Vote for the next U.S. President (citizens only)

[Bob]

Part 2.

U.S. citizens only again please.

I don't think there's really anyone else who's a serious candidate, is there?  There's always those little guys, but they don't end up winning in the end.  I'm guessing it's one of these three then.

[mattgreenecomposer]

Well,  First off, I didnt vote for any of these candidates but unfortunately we are stuck with them.
It will be McCain no question.  He has so many connections, support of the current President, and the democratic party is divided.
Hillary has too many enemies and Obama has shot himself in the foot recently.\

Get ready for your taxes to go up! 

[Bob]

Haha... Not asking if you like them.  Just who you would vote for, or who you think will win.


I will officially predict...

Obama will be president.  Hillary will grudginly accept VP once it becomes apparent the Democrats will lose if she doesn't.  McCain will be steady the whole time, appearing to win near the end until the Democrats unite a little more.  I don't know who McCain would pick as a VP. 


And taxes will always go up.  That's why you should work less and make less.  So you don't have to pay so much in taxes. 

[prometheus]

I don't understand the whole deal about Obama and his preacher. Isn't what that guy said part of US policy for a long time? "They are angry with us because we support their tyrannical governments and we can't do anything about it because it's true and we like to keep it that way."?

[mattgreenecomposer]

"And taxes will always go up.  That's why you should work less and make less.  So you don't have to pay so much in taxes. "

HA HA!  Yea thats a good point...

The Obama thing is an issue because it has to do with race.  For some crazy reason in America if you say anything about a persons ethnicity your a racist.  Its rediculous. 
On the other hand, that preacher is a freak, but what that has to do with Obama I have no idea...

Anyways, they're all criminals, so it doesn't matter who you vote for.  Its a giant machine that turns and turns.  Noone is going to stop it.

[Essyne]

The reason it has something to do w/ Obama is because the guy is on his campaign committee  - - - Obama is guilty by his association w/ Wright. To spend 10 years in a church, to GET MARRIED in that church, then to spend ANOTHER 10 years in that church, and THEN to turn around and say that you have NOT A CLUE as to what your preacher believes ((ESPECIALLY when he's on your campaign committee)) is extremely disingenuous.

The problem w/ Wright's preachings was the fact that he is promoting racism - - - he's not merely "say[ing] anything about a person's ethnicity," mattgreencomposer - - - he's preaching AGAINST whites and PREACHING POLITICS FROM THE PULPIT - - - he claims that "the pulpit is somewhere where we have to persuade people." Well, the last time I checked, it was somewhere to persuade people religiously, not politically.

Last, I think it's funny that Obama is trying to act like he's the innocent guy here - I mean, OPRAH went to that church and GOT OUT as soon as she realized what Wright was up to ((I remember hearing her talk about how she liked whites because they were the ones paying her taxes, or something like that))- - - once again, it's Obama's lack of judgement in the situation - - - if you're going to be a politician, you DON'T get associated w/ those kinds of people.

I'm going to go w/ McCain, because he is very straightforward - - - he's not running on JUDGEMENT like the other candidates - - - you know what he's for/against/what he's ABOUT. . . . there are ppl who say that he's not conservative enough, but I respect the fact that he is wearing (for the most part) his positions on his sleeve. People want a president who will stand up and SAY something. McCain will do just that.

It's interesting ((Because you mentioned it, Bob)) that you talked about McCain's VP . . . I was thinking the same thing - - - I don't know WHO it will be - - - but it better be someone REALLY GOOD, because of his age - - - people will pay extra attn. to his VP candidate . . . .

[slobone]

Wait, are you asking who we think should win or who we think will win? That's not the same question. McCain will win, since the Dems seem to be back in their usual suicide mode after a brief flirtation with success.

Who would I vote for? I guess Obama, but not with much enthusiasm. Like most Americans, I don't want a president who's smarter than I am.

[Essyne]

Wait, are you asking who we think should win or who we think will win? That's not the same question.

lol, yeah . . . that does make a difference (i.e. invalidating my argument  )

I guess Obama, but not with much enthusiasm. Like most Americans, I don't want a president who's smarter than I am.

 

[Bob]

Wait, are you asking who we think should win or who we think will win? That's not the same question. McCain will win, since the Dems seem to be back in their usual suicide mode after a brief flirtation with success.

Who would I vote for? I guess Obama, but not with much enthusiasm. Like most Americans, I don't want a president who's smarter than I am.

Good point, and I don't know.  I guess I was thinking both, except that doesn't make sense.  Who will be the next president?  Who would you vote for?  Who should be the next president?

I guess who would you vote for.  Dang, now I'm all confused.

[mattgreenecomposer]

I dont want this thread to die as the election is  a big deal for us Americans over here but....

This Obama controversy is out of control.  Looks like he's "sunk."  Im suprised because its really not his fault but on the other hand he should have known what his Pastor thinks if he's been around him for 25 years!  So denying it isn't going to be believable and that makes him look even worse because if you arent smart enough to figure out that your pastor is a hate filled racist bastard then your definately not smart enough to be President.

Hillary lost a month ago so looks like McCAin just like a said before.  Which is unfortunate because he's similar to Bush right now.  I think its going to be interesting watching our foreign policy over the next 50 years.  We have such internal issues right now, that I believe we are going to have to pull back soon, even if the politicians don't want too.

[michel dvorsky]

animaniac

mcccainiac

[Essyne]

I was having a conversation today (shocking, I know), and this subject came up. We came to the conclusion that the fact that we have a bunch of wackos running for president just reflects the mentality of our nation. The presidency attracts the "Obamas" and "Hillaries" of the world ((i.e. the morally corrupt)) because Americans are morally corrupt and run on the same mentality. Like attracts like. Bush was not bad in the first year of his presidency, but after that, he went down the toilet, so to speak.



We need another Reagan.

[Bob]

What about McCain's age?  He's like 70-something, isn't he?

[helena37]

McCain should win because he actually is the only candidate that can calm the hyper-partisanship of our country right now. Obama is staunchly pro abortion, anti-gun, protectionist, and partisan(he claims to want to bring people together, but his state and US Senate record show no instances of compromise on any issues with the other side). Hillary is little better, and will inflame the same population that her husband did in his eight years of divisive rule. McCain offers a little good for everyone:he's pro-life and pro-gun but not vehemently so. He wants to win in Iraq, but is against torture, will close Guantanamo, and speaks often of listening to our allies and their advice. He's against drilling in Anwar, pro-environmental protection,and wants to greatly invest in green technologies. Basically, when a candidate has pissed off both the right and the left at various times, you know he's a centrist.  The fact that so much legislation he's worked on bear democrat names in their titles as well (McCain-Lieberman, McCain -Feingold, etc) show he's actually willing to work across the aisle politically.  Neither democrats will bring the US together. A win for either of them will mean 4-8 more years of partisan hatred and ineffective governing. McCain has the ability to win as a republican but not rub the other sides nose in it. I don't trust either democrat to treat their victory with the same restraint. 

[mattgreenecomposer]

Ugghh, McCain is just as bad as everyone else.
Who wants a President that the current President endorses?  We might as well keep Bush in the white house for 4 more years.

Iraq---"I'd be good with occupying Iraq for the next 100 years"---and where will we get the money for this McCain now that the republican Majority house, senate and President has doubled or deficit in 8 years ($9 1/2 trillion)

"Not in favor of torture."  --Thats great! Lets choose to fight a war with harsh language. Jerk.

Fairtax-"I don't support it."---Quite possibly the only way we'll ever stop borrowing money from China.

Illegal Immegration-- "I will secure the border."  thats what every politician for the past 30 years has said, with absolutely no plan to ever actually do anything about it.

BTW-McCain (reluctantly I will give him that) voted for the "economic stimulus package"-  what a joke this idea is.  Anybody who voted for this thing loses my vote instantly.  "Gee...economy slows, lets just print more money." ---$$40 million just to mail it to the people!!!!!

Sorry but I don't like this candidate-

[michel dvorsky]

Iraq---"I'd be good with occupying Iraq for the next 100 years"---and where will we get the money for this McCain now that the republican Majority house, senate and President has doubled or deficit in 8 years ($9 1/2 trillion)

This argument has become the popular refrain of the stupid, uncreative, and uninformed. 

McCain is talking about American troop presence.  Do you also object to the continued American presence in Kuwait?  American troops have been in the DMZ for decades.  If Iraq is stable, a simple American military presence is completely feasible to maintain that stability. 

[mattgreenecomposer]

"This argument has become the popular refrain of the stupid, uncreative, and uninformed."

This maybe true but I am not one of them.  A good friend of mine designs Army bases and is in Iraq and Afgan.  6 months out of the year.  We have troops in 135 countries around the world.  While thats great and all, it costs the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars we don't have every year.  Do we really need troops in Finland right now?  Is it worth the money?   I think not.  I am for a "stable" Iraq/Afgan don't get me wrong.  But its not possible to fight a war and win with 2 hands behind our back and a politically correct news following your every move all day.

BTW-Its coallition forces (27 countries), not just USA over there.  I am not here to discuss the moral issues of the "war" or whatever.  Just that it is not possible to support it b/c we are already bankrupt.  This selling of USA $bonds to foreign nations like China and even Iran is what gives them power over us ....that and their oil.

[mephisto]

"Not in favor of torture."  --Thats great! Lets choose to fight a war with harsh language. Jerk.

I don't like McCain, but I feel the need to answer to this, but telling you what McCain actually feels.

He is against torture. Just as any civilized person should be.
He is for the Iraq was, and supports having american troops there.

So he doesn't think that you will win a war with harsh language. He belivies you can win a war with more soldiers and a more efficient strategy. But he firmly against torture - after having experienced it himself - wich is a good thing.

[lucylucy]

i don't know !
i like george bush !!!
IM LAUGHINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG XDDDD !!!! how could i love this horrible guys !!!
i don't know the other....

[Bob]

(Bob gives lucylucy a chill pill.)

[Essyne]

(she shivers and her lips turn blue)

[dnephi]

DOn't like McCain, but I prefer him to a democrat.

[Essyne]

He is against torture. Just as any civilized person should be.
He is for the Iraq wa[r], and supports having american troops there.

So he doesn't think that you will win a war with harsh language. He belivies you can win a war with more soldiers and a more efficient strategy. But he firmly against torture - after having experienced it himself - wich is a good thing.

I agree, Matt. NO civilized human being enjoys war, let alone torture. You cannot achieve victory with "harsh language" as you say. NO one enjoys war, but it is an unecessary evil.

On a further note, I support the Iraq war because, quite frankly, we are there and cannot leave, lest we have another Vietnam on our hands.

Daniel, agree with you as well. Barack and Hillary are running a race based on judgement. It is not who I WOULD vote for this election; it's who I WOULD NOT vote for. That's sad. Unfortunately, both Dem's are. simply. unacceptable.

McCain.

EDIT : WOAH . . . .just read back on my post here - mean to say it's a NECESSARY EVIL! weird that no one caught that. . . . it has been a while. . . .

[slobone]

He is against torture.

He is? Then why did he vote against the bill that tried to ban it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17torture.html?ref=politics