Recent threads has peaked my interest in diverse political views in this forum. I know the primaries are still a ways off but I am interested to what candidate is popular in this forum.

You need to add one more option to your poll for "write in candidate."

I was brought up in a family that, well, my grandmother used to read The New York Times to me when I was four years old. They taught me never to lift with my back, and never to vote Republican. But I've discovered a correlary to that rule: don't vote Democrat, either.

Both parties overwhelmingly represent the interests of large corporations and not ordinary people like you and me. I think free and open trade can be a very good thing, but it's not a goal in and of itself ... it's a tool to help improve everybody's life. Neither party cares about me, so neither one has my allegiance.

But I vote. In local elections I tend to vote for people from both parties, and on all the ballot propositions. For president, though, I don't think any of these people represent me, and I think the fact that they're all raising millions, or tens or hundreds of millions or dollars for a job that pays $200,000 a year ... I don't trust any of the front runners. And I think, or at least hope, that by voting for none of the above, I'm sending a sign to the parties that they need to do better.

I also think a two-party system is bad for America. We were born with many of them, it's only been since after the civil war that the Dems and Reps started to become a monopoly. Democrats love to say that "Bush stole the election" through the electoral college ... and look how hard they haven't fought to end the ec. They know they'll win in 2008 and maybe 2012, then the Republicans will get the White House back for eight years, then the Democrats will get it back ... as long as either party is the only alternative, that's all they need to get votes.

Do you Yanks have a Natural Law Party to vote for? I'd go for that.

lol this thread gave me a good laugh, as no one bothers to vote anymore do they ? so the vote on this thread goes to prove, with the only person voting is the person who set up the vote in the first place.

Woc

as no one bothers to vote anymore do they ?

Bull.. of COURSE we 'bother' to vote !

so the vote on this thread goes to prove,

Doesn't prove a thing, IMO. There is a large contingent of members here that aren't even old enough to vote and the largest sector that DOES vote, people who are 20 years older than most members here, don't tend to hang out here in droves.

Originally Posted by usearchme

lol this thread gave me a good laugh, as no one bothers to vote anymore do they ? so the vote on this thread goes to prove, with the only person voting is the person who set up the vote in the first place.

There have been 40 views to this thread; there are 300 m Americans. One of the responders lives in Canada and doesn't vote down here.

You left Mitt Romney out. I get the feeling they're circling the wagons around him, on the right, and Hilary, on what should be the left. I don't know if it's purely the amount of money in each campaign (we all know only certain types of people are "allowed" to become president) but I get the idea Mitt Romney is starting to be the chosen favorite for his party. Do you think being a Mormon will hurt him? It really shouldn't by all fairness, and by the Constitution, but I wonder if America will accept a Mormon president?

Barack Obama all the way! America needs a liberal in the White House. Someone who'll represent the people, bring prosperity down to the middle class like Clinton did, make ordinary people a priority, balance the needs of the environment against the oil lobbies and other polluters, and most importantly, someone with a vision of hope. We're a house divided, as Lincoln put it, and we need someone young and bright and positive, with charisma, who's earned respect from the people he's come into contact with, to heal the divisions in America and with our allies.

I couldn't agree more
I really don't think ANY Republican has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected, this country's had enough and if the old line Dems don't smarten up, the 'new guy' is lookin' pretty good so far !

These days I wonder what possessed me to call myself a Republican all these years.. I've been called a 'bleeding heart liberal'.. and I think that's probably more true now than it ever was.. LOL.

John McCain??? From the Die Hard movies? lol

Your right I should have added a couple of more people I put these 4 because they had the highest % rate right now. Can I add another one or is it to late?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Barack Obama all the way! America needs a liberal in the White House. Someone who'll represent the people, bring prosperity down to the middle class like Clinton did, make ordinary people a priority, balance the needs of the environment against the oil lobbies and other polluters, and most importantly, someone with a vision of hope. We're a house divided, as Lincoln put it, and we need someone young and bright and positive, with charisma, who's earned respect from the people he's come into contact with, to heal the divisions in America and with our allies.

Clinton had prosperity not due to anything he did or did not do, that was just the direction our economy was headed (much thanks to Reagan). And if you will remember the .com fiascos was an effect of Clintons’ terms in office, but it hurt us under Bush. Now granted, his shenanigans over in Iraq are not helping us either. I think we need some one who is moderate, not a lets kill all our enemies bush, and not a I’ll do as little as possible while in office because things are going well Clinton.

The fact that the economy was in such good shape under Clinton was only partly because of his actions. A lot of that is just a cycle. But if you look at the prosperity during part of Reagan's administration, the people who benefited from it were much fewer than the people who benefited from America's good fortune under Clinton. That that most absolutely is because of his policies.

What I'm saying is that having a Democrat in the white house isn't a guarantee that our economy will be in better shape, but it means regular people like you and me will see more of the gains.

Out of curiosity, though, how is the strong economic resurgence we experienced under Clinton "not due to anything he did or did not due" (like paying down the debt) but the .com bubble popping his fault? That sounds like unquestioningly having it both ways?

I am going to exercise my right not to vote.

You should consider instead voting for nobody instead of not voting? That sends a signal that none of the above are acceptable.

If i had to choose from that list I wouldnt vote. Ron Paul is by far the most qualified and most rational republican but he'll never get the nomination for the party. Its all about lobbying and socialist parties. They all need to go away. The founding fathers never envisioned "parties". They voted the man best suited for the job.

Parties aren't so horrible, but a duopoly where there are only ever two of them is. It's not much different from the one-party dictatorship puppet democracy Mexico spend a hundred years under. There's absolutely no way any Republican can possibly win the presidential election in 2008. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell.

The Republicans have screwed everything up since January 2001, from national security ( Katrina proved we're as vulnerable as we were on 9/10/2001 if not more - they've gutted FEMA to the point where they can't provide the one thing the promise us: security ) to invading the wrong country after 9/11 to the debt, to gas prices doubling since 2002, the economy, credit crunch, environment, freedom and democracy in America, human rights around the world, and so on.

America is sick and tired of corrupt Republicans. So they're going to elect a Democrat, and the Bush nightmare has been so terrible that Democrat is 90 % certain to be re-elected in 2012. But then after 8 or 12 years, we'll get so tired of corrupt Democrats that we'll throw those bums out and stick Republicans back in power.

It's an endless cycle, and both parties can sell out to the corporate interests and lobbyists, be two sides of the same coin, and as long as there's no other alternative, they're safe. It's a power sharing agreement on the sly.

I don't think the government is to blame for the rising oil prices - I'm not a republican supporter, in fact I'm not even a US citizen (for the time being anyway) - oil prices are rising because of the growing consumption of oil and the dwindling oil supplies. Of course, you can sort of blame the government for not being quicker to act and incentivize transfer onto renewable energy resources and far more economical cars - American cars seem to be terrible gas guzzlers.

There is ongoing development of using water or Hydrogen to run cars, but I expect the corruptly rich oil companies will buy up these ideas and then use them to their own gains 10 or 15 years down the line, while they continue to make massive profits in the meantime

i agreee with him ^^

im the same british 15 y.o i would say tho from what i have read Bush isnt a stupid man (everyone who read this laughs) its just he seems to have 0 people skills and no ability to behave as expected

"the wars terible blah blah... now watch this putt!" - bush

Originally Posted by dansgalaxy

i would say tho from what i have read Bush isnt a stupid man (everyone who read this laughs)

I would have to agree with you. I really wish Bush was just a simple idiot, but it takes a lot of gumption to become president, and an abject moron wouldn't be capable of it. He's corrupt, and plays dumb to get away with it, but he's of average intelligence.

I cast my vote for Hillary, after reading the fact based book on Hillary by Carl Bernstein, I have looked at Hillary in a different light.

But if Fred Thompson ever jumps into the race, I would consider voting for him, I do respect the man and feel he is a straight shooter.