Who do you support in 08?

<p>"I'll take anyone over Hillary, even Guiliani if necessary."
I'm definitely no Hillary fan, mainly because of her pro-war vote a few years back, which she hasn't sufficiently apologized for--in my humble opinion. Otherwise, I'm not sure why so many people seem to despise her. Can someone enlighten me? </p>

<p>"Edwards is the biggest hypocrite. His championing for the poor and the environment rings hollow when wants Americans to give up their SUVs while he's building a 28,000 sq. ft. house and getting $400 haircuts."
Agreed, though I believe he's also done some good work on behalf of the poor. I think very few politicians would be willing to take a vow of poverty in order to help the less fortunate. ... But a 28,000 sq. ft. house admittedly seems ludicrous, as does a $400 haircut. ... As for Guiliani, he can sit right there alongside Edwards on the hypocrite pedestal, except, he's arguably far worse. Don't forget this is the "family values" Republican who moved his mistress (now his third wife) into the Governor's mansion while still married to his second wife, and who notified that second wife of his divorce intentions in a press conference, for crying out loud! ... How could you forgive him that and not give Edwards a pass on a ridiculously expensive haircut?</p>

<p>^ Haha, basically it comes down to who will best support my beliefs and values. I'm more of a libertarian. I want less government and free markets. The Dems don't support this. Personal lives don't really matter, and I think govt. should be less involved in peoples' lives. I don't agree with Republican stance on abortion and gay rights - who cares.</p>

<p>I'm not happy with the Republican candidates, but those two candidates have the best shot at winning the campaign. I'd like to hear more about Fred Thompson's platform before making a final decision.</p>

<p>Um, just because Edwards is rich doesn't make him a hypocrite. He can still vote policies that aid the poor (ie tax cuts, education subsidies, social programs, etc). </p>

<p>What do you want Edwards to do, give away all his money? </p>

<p>Rockefeller was one of the wealthiest men ever, and he was also a huge philanthropist. It is possible to be both rich and a champion for the poor.</p>

<p>Also, the Republican platform for the last 10 years has involved just as much big government as the democratic platform. </p>

<p>Quite frankly, I think free markets are dumb (for America). They strangle the lower class and lead to huge trade losses.</p>

<p>^ That's my big problem with Edwards...I don't like huge tax burdens and large social programs.</p>

<p>But Edwards has come out and said he's an environmentalist and wants Americans to give up their SUVs. He goes and builds a 28,000 sq. ft. house in North Carolina...try heating and cooling his house and how much CO2 is emitted! My opinion of Edwards is he's a power hungry ambulance chaser, that has made millions by appealing to stupid, sympathetic juries. He has probably single handedly raised insurance costs for everyone with all his lawsuits.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, the Republican platform for the last 10 years has involved just as much big government as the democratic platform.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with you. The Bush administration has been most disappointing in this record.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Quite frankly, I think free markets are dumb (for America). They strangle the lower class and lead to huge trade losses.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Free markets and capitalism are not fair, but we are all better off when markets are allowed to work freely.</p>

<p>John Edwards is where it is at.</p>

<p>dood, i get the idea that freedom can exist in a market. and i think you do honestly believe that we're freer in an open market. the problem is that workers have no real freedom in the market place, and poor have no recourse for balancing factors outside the market (historic racism, inadequate access to education, bad infrastructure etc.).</p>

<p>The thing is, there's no economies that help the poor in the free market, everything is set in a free market to keep the poor poor through debt and an unhealthy cycle of labor. you should read barbara erenreich's (sp?) "Nickel and Dimed" about wage labor.</p>

<p>Also, the government is necessary, even in the market. taxes and regulations are investments and rules that are necessary to keep the market running (taxes fund roads and schools that make for transportation and better workers) and rules (in the form of regulations) are necessary to prevent the abuses that capitialism inherently creates (if you're not exploiting the lower classes, then someone else will, and they'll be more profitable than you and push you out of business--i.e...walmart).</p>

<p>in the end, the argument won't be settled, but rests on our notions of freedom. is freedom sheerly economic? those that fall through the cracks of the market die naturally? or is freedom present in shared prosperity and true equality to make up for history and the an attempt to alter the nature of man to be better?</p>

<p>mine is the latter.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I like Ron Paul but I know there is no way he'll get enough votes... it'll be like voting for Ralph Nader.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey at least vote for him in the primaries</p>

<p>
[quote]
Obama just announced his brilliant idea to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Man, if only someone else thought of that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Too bad Bio-Weapons are 1,000 times more dangerous...</p>

<p>Ron Paul is psychotic. People are getting caught up in his ideas simply because he has worked well to present a message of "maverick" and "visionary." You might respect Paul's foreign policy, but his domestic initiatives are lunacy. And he does too vote with his party -- analysis shows he does so 80% of the time. Hardly a line-crossing unpredictable.</p>

<p>Here's a quote from a group I'm part of, that reconstructs Paul's extreme right-wing ideas:</p>

<h2>
[quote]
1. Eliminating public institutions of higher learning by privatizing the entire system, stubbornly voting against all measures to increase public funding of universities.</h2>

<h2>2. Destroying free public education at all levels K-12 and beyond (i.e. abolish the dept. of education, arguing that that all education should be a privately-owned venture, advocating home-schooling, opposing all public spending initiatives, eroding funding by eliminating taxes on the wealthy)</h2>

<h2>3. Staunchly opposing Universal Health Care and in favor of further privatizing an already corrupt corporate system that rakes in billions in profits for its ownership while close to 50 million Americans are uninsured and those that are insured get screwed, dropped or drowned in extremely costly co-pays and premiums.</h2>

<h2>4. Worsening the student debt crisis by further gutting (I say 'further gutting' because Bush and his GOP congress made putative cuts in 2005) programs like Pell Grants and Stafford Loans (put in place by LBJ) and giving even more of the student loan system over to a (corrupt, as we've seen from recent revelations in NY) billion-dollar private racket. Students in France and the UK strike over tuition increases and fight for grants and the abolition of loans... Ron Paul thinks we should slash all of it and only have private lenders who generate profits from college students' inability to afford high-priced tuition.</h2>

<h2>5. Destroying the environment: in the 109th Congress alone, he voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.</h2>

<h2>6. Destroying the progressive income tax (reverting to the regressive system in place during the Gilded Age), letting the rich get out of paying their fair share and depleting funding for social goods. On Ron Paul’s view, it’s ‘communistic and against liberty’ for Bill Gates to be expected to pay higher taxes than working-class single mothers.</h2>

<h2>7. Supporting right-wing anti-choice laws and stripping women of reproductive rights.</h2>

<h2>8. Opposing Church-State Separation: From keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this "strict constitutionalist" isn't a big fan of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. “Separation of Church and State”, on his view, is something that left-liberals simply made up from whole cloth.</h2>

<h2>9. Supports the repeal of public programming like NPR, PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.</h2>

<h2>10. Supporting right-wing anti-immigration legislation. Opposes building a wall, but only because that would require ‘big government’, otherwise presumably erecting a wall would be a great idea for this xenophobic nativist.</h2>

<h2>11. Opposing worker's rights and virulently against workers organizing themselves against exploitative employers (has consistently voted against Employee Free Choice Act.)</h2>

<h2>12. Fervently opposes raising the minimum wage, in favor of abolishing the minimum wage altogether (a standard libertarian belief.) Let me repeat this one more time: Ron Paul argues that we should abolish the minimum wage altogether.</h2>

<h2>13. Repealing Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and every other social program put in place since the New Deal.</h2>

<ol>
<li>etc, etc, etc...</li>
</ol>

<p>Yes, Ron Paul is against the Iraq War, and so are Pat Buchanan and David Duke. The fact that he is against the Iraq war alone isn’t enough to actually make the guy worth a second look. He's also not the only person running for president who is advocating withdrawal (Kucinich (D) and Gravel (D), both of whom also have no chance of receiving a nomination, both advocate immediate withdrawal.) His non-interventionist position on Iraq cannot be a compelling reason to suspend judgment about the lunacy of his other positions.</p>

<h2>"But he's consistent throughout his whole career!" They will say. Yes, we agree, but since when is being consistently wrong about everything that matters a good thing?</h2>

<p>According to most major polls, Ron is pulling either " - " or "1-2%" among Republicans.</p>

<p>As a Congressman, Ron Paul (R-TX) has voted with his party nearly 80% of the time, which places him firmly within the bounds of a "rank-and-file-Republican".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Too bad Bio-Weapons are 1,000 times more dangerous...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>and too bad you can't get rid of all the nuclear weapons, nor would that be in the US's best interest.</p>

<p>
[quote]
true equality

[/quote]
</p>

<p>equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? I definitely support working towards equality of opportunity.</p>

<p>On a sheer basis of platform, my allegiance lies with Clinton, personally.</p>

<p>After, I would say it goes Edwards, then Obama.</p>

<p>As for the Republicans, I hope Giuliani gets the nomination because at least in the case of a democratic defeat, we wouldn't be saddled with a raging conservative nutjob in office (again). </p>

<p>I don't really understand why people have such a huge problem with Clinton. Yes, she's not charismatic, and perhaps she's a little bit robotic, but I'd rather have an intelligent and qualified robot than a mentally handicapped charmer in office.</p>

<p>Rudy is currently my number 1 choice...but I'm considering others</p>

<p>Obama baby, he's the only democrat (and edwards too) with a sense of hope and future and youthfulness</p>

<p>and for the republicans, ron f-ing paul is pretty damn cool (and polite). i love his foreign policy, although he is completely nuts domestically</p>

<p>but paul will never win a general election (dissolve all the bureaus? are you SERIOUS?), so i guess giuliani</p>

<p>and romney creeps me out. what a hypocrite</p>

<p>Barrack Obama all the way.</p>

<p>Anyone but the Republikunts</p>

<p>whoever supports gay marriage. what's up with america and hatred?!</p>

<p>i don't know ask ron paul.</p>