i didnt get my voters registration in on time to be able to vote int he election. And honestly idk if either of them are attractive enough for me to want to vote for them. And by attractive im not commenting on physical appreance like the above posters lol.
It'll be an interesting election. Either a black individual or a women... hmmm.
idk. My opinions havent matured enough for me to feel comfortable backing either of them. I suppose as a conservative evangelical Christian. I'm supposed to jump on McCain's bus but I haven't decided my opinion on most of the "important issues".

You should be careful Mr. Loftus. Religious views should not affect your political reason. Do you really want to back the team that sends your country into war and gets your economy in billions of dollars of debt, for nothing but lost lives?

EDIT: I put Obama, but I'm in New Zealand and voting National (National are technically conservative, but in New Zealand both major political parties are effectively bang on center.

I know. I'm trying to decide whether I want to be libertarian or not because obviously all my Christian morals couldn't and shouldn't be enforced on other people by the govt. But like I said I haven't put enough thought into my opinion to really have one.
Religion should of course affect who I vote for by providing my with morals and such like that. But I would vote for someone with with good policy and a different religion over bad policy and the same religion as me.

 

[Lotsofsloths]

McCain choose Palin only to get the Hillary vote.
If McCain kicks the bucket(he is 72!!), our President will be a person who's only experience would be governing a state with less than 700,000 people.
I find that just plain scary.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

McCain choose Palin only to get the Hillary vote.
If McCain kicks the bucket(he is 72!!), our President will be a person who's only experience would be governing a state with less than 700,000 people.
I find that just plain scary.

Yea, because those 3 years Obama served in the senate while he spent two of them running for president is just soooooooooo experienced. As a governer Palin actually did things like veto bills and pass budgets. Obama has yet to do ANYTHING in his political career that qualifies him for an executive job.

 

[Bryan]

McCain choose Palin only to get the Hillary vote.
If McCain kicks the bucket(he is 72!!), our President will be a person who's only experience would be governing a state with less than 700,000 people.
I find that just plain scary.

Yea, because those 3 years Obama served in the senate while he spent two of them running for president is just soooooooooo experienced. As a governer Palin actually did things like veto bills and pass budgets. Obama has yet to do ANYTHING in his political career that qualifies him for an executive job.

Bingo! Palin has experience being a leader of government. While it isn't a huge state, it's still running a state. Obama's camp wants to make note that she use to be mayor of a town, but ignore the governor position. When Obama has done nothing.

But yeah, if I had to choose betwen a unexperienced VP versus an unexperienced president, I'll choose the unexperienced VP.

And if someone is going to gain experienced on the job, it's much better to have a VP gain experience on the job than the president. And unless McCain dies the first day in office, I'm sure Palin would do fine. Also, McCain has passed a clean bill of health.

For those of you voting for Obama, are you actually of voting age? Or are you just buying in to the Obama hype? Seriously, he's all talk.

 

[qqwref]

I doubt most educated people follow religious beliefs blindly, as [American] society is stressing less and less on religion.

While this may be true, there are still quite a lot of people who are not well-educated and who DO follow religious beliefs blindly. And of course by their very existence they become an important voting block in Democracy.

You can say that now because of what has happened in the past eight years. However, Bush is a much better choice than Kerry. Also, based on how Gore has turned out, it is a good thing that Bush was elected.

Also, Bush is not a terrible president; not as bad as, say, Buchanan or Johnson, and certainly not as useless as Garfield or Harrison. But history will tell.

I don't agree. Kerry might not have been a good choice, but I'm confident that Gore would have done at least some things better than Bush. Even if you don't believe the things Gore says, his environmental activism shows that he does care about the environment and is willing to spend time improving the Earth, something Bush doesn't do at all, and it would be entirely reasonable to argue that taking care of the environment is more important than almost any other action the President could take (since the effects of serious environmental damage would last for much longer and affect more people than war or economic policies). It's not okay to have a President who's effectively working for oil companies. Gore also had several years' experience being in the White House at the time that he ran, so he would have at least been able to get off to a good start, and the experience also means he probably wouldn't destroy the economy like Bush seems to have done.

Of course Bush is a terrible president - the fact that politicians from his own party are trying to show they're not like him should be clear evidence of this. Just because other people were worse doesn't make him suddenly capable: we expect a certain level of competence from anyone elected to such a high office, and any President who shows he doesn't know what he's doing will be remembered as a bad one. Also, having actual negative effects is way worse than being useless. Would you rather a stranger steals $1000 from you or leaves you alone? (By the way - don't blame Garfiend and Harrison, they had less than six months in the office!).

 

[DavidWoner]

Bob Barr and Wayne Root.

high-five!

Barr/Root

the democlicans and republicrats both suck

high-five again!

If I could vote (turning 18 in April of next year )...
I would consider voting for McCain.
The REAL McCain. The REAL maverick- but he's not the same man he was 4 years ago, and especially not 8 years ago. He's sold himself out to the conservatives, he's just another lackey now. There are no fundamental differences between his policies and the Neocon agenda.
That is not McCain. And so, I must support Obama.

agreed mccain used to be a good candidate, but now he blows.

 

[hawkmp4]

I'm still disappointed that Bill Richardson didn't get the nomination. his experience blows McCain and Obama out of the water...

 

[Tim_Likes_Cubing]

Obama FTW!
I read some thing on Palin - they sound like the worst vice-president ever!

 

[Hadley4000]

The man who is intelligent. Has 1 house. Doesn't have his nose up George Bush's ass.

I could go on. I might post my 8 page pro-Obama/anti-McPain blog at some point here.

 

[Dene]

I don't think Bush would have been a better candidate than a single other person qualified enough to do the job in the entire world. You have to see him from an outside perspective to understand how the rest of the world feels about him. Let's see: Since Bush has been president there has been a huge war in Afghanistan (possibly not his fault), a huge war in Iraq (all his fault), a huge rise in American Debt (mainly his fault), millions of innocent people dead (all his fault), the biggest threat of world war 3 to date (mainly his fault), another cold war about to start (perhaps not his fault, but what is he doing about it?)
The simple truth is, everyone outsie of America hates Bush, and blames him for pointless killing. Would another president have done the same...?

 

[Ethan Rosen]

"You know, I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people."

-Barack Obama
November 8, 2004

 

[hawkmp4]

Obama may not have the experience McCain does. But Obama is in touch with the America, and world, of today.
McCain has experience, but I'm not exactly sure what he's in touch with... I keep getting reminded of Albert Einstein's quote...
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

 

[Kurzeja]

Obama may not have the experience McCain does. But Obama is in touch with the America, and world, of today.
McCain has experience, but I'm not exactly sure what he's in touch with... I keep getting reminded of Albert Einstein's quote...
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

McCain is not the same as Bush. They disagree on a great number of issues.

Obama may be in touch with Americans, but McCain is in touch with reality. Most Americans don't know anything about politics, and thats all they hear is that Obama and the Democrats are going to give them free stuff. Obama is just pandering to the ignorant, greedy, and lazy, by telling them that he is going make the achievers pay their "fair share" and make everyone equal. He is making the tax payers pay for his votes.

 

[hawkmp4]

McCain is not the same as Bush. They disagree on a great number of issues.

Like...? Any of importance, at all?