Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Barack Obama or John McCain?


  • Please log in to reply
184 replies to this topic

Poll: Who's your Choice for President of the USA? (114 member(s) have cast votes)

Who's your Choice for President of the USA?

  1. Barack Obama (D - IL) (48 votes [42.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.11%

  2. John McCain (R - AZ) (37 votes [32.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.46%

  3. Ralph Nader (3 votes [2.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.63%

  4. Bob Barr (3 votes [2.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.63%

  5. Other (please note) (23 votes [20.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.18%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#16    Celumnaz

Celumnaz

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,039 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I don't know what I don't know.

Posted 23 July 2008 - 12:53 PM

I'll be writing in Ron Paul for president, and Alan Keyes for Vice President.


#17    Xavie

Xavie

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 63 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006

Posted 23 July 2008 - 01:02 PM

Iím still not sure.
But I dream of one day when I will be able to vote for someone I actually like and admire rather then being forced to decide who is the least sucky one sad.gif



#18    Synergy

Synergy

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 836 posts
  • Joined:04 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

  • "The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence regardless of their chosen field of endeavor."

Posted 23 July 2008 - 07:12 PM

Startraveler on Jul 23 2008, 08:12 AM, said:

What flip-flops would those be?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8FHVARKLWc

That's just for starters.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
--Galileo Galilei

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
--Mahatma Gandhi

#19    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 23 July 2008 - 07:20 PM

Mad Hatter on Jul 20 2008, 12:40 AM, said:

Who's your choice?

Mine is McCain.


My only comment is, "How, from a nation of 300 million people, these are the best we can find to be president????"


#20    Synergy

Synergy

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 836 posts
  • Joined:04 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

  • "The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence regardless of their chosen field of endeavor."

Posted 23 July 2008 - 07:31 PM

Xavie on Jul 23 2008, 09:02 AM, said:

Iím still not sure.
But I dream of one day when I will be able to vote for someone I actually like and admire rather then being forced to decide who is the least sucky one sad.gif


Precisely why it isn't reasonable to vote for a Democrat or a Republican. They are just one corporate party with two political heads. They are two sides of the same coin. They are the problem, not the solution. In order to force REAL change in Washington, we have to reform the electoral system as right now it is rigged for the Republicrats and their fat cat contributors. We need to shift the power back to the people, where it belongs. The only candidates of either of the two parties that I would have voted for would have been Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel on the left, and Ron Paul on the right. Even so, Ralph Nader's policies and positions are more in favor of citizen rights than any of the above. Look up the CPD -- go to opendebates.org and see this video.



"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
--Galileo Galilei

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
--Mahatma Gandhi

#21    Lt_Ripley

Lt_Ripley

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 20,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 23 July 2008 - 09:00 PM

Expatriate on Jul 23 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

My only comment is, "How, from a nation of 300 million people, these are the best we can find to be president????"


no kidding.


#22    Lt_Ripley

Lt_Ripley

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 20,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 23 July 2008 - 09:11 PM

AstroPro on Jul 23 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

Precisely why it isn't reasonable to vote for a Democrat or a Republican. They are just one corporate party with two political heads. They are two sides of the same coin. They are the problem, not the solution. In order to force REAL change in Washington, we have to reform the electoral system as right now it is rigged for the Republicrats and their fat cat contributors. We need to shift the power back to the people, where it belongs. The only candidates of either of the two parties that I would have voted for would have been Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel on the left, and Ron Paul on the right. Even so, Ralph Nader's policies and positions are more in favor of citizen rights than any of the above. Look up the CPD -- go to opendebates.org and see this video.


I would have liked Kuchinich.  but here's the bigger point. sadly Americans are easily led. look at the Iraq war as an example. most don't want to think or want only their veiws to be upheld.

heck most of the country doesn't vote ! and a throwaway vote for the likes of Nader is just that. while principal is great it isn't going to affect anything when the majority bleat.

I'd love to vote for the guy/gal with the best brain , best reasoning , best interest ......... instead it's for the lesser of 2 evils. Nader helped Bush win in 2000 .... nuff said.

I think bill mahar said it best when talking about France - where 85% vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKS0yISz6xQ

Bill Maher points out that America needs to stop claiming that it's #1 and do something to actually reclaim that title.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcz_NHAFGS0


#23    Synergy

Synergy

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 836 posts
  • Joined:04 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

  • "The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence regardless of their chosen field of endeavor."

Posted 23 July 2008 - 10:05 PM

Lt_Ripley on Jul 23 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

a throwaway vote for the likes of Nader is just that. while principal is great it isn't going to affect anything when the majority bleat.


A vote for democracy is never a "throwaway vote." A vote for either of the corporate clowns is a throwaway vote. In reality, there is no "lesser" of two evils. That much is an illusion. They are the same evil. It's people that are afraid to stand up for democracy that put people like Bush into power. Tell me, what has changed since the Democrats had reclaimed the House??? There is no REAL difference between a Democrat and a Republican, only the illusion of difference. The state of American politics today is a disgrace. Our founding fathers would be appalled.

Don't forget, the Republican party was once an "irrelevant" third party. Through to the 19th Century, the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. Abraham Lincoln won as a third party candidate -- fortunately for us, back then it was easier for third party candidates to garner attention. Nowadays we have the corporate media shoving the corporate candidates down our throats all year long while censoring the dissenting voices of third party candidates that threaten the status quo. Tell me, where in the Constitution does it declare the United States government a two party system? Our country was founded in favor of such third parties, but the Republicrats have since manipulated the rules to fix the system in their favor. That's unconstitutional. So now we have a two party elected dictatorship and the apathetic public couldn't care less -- they feel helpless and thus don't think that fighting for democracy is a fight worth fighting.

Quote

I'd love to vote for the guy/gal with the best brain , best reasoning , best interest ......... instead it's for the lesser of 2 evils. Nader helped Bush win in 2000 .... nuff said.


I heard that before, and it's utter nonsense. Gore spoiled Nader's chance of becoming president, how about that? Don't forget, most of the Democrats that voted for Nader otherwise wouldn't have even voted at all. Many Republicans voted for Nader as well. Also, thousands of Democrats voted for George Bush. Had they stuck with their party, Gore would have won. Also, Gore won the popular vote -- the victory was stolen from him. Using Nader as a scapegoat is just an excuse. It's leftist PROPAGANDA. It proves nothing but the ignorance, gullibility and irrationality of the electorate.

Nader has dealt with that question often. I think he responded pretty well here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxIxXj5K_M


I can't see how voting for either of the corrupt corporate candidates will EVER solve ANYTHING!!! Both parties are driving our government into the ground. Wake Up!

Voting for Obama or McCain -- now THAT is throwing your vote away!!!!

Edited by AstroPro, 23 July 2008 - 10:23 PM.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
--Galileo Galilei

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
--Mahatma Gandhi

#24    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,524 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 23 July 2008 - 10:47 PM

Quote



If you're really of the opinion that "It's a pity American voters are so naive and gullible" then why on earth would you post this tripe?

Iraq (yesterday):

Quote

OBAMA: I welcome the growing consensus in the United States and Iraq for a timeline. My view, based on the advice of military experts, is that we can redeploy safely in 16 months so that our combat brigades are out of Iraq in 2010.

As president, I intend to work with our military commanders to assure that we redeploy out of Iraq carefully with the safety of our troops in mind.

[...]

OBAMA: Well, you know, we've been going back and forth on this for a very long time. And I think that there's been an artificial construct that's been created where you essentially have two choices: Either I am so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months in which our plan is being implemented, or, alternatively, I just have an indefinite open-ended commitment that is never driven by clear -- a clear timetable or a set of goals.

And I reject that -- that those are the only two options. I think it is -- what I've consistently said is that my job, should I be commander in chief, is to set a vision, a strategic vision, of what's best for U.S. national security. I strongly believe that what is best for U.S. national security is to initiate a phased withdrawal and to set a timeframe that is very consistent with what the Iraqis are now saying and I think can be accomplished.


A dose of reality: this isn't a health care agenda or an economic stimulus package. This is a 16-month plan for ending a war on the other side of the world. It would be foolish to try and completely etch the plan in stone two years in advance and simply dishonest to pretend that one could even do that. Obama's plan is for a phased withdrawal over 16 months. Will the situation change drastically during that time frame? I have no idea. But I like to think he won't be asleep at the switch.

Guns (April 16, 2008)

Quote

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.


Shocker of shockers, that's consistent with what he said when D.C. v. Heller came down. I, like Obama, reject the fanciful notion (or rightwing frame) that accepting an individual right to bear arms means conferring an unlimited right on someone. There are no unlimited rights in the United States.

On to faith-based programs. This is somewhat of a silly one--the fact that you didn't know his position before doesn't mean he flip-flopped.  In fact, Hannity's beef seems to be that "that is the same program that liberals have complained about for years." Well, sure. But that doesn't include Obama.

The Audacity of Hope, 2006:

Quote

If a sense of proportion should guide Christian activism, then it must also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach of the wall of separation; as the Supreme Court has properly recognized, context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God"; I didn't. Allowing the use of school property for meetings by voluntary student prayer groups should not be a threat, any more than its use by the high school Republic Club should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs--targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers--that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems and hence merit carefully tailored support.


Do all liberals agree with all that? Unlikely. Do I agree with all that? No. But that doesn't make Obama a flip-flopper. It makes Sean Hannity an idiot. In fact, shame on you for making me watch Hannity. FoxNews isn't a legitimate news source. I'm surprised I'd have to tell a Nader supporter that.

FISA is the only legitimate complaint that's been raised. He dropped the ball and voted the wrong way after saying he would oppose any bill with telecom immunity. That sucks but evidence of serial flip-flopping it is not. Frankly this is ridiculous.

Quote

[There is no REAL difference between a Democrat and a Republican, only the illusion of difference.


What does that mean? That's the same line Nader fed us eight years ago. What does it mean? There are no policy differences between the Democrats and Republicans? Have you flipped on C-Span lately? Opened a newspaper?


#25    Blue Box

Blue Box

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere in wibbly wobbly timey wimey

  • You live and learn. At any rate, you live.

    ~Douglas Adams

Posted 23 July 2008 - 11:09 PM

I voted other on this since I'm not even sure I will vote.  No candidate has come forward who I think I could put my trust in.  As for McCain he seems to be a mini me of Bush I really don't think I could stand another 4 years of that.  Also McCain's wife just freaks me out the way she evilly lurks behind him like a wicked witch or something.
Obama doesn't seem to bad (although the jury for me is still out, he really seems pretty fake) but his family have let it slip out more then once that they are pretty much racist, then there is his preacher who has slipped too.  That is the last thing we need in the White house racism towards any race is always bad, we need this country to come together not fall apart.
Nader reminds me of a hippie trying to get backing I don't agree with some of his stances though I need to read up on him more.  He isn't very well known as the other two but he does have a little support.
Barr I do not even know who this guy is at all.

Edited by Blue Box, 23 July 2008 - 11:10 PM.

"Wibbly wobbly explodey wodey."~Doctor Who


#26    Lt_Ripley

Lt_Ripley

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 20,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 July 2008 - 05:32 AM

AstroPro on Jul 23 2008, 06:05 PM, said:

A vote for democracy is never a "throwaway vote." A vote for either of the corporate clowns is a throwaway vote. In reality, there is no "lesser" of two evils. That much is an illusion. They are the same evil. It's people that are afraid to stand up for democracy that put people like Bush into power. Tell me, what has changed since the Democrats had reclaimed the House??? There is no REAL difference between a Democrat and a Republican, only the illusion of difference. The state of American politics today is a disgrace. Our founding fathers would be appalled.

Don't forget, the Republican party was once an "irrelevant" third party. Through to the 19th Century, the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. Abraham Lincoln won as a third party candidate -- fortunately for us, back then it was easier for third party candidates to garner attention. Nowadays we have the corporate media shoving the corporate candidates down our throats all year long while censoring the dissenting voices of third party candidates that threaten the status quo. Tell me, where in the Constitution does it declare the United States government a two party system? Our country was founded in favor of such third parties, but the Republicrats have since manipulated the rules to fix the system in their favor. That's unconstitutional. So now we have a two party elected dictatorship and the apathetic public couldn't care less -- they feel helpless and thus don't think that fighting for democracy is a fight worth fighting.



I heard that before, and it's utter nonsense. Gore spoiled Nader's chance of becoming president, how about that? Don't forget, most of the Democrats that voted for Nader otherwise wouldn't have even voted at all. Many Republicans voted for Nader as well. Also, thousands of Democrats voted for George Bush. Had they stuck with their party, Gore would have won. Also, Gore won the popular vote -- the victory was stolen from him. Using Nader as a scapegoat is just an excuse. It's leftist PROPAGANDA. It proves nothing but the ignorance, gullibility and irrationality of the electorate.

Nader has dealt with that question often. I think he responded pretty well here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxIxXj5K_M


I can't see how voting for either of the corrupt corporate candidates will EVER solve ANYTHING!!! Both parties are driving our government into the ground. Wake Up!

Voting for Obama or McCain -- now THAT is throwing your vote away!!!!


lmao . please . as a democrat I don't know any democrats then that would have voted for Nader.  or now.


Bush's Useful Idiot

September 16, 2004

Four years ago, Ralph Nader justified his third-party campaign on the grounds that the two parties represented nothing more than "Tweedledum and Tweedledee." As Americans die by the thousand in Iraq, the budget deficit explodes thanks to a tax cut targeting the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, the Justice Department demands women's private medical records from abortion clinics, and polluters are given carte blanche to despoil the earth and poison our children, the devastating evidence of Nader's myopia is everywhere around us.


Recall also that four years ago, Nader professed to want to help build the Green Party into a genuinely progressive alternative to what he termed the corporate-dominated "duopoly." But Nader was no more truthful about his commitment to party-building than George W. Bush was when he decried "nation-building." Today, Nader's party allies consist mainly of the motley far-right collection of Republicans who fund his campaign and collect his signatures, and the remains of the nativist Reform Party, late of Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign.

It's true that Nader once represented an important progressive voice in American politics; then again, so did Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens. While Nader continues to employ the same rhetoric as before, this speaks merely to his personal self-delusion and shameless demagoguery. He also appears to be a rather brazen liar. "We have not been accepting signatures obtained through organized Republican Party efforts in the three or four states where we have learned of such activity," he insisted in a September Washington Post op-ed. In fact, as the Detroit Free Press reported a day earlier, 45,000 of the 50,500 petition signatures submitted on Nader's behalf in Michigan were indeed submitted by Republicans. (Meanwhile, in Florida, Nader's ballot access lawyer is one Kenneth Sukhia, who just happened to represent Bush in that state's 2000 recount.)

While Nader, with characteristic obliviousness, refuses to accept any responsibility for the horrors of the Bush Administration, Ronnie Dugger, who presented Nader four years ago at the Green Party convention, admits, "We, the Nader people, certainly put Bush close enough electorally for the Supreme Court to seize the presidency for him." Giving up on talking sense to Nader personally, many of his big-name 2000 supporters have joined together to oppose his current candidacy. Among the seventy-four members of the "113-person Nader 2000 Citizens Committee" who've signed a statement urging support for Kerry/Edwards in all swing states this year are: Phil Donahue, Jim Hightower, Susan Sarandon, Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Howard Zinn and Cornel West. Indeed, Nader is without a single high-profile supporter anywhere this time around. And he has added to his list of enemies what he terms the "liberal intelligentsia": those he defines as concerned with his issues but willing to accept "the least worst option."

Four years ago, writing in these pages about Nader's "nascent leftist movement," I pointed out that it enjoyed "virtually no support among African-Americans, Latinos or Asian-Americans. It has no support among organized feminist groups, organized gay rights groups or mainstream environmental groups. To top it all off, it has no support in the national union movement. So Nader and company are building a nonblack, non-Latino, non-Asian, nonfeminist, nonenvironmentalist, nongay, non-working people's left: Now that really would be quite an achievement." I could have added Jews, too.

Today Nader has managed to top even that accomplishment. This time he is actively hated by the leaders of the dispossessed to whom he professes his allegiance. On June 22, for instance, Nader met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus in a session that ended with shouting, cursing and several members walking out in a state of fury. When it was over, Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee told CNN, "This is the most historic election of our lifetime, and it is a life-or-death matter for the vulnerable people we represent. For that reason, we can't sacrifice their vulnerability for the efforts being made by Mr. Nader."

Pragmatic concerns carried no weight in what was essentially a Leninist campaign in 2000, based as it was on Nader's belief that things needed to get much worse before they could begin to get better. When Nader claimed a Bush victory would help energize groups like the Sierra Club, its leader, Carl Pope, loudly told him, No thanks. When I debated Cornel West and Frances Fox Piven before a large audience at NYU, our introductions were preceded by a plea from graduate student union organizers to support their efforts to elicit decent pay and conditions. I tried to point out that those students who supported both Nader and the union might wish to concern themselves with the makeup of the presidentially appointed National Labor Relations Board. Well, in July of this year, the graduate students who stuck with Nader got what they apparently wanted. The Bush-controlled NLRB voted to reverse an earlier decision and deny all American graduate students the right to bargain collectively.

Despite all of this, as I write, Nader is actually polling higher than the 2.74 percent of Americans who provided the votes for his 2000 kamikaze mission--high enough to tip key swing states toward the single worst President in American history. What in God's name will convince Nader's remaining supporters to abandon his lemminglike march? It's hard to imagine what kind of logic will resonate with people who define themselves as leftists and yet remain unmoved by the sight of George Bush and Dick Cheney lying us into war, John Ashcroft attempting to criminalize dissent and Donald Rumsfeld rationalizing rape and torture.

If anyone has any ideas, let's hear them, please, and fast. In the meantime, can the media please stop assuming that this Republican-funded, nativist-supported and Bush/Cheney-enabling campaign is somehow deserving of the label "liberal"? Are our problems not large enough that we must also be saddled with the sins of our enemies?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041004/alterman


#27    Incorrigible1

Incorrigible1

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,393 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern Nebraska, USA

  • Champanya?

Posted 24 July 2008 - 08:01 AM

Lt_Ripley on Jul 24 2008, 12:32 AM, said:


Ripley, do you ever post your own opinions, you yourself, or merely the opinions of those you read?

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too. -- W. Somerset Maugham
Posted Image

#28    rideron

rideron

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Joined:29 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:U.S.

Posted 24 July 2008 - 02:54 PM

Time to get basic.  

Whoever will have the best policies for improving the economy gets my vote!  Just like a ship captain is pretty worthless without a ship underneath him, you gotta have people going back to work and having the $$$ to buy and do things in order to have a viable society and not a population of the unemployed collecting benefits (until the benefits run out).

The government don't create a society and it produces nothing.  You have to have a society FIRST, THEN you can talk about having a government to regulate it (how much or how little is open to debate).

But before you can have government action to address societal concerns, you gotta have a viable society to begin with.


#29    InHuman

InHuman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • Running on Bravado.

Posted 26 July 2008 - 05:12 AM

I'd vote Jack Layton before I'd vote Mccain.

Altho I'd vote Mccain (Idependent, no party) before I'd vote NDP..

Edited by InHuman, 26 July 2008 - 05:12 AM.

There Will Be Brawl
Greatest Webseries Ever



Quote

If you carry out a policy that dehumanizes others, in the process you yourself are dehumanized.-Desmond Tutu

#30    WickedWitchOz

WickedWitchOz

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Joined:25 Jul 2008

Posted 26 July 2008 - 05:25 AM

Neither.

They're both the wrong choice.

McCain?

We'll never recover from the mess Bush has made with him in office. He'll be too busy finding a reason to add attack plans for Iran to the war room pin board...

Obama?  

I'd sooner hand him the keys to the local public john than elect him to the Oval Office. No way he's ready for that office. Besides, he is just not what he seems. I honestly can't tell what his real agenda is but something about him really, really  scares me, and for the record it has nothing to do with his race, religion et all. I couldn't care less who he chooses to worship, or what continents his ancestors came from. I don't chose to elect people or not elect them based on such silly issues as race or religion.

I just don't trust him, period.

As you can probably tell from the nick, I am not exactly some end of times "believer" who thinks the guy is Satan's son incarnate, but there is something about him that rings false to me.

I won't elect him just because he's seemingly the lesser of two evils.

I'm not too sure he is, shrug....

There is no "good" candidate in this one.

I usually do vote, but I can't just vote to vote, so I am likely going to sit this one out....

Edited by WickedWitchOz, 26 July 2008 - 05:26 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users