Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Mad Cow

Barack Obama or John McCain?

Who's your Choice for President of the USA?   114 members have voted

  1. 1. Who's your Choice for President of the USA?

    • Barack Obama (D - IL)
      48
    • John McCain (R - AZ)
      37
    • Ralph Nader
      3
    • Bob Barr
      3
    • Other (please note)
      23

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

185 posts in this topic

Who's your choice?

Mine is McCain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barrack, HRC says that McCain doesn't support the queers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama! I pray to God another republican isn't elected president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for me....Neither right now....I probably won't even vote, but it's still early - who knows.

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm not impressed by either really. Edited by Quill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Quill on this one. I do want to vote in this election but it's going to take some time for me to decide..It's not like either one has impressed me yet... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm... coke or pepsi.....

i'll take a Ron Paul, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were American, I'd write in for Doug Stanhope, even though he dropped out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for John McCain. And I'll probably vote for him in the elections as well.

I like some of his stuff but not all of it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably Bob Barr if he gets on the ticket here.

If not, I'll write in Ron Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmm... coke or pepsi.....

Them's fighting words. We all know coke is waaay better than pepsi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting to see who the running mates are going to be before I decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama, of course. That way, I won't have to worry about McCain more or less turning the Supreme Court into a bastion of Conservatism outliving the movement itself when John Paul Stevens and Ruth Ginsberg finally retire.

Not to mention that McCain is surrounded by the same set of advisors that served Bush oh-so-well (especially neo-conservatives).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ralph Nader.

I'm sick and tired of corporate corruption. I'm sick of war. I'm sick of the government taking away the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I'm sick of media bias, censorship and propaganda. I'm sick of the corrupt electoral system that marginalizes and censors third party candidates that threaten the status quo instituted by the wealthy corporations that play our politicians like puppets on strings. I'm sick of the CPD hoodwinking the public with their joke of a "presidential debate" controlled by corporations, with questioners preselected, major issues ignored, and third party candidates biasedly excluded despite considerable public outcry (in 2000, 64% of voters wanted Nader and Buchanan in the debates). I'm sick of emtpy suit candidates that promise change, but produce more of the same.

Am I alone?

Those that disregard Nader because they consider him "irrelevant," know that what you are implying is that we as Americans shouldn't even bother to stand up to fraud and abuse; that we must let the politicians choose our fate, kill our children, and bully other nations, and for what? Money and power. Would it be a waste of a vote to stand up for democracy? I wouldn't care if I was the only one with the courage to vote for the long shot candidate, but as long as I knew I voted for who was right, I would never, ever regret it.

Obama recently attacked Ralph Nader saying that his campaign "isn't gaining any traction," as if to say "he doesn't make any valid points, and the voters don't agree with what he has to say." Wrong! Why isn't his campaign "gaining any traction"? Because the only time the media covers him is when he says something borderline controversial. How can one move up in the polls when the media (controlled by corporations) won't give him any airtime except to critique him on rare occasions when he makes a statement that can be taken out of context and exploited for political means?

Take a look at Ralph Nader's positions. Compare issues at votenader.org. Nader most certainly is in the majority with his positions -- most importantly, Nader fights for the rights of the people in order to GIVE us the voice to dissent. Shifting the power to the people allows we the people to have the power to reform Washington. The other corporate candidates are doing exactly the opposite.

Obama has flip flopped on almost every major issue. He has sided with the corporations on every issue, and he has recently flip flopped on Iraq AND set the stage for another war (pointed out by Kucinich in the Democratic Debates) with Iran. Obama is actually the choice of the wealthy elite. He's a fraud. Special interest groups have poured millions into his campaign. As for McCain, go to therealmccain.com to see some of McCain's outright lies as well. Neither of these candidates are adequate. They don't deserve a single vote. It's a pity American voters are so naive and gullible.

It baffles me that people even consider voting for these corporate clowns.

Tweedledee or Tweedledumb, take your pick.

Vote for Obama or McCain for more of the same.

Edited by AstroPro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has flip flopped on almost every major issue. He has sided with the corporations on every issue, and he has recently flip flopped on Iraq AND set the stage for another war (pointed out by Kucinich in the Democratic Debates) with Iran.

What flip-flops would those be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m 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 :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What flip-flops would those be?

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

That's just for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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????"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m 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 :(

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.

Share this post


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

no kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8FHVARKLWc

That's just for starters.

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):

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)

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:

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.

[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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.