Presidential Election 2008 - Who are you voting for?

<p>Mitt Romney.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I don't know about the other guy, but I never doubted personally that Ron Paul purely speaks his mind. His ideas, however, is where the problem lies for me personally. Congressman Paul is clearly bordering on quixotic with his plans for how this country should be run. As for mindlessly following the "Ron Paul bashing squad", it seems the flocks of fanatical blogosphere Ron Paul supporters are the pot calling the kettle black. I've been to Ron Paul's campaign website numerous times and looked him over at On the Issues (<a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ontheissues.org/&lt;/a&gt;), and I'm hardly convinced of this guy's greatness. Besides, I can trash whomever I please. </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Wow, that's even worse than what Bill Richardson said at the Democrat HRC/Logo debate "Homosexuality is a choice, but it's not an issue of science".</p>

<p>My favourites are Hillary, then Richardson, then Obama. I'll probably vote for whoever the Democrat is.</p>

<p>Out of all the Republicans I probably like Ron Paul the most because I know if he gets the ticket then the Democrat will definitely win! Lol</p>

<p>Pyar, you must be kidding. If Paul had a Carter-like rise and got the GOP nomination, he would be the next president. Why? Obviously he'd have his party vote, including from the religious right, because his values are much closer to his than to any Democrat. Then he would get most of the independent vote, because his economic conservatism and social liberalism match the general trend within the independent community. And he'd probably steal a few Democrats, since there will be many too ****ed to back their own party depending on who wins their nomination.</p>

<p>I am realistic about the presidential race and realize that my vote, which is typically right leaning, won't matter in my electoral district (DC), so I'm writing in who I believe would be the best president the country will have seen since FDR and Teddy Roosevelt.</p>

<p>GEN Colin Powell.</p>

<p>Or I may vote for Giuliani or Richardson, but Powell is my main choice</p>

<p>Obama is the smartest, most honest, most creative, most capable, most thoughtful, most moral, least extreme candidate. These qualities make him ideal, not an idealist. He's an optimistic realist and I hope I have the opportunity to vote for him. Give me an Oxy/Harvard educated, U of Chicago prof over any of the others.</p>

<p>I support Ron Paul, however, I see one big thing and one small thing that is wrong with him and would probably cost him the vote:</p>

<p>The big thing:
All his policies are good in theory, but most of them need to be tweaked better for implementation. For example, I'm 100% behind the fair tax, if it's implemented correctly. (Briefly, the fair tax would become a consumption tax rather than an income tax. Taxing what people buy rather than what people make.) The poor need to be subsidized more than $500 a month and there needs to be restrictions on buying items outside the country. This is just an example, but his ideas over all make sense.</p>

<p>The small thing:
His idea of returning to the Gold standard is out of date. Maybe a few hundred years ago with some planning it could have worked, but inflation is too high and gold is too inefficient.</p>

<p>The worst canidate I can say would be Hillary. She's got too much s**t just waiting to hit the fan and I don't think will be capable to lead the country just because of her past and the fact that she's a woman.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Out of all the Republicans I probably like Ron Paul the most because I know if he gets the ticket then the Democrat will definitely win! Lol

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What? Face it, the only Republican candidate that can beat the Democrats is Ron Paul. When the time comes for a Democrat to debate Ron Paul, Ron Paul will blow that person out of the water.</p>

<p>For the record, I subscribe to realpolitik. I don't care if politicians lie or not, provided that the politician has a good reason to lie and truly believes that lying is the only means to get a policy across (unfortunately Bush did not). And Richard Nixon is probably one of my favorite presidents of the last century, irrespective of Watergate. (if I could pick a favorite 3, they'd probably be Teddy, Nixon, and Clinton)</p>

<p>But my values are different from the values of any one of the candidates (actually for the most part I do agree with tokyorevelation9, but I don't think that direct approaches are the best approaches in combating terrorism and I'm in favor of much stronger laissez-faire approaches to education than anyone proposes), so I'm abstaining (if I ever am motivated enough to cast a ballot, I'm casting a write in one for Koko the gorilla). Or maybe just Edward O. Wilson</p>

<p>I was being sarcastic people... I do like Ron Paul, and I would vote for him if I didn't like any of the Democrats.</p>

<p>I'd vote for Ron Paul. And he's not completely unrealistic either. Few people vote in the primaries (compared to the general election). Ron Paul's supporters are very active... they will be voting. And RP did win the Kansas Republican Straw Poll 79-0. Also, note that in that room there was a great number of people who had changed over to the republican party for the sole purpose of voting for RP. </p>

<p>YouTube</a> - 2008 Republican Caucus & Straw Poll 12/07/07 Part8</p>

<p>Oh, and Republicans canceled the San Fransisco straw poll because too many Ron Paul supporters showed up. RP2008!</p>

<p>We have to look at it realistically; we're going to have a republican president almost gaurenteed unless something big happens.</p>

<p>Let me explain,
Hillary and Obama are pulling as the front runners. In a democratic sense, one of them are going to get the primary. If that's so, it's almost certain that the other is not just going to drop out of the race. Thereby, splitting the democratic vote.</p>

<p>An independent will just not win.</p>

<p>And the democrats aren't going to be big enough to handle a split vote into the presidency.</p>

<p>Therefore, a republican will win.</p>

<p>Wow... first if youre a democrat or support the democrat party and say you would vote for Ron Paul if you didn't like the democrat nominee then you probably can't read or write. He is the opposite of a democrat, he wants to abolish government programs, services, and agencies while democrats seek to add services. Anyone who said that is an idiot and should not talk about politics. Its one thing to like someone its another to agree with what the believe in. I think Huckabee is awesome but I would never vote for him. Joe Biden is the most qualified, prestigious, and respectable candidate</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hillary and Obama are pulling as the front runners. In a democratic sense, one of them are going to get the primary. If that's so, it's almost certain that the other is not just going to drop out of the race. Thereby, splitting the democratic vote.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your logic makes no sense. None of the candidates have ever mentioned that they would run as an independent if they failed to gain the nomination. No vote is going to get split here; it's going to be Democrat vs. Republican as always.</p>

<p>I withdraw my support from Guiliani after what he said in response to Huckabee's remarks. He believes "the acts, not the orientation" are sinful. Give me a break. Because I cannot support McCain as a presidential candidate, that most likely means I'm voting Democrat. At a second glance maybe Clinton's not so bad.</p>

<p>hm maybe I got tired of reading all the post but I seem to have miss the post where someone said they're a democrat or supporting the democratic party and will be voting for Ron Paul as comingsoon11 stated. First off I could support a Republican or Democrat or even a Libertarian. While I have few guiding political beliefs, I choose rather to vote for a person who I believe can make the difference. I'm not one to stop listening to another's idea just because it's different. No one is always right and sometimes it takes a mixture of different politicians to solve problems. </p>

<p>And also Theyus I'm sorry but your theory is nonsense and it borders on stupidity. There will be a Democratic President or a Liberal Republican President such as Giuliani.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I actually believe you took that out of context, and I don't think Rudy meant that homosexual intercourse is a sin. The link to the article which mentions that interview, which is on FoxNews.com and Forbes among many, is available here: Huckabee</a> Stands by AIDS Statement - Forbes.com</p>

<p>Mayor Giuliani has always separated his personal and religious views from his executive and legal duties, and the only view on the Gay Rights agenda he doesn't support is gay marriage, and I for one believe that changing a social institution that has been around for centuries when fair legal equivalents exist is just an unnecessary measure which causes and will continue to cause unwanted division.</p>

<p>uhh tokyo, isn't rudy sympathetic to illegal immigration?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your logic makes no sense. None of the candidates have ever mentioned that they would run as an independent if they failed to gain the nomination. No vote is going to get split here; it's going to be Democrat vs. Republican as always.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In an idealistic world, my logic doesn't make sense. In the political world, it makes perfect sense.
Say Obama gets the primary (Most likely), if Hilary Drops out of the race, that's the end of her political career, at least as a democrat. She's pulled so many people down trying to climb up, no one will associate with her. She's smart enough to at least know that. So, she'll run independent, because otherwise, she's out of her own game. (She could pull a Gore and just pop up to annoy the public sporadically.)</p>

<p>Say Hilary gets the primary. If Obama drops, no big deal.But he has so much momentum and charisma it would be unlikely he would lightly back down. He could easily run independent and have potential.</p>

<p>When you look at it from an individual "Cover my ass" stand point that real world politics usually take rather than the Utilitarian "Good for the group" care bear decisions that ideally would happen, my logic makes sense.</p>

<p>Of course, there could be a republican independent that splits the vote.</p>

<p>tokyorevelation9: Ron Paul is definitely delusional on a few issues, such as environmental policy, getting rid of the Fed, certain aspects of his tax policy, and (imo) his stance on abortion.</p>

<p>But your other criticisms of him were depressingly superficial and misguided. They were made even more depressing when you then referred to Giuliani as "light-years ahead of the other neo-con ilk like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson in knowing whats best for our country."</p>

<p>Giuliana is one of the most neoconservative candidate in the primary. He's just not the most socially conservative. The two are completely different. I find it kind of an indictment of your opinions as a whole that you're not aware of this distinction.</p>

<p>So</a>, what is a 'neocon'? - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review</p>

<p>This article from the Pittsburgh Trib about neo-conservative views is pretty good about summing up what "neocon" means, from a variety of perspectives. Of course its not a uniform philosophy, but I believe that Mayor Giuliani does not have very much in common with neo-conservative general positions, especially the concerns about social morality and the need to shape society to some kind of moral ideal. Also, unlike Romney and Huckabee, he doesn't feel the need to define himself as a religious zealot or a champion of Christendom. He also is much more concerned about the expansion and the efficiency of government than his Republican colleagues. </p>

<p>Therefore, 1of42, I have to disagree with you about your assessment of my understanding of politics. </p>

<p>Oh, and InqulineKea, Mayor Giuliani strongly advocates securing the border and stopping illegal immigration to the US, but he also believe that the ones here cannot be ignored by our government, as it leads to bigger problems with poverty, the "outsider" phenomenon which increases crime and violence, etc. Rudy</a> Giuliani on the Issues</p>