Barack Obama or John McCain?

[Lt_Ripley]

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:

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

[Incorrigible1]

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

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

[rideron]

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.

[InHuman]

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

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

Edited July 26, 2008 by InHuman

[WickedWitchOz]

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 July 26, 2008 by WickedWitchOz

[Enigmatic Ghost]

Undecided I want to see all the cards upon the table, and I want to look at all things from out side the Box before I make my Vote and lot can happen and go down berfore the election...

Pavot

[Wickian]

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.

Nader was before my time(I'm 21 now, so back in '00 I was only 13 and didn't care much for the elections...), but I agree with the rest of your post. The whole damn system is corrupt, biased and designed around the concept of preventing us from ever changing it.... Or that's how it seems to me anyway.

It really saddens me to say that we'll never have a 3rd party candidate. It makes me even sadder that our only choices are Obama and McCain. I would vote for a talking monkey and take the 4-year banana craze over either of those two. What I would really like to see is having a 3rd option on the presidential election ballot "None of the above, Redo". Then you give the current president one more year in office while we go through the farce again....

[Scary For Kids]

Well I know a lot of people seem to love Obama, but I think they're just projecting onto him what they want to see.

In reality I think he's just a faker, a guy who talks a lot, but doesn't say much in the end. A guy who tries to make people believe he's something he's not.

And from a "skeptical" point of view, a lot of his "message" is just new-age stuff like "The Secret".. I mean remember his stuff about "We are the ones we've been waiting for"... "We are the change we seek"... It sounds a lot like phony pseudo religion along the lines of Scientology, Charlie Manson, David Koresh and the Reverend Jim Jones to me.

(Anyway, please don't attack me because I don't like Obama. Just my two cents.)

Edited July 26, 2008 by Scary For Kids

[Guardsman Bass]

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.

That's bull and you know it. There are vast policy differences, which show up in terms of actual actions - witness Russ Feingold's attempts to defend civil liberties, and the fact that the Democrats actually include health care as a major issue and tried to pass it back in the Clinton Era (and were blocked by Republicans and a number of conservative Democrats). I'm sick of this Naderite, "both parties are the same - waaaaaaah!" crap that keeps emerging to justify the fact that rather than picking the lesser of two evils in a political system that was founded on compromise (look up the "Great Compromise" from the Constitutional Convention - the decision to have one of the two legislative bodies being unrepresentative - the Senate), the Naderites chose the Path of Self-Righteous Do-Nothingness that resulted in a worse outcome.

For the record, let me ask anyone out there - do you seriously think that an Al Gore Presidency would have been no different from a Bush Presidency? And don't give me that crap about how Nader only brought out people who wouldn't have otherwise vote - he took in tens of thousands of left wing voters in Florida where only 1000 more for Al Gore would have made the difference, and many of his voters were drawn from "wealthy liberals" - i.e., the environmentalist well-to-do who usually support Democrats.

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.

The Republican Party only became a major party because the Whig Party collapsed in the early 1850s - in fact, the reason it became a major party was because so many former Whigs flocked to its banner. It was one of the Big Two in the 1860 election.

In any case, a single-district, single-voter system encourages the formation of a two-party system, since third-party candidates don't get the "50%+1" votes to actually win seats. If you don't like it, then campaign for a Parliamentary system - stop b****ing about how wrong it is that the system is dominated by two parties when it was designed that way.

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.

It would have only taken 1000 voters more for Gore to win Florida and the election - are you seriously telling me that out of the 75,000 odd voters who voted for Gore, many of whom were drawn from groups like the Greens and the like who usually vote on leftist issues (not to mention that Gore had been pro-environmentalist since before the Clinton Administration), that many wouldn't have voted for Gore as a second choice, resulting in his victory?

Face it, you got self-indulgent; 8 years of Clinton Presidency left you thinking that it didn't really matter if you chose the lesser of two evils, and, hey, if Bush wins, well, a little "shock" to the system would be a good thing, right?

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!!!!

I'll stick with actually working for a solution rather than glorifying in my All-Mighty Ability To Do Nothing While Feeling Self-Righteous About It. Is it comfortable up there in the clouds?

[-Scratch-]

I would never vote for a democrat, Let alone a far left liberal such as the likes of obama.

The democratic party is by far the more corrupt, their agenda is based on bigger government, and more taxes so they may line their pockets. Its my opinion that these are elected public servants with a purpose and should be paid a median of the average paycheck in america, this isnt the case however. and much beside the point.

Obama in his 152 days in the senate has the most liberal voting record. His stance on partial birth abortions alone is enough for me to vote for ANYONE else. Not to mention his complete lack of a policy or even the hint of an idea to get the states out of the energy crisis we are in. He in fact has stated that he sees nothing wrong with gas prices other than they went up too fast, not that the price isnt too high. Im sure he would do nothing in that regard, even if the prices were to double.

His liberal base, his associations, the books he's written, all marxist communist views and opinions. He's distancing himself from all that in order to get votes. His campaign is well aware that if he were to show his true ideas (or at least the ones he's paid to believe) he'd have no chance in hell.

And lets think about this rationally, would we really want a liberal president involved with a house of representatives that somehow nancy palosi (sp?) became speaker of? Any common sense bill that is sent to the house never makes it onto the floor. As ive already mentioned the energy crisis, drilling is a good example. Nancy wont even bother to bring it up for vote... because if the american people are suffering at the pump, they will vote for the opposite party of the president, because he gets the blame, and she knows it.

If obama does get into office... i fear for the rights that are taken from the american public, the supreme court liberal nominations, the sociallist society that will be forced on the public, where if you make too much money, everyone else gets the credit, and the programs that your profits pay for. Where healthcare would not be nationalized, but rationed, and non-existant if youre deemed unworthy. The only change obama is offering is taking away the way of life we all know. The only change left after he's done with us would be whats left in our pockets.

I dont want to vote for mccain, but i will vote against obama.

Edited July 29, 2008 by -Scratch-

[RobertoIlias]

I will be writing in Ron Paul, thank you.

[InHuman]

marxist communist views.

I love this stuff.

[-Scratch-]

Its nice to know that you agree with everything else i mentioned

[Startraveler]

I would never vote for a democrat, Let alone a far left liberal such as the likes of obama.

No offense but I don't think you've got the slightest idea what "far left" means.

His liberal base, his associations, the books he's written, all marxist communist views and opinions.

Apparently you're a little hazy on Marxism, as well.

Not to mention his complete lack of a policy or even the hint of an idea to get the states out of the energy crisis we are in.

It's astonishing that can provide a Chicken Little-esque tirade about all the dire effects Obama's policies are going to cause without (apparently) having any idea what policies he's proposing (and there are quite a few, if you cared to look).

He's distancing himself from all that in order to get votes. His campaign is well aware that if he were to show his true ideas (or at least the ones he's paid to believe) he'd have no chance in hell.

Someone's paying Obama to be Marxist? Mind-boggling.

Any common sense bill that is sent to the house never makes it onto the floor.

What bills are you talking about? H.R._____?

Edited July 29, 2008 by Startraveler

[Guardsman Bass]

I would never vote for a democrat, Let alone a far left liberal such as the likes of obama.

The democratic party is by far the more corrupt, their agenda is based on bigger government, and more taxes so they may line their pockets. Its my opinion that these are elected public servants with a purpose and should be paid a median of the average paycheck in america, this isnt the case however. and much beside the point.

More corrupt than the party that allowed Halliburton and the like to over-charge Iraq and the US government on Iraqi Reconstruction, and which allowed many of the regulatory agencies to be filled by former executives of the companies supposed to be regulated? More corrupt than the party which embraced Enron until it caved in? More corrupt than the party that coddled Jack Abramoff?

Obama in his 152 days in the senate has the most liberal voting record. His stance on partial birth abortions alone is enough for me to vote for ANYONE else. Not to mention his complete lack of a policy or even the hint of an idea to get the states out of the energy crisis we are in. He in fact has stated that he sees nothing wrong with gas prices other than they went up too fast, not that the price isnt too high. Im sure he would do nothing in that regard, even if the prices were to double.

Surely you jest. Notice how Obama even has a sub-section titled "Reduce the burden of rising gas prices on working families"?

In any case, for the record, I'm not opposed to high gas prices. They are the best way to actually get to a more efficient and less oil-dependent economy, far more than all the complex work-arounds like fuel-efficiency standards that target the supply side.

His liberal base, his associations, the books he's written, all marxist communist views and opinions. He's distancing himself from all that in order to get votes. His campaign is well aware that if he were to show his true ideas (or at least the ones he's paid to believe) he'd have no chance in hell.

"Marxist communist"? Is it comfortable there back in the 1960s? Despite that idiotic "100%" rating, Obama is arguably more centrist-left than leftist. He's embraced ideas that generally make true leftists wary, in particular his support for state-funding of church charities.

And lets think about this rationally, would we really want a liberal president involved with a house of representatives that somehow nancy palosi (sp?) became speaker of? Any common sense bill that is sent to the house never makes it onto the floor. As ive already mentioned the energy crisis, drilling is a good example. Nancy wont even bother to bring it up for vote... because if the american people are suffering at the pump, they will vote for the opposite party of the president, because he gets the blame, and she knows it.

Who says Pelosi will be House Speaker come 2009? They have to re-choose the House Speaker every two years or so, and Pelosi's not exactly popular. Same goes for Harry Reid in the Senate.

If obama does get into office... i fear for the rights that are taken from the american public, the supreme court liberal nominations, the sociallist society that will be forced on the public, where if you make too much money, everyone else gets the credit, and the programs that your profits pay for. Where healthcare would not be nationalized, but rationed, and non-existant if youre deemed unworthy. The only change obama is offering is taking away the way of life we all know. The only change left after he's done with us would be whats left in our pockets.

Yes, because having a Supreme Court that actually recognizes limitations on the Executive Branch and a right to privacy, a government that attempts to do at least a modicum of what other countries have been doing for decades (competent universal health care), and a more reasonable level of progressive taxation is just so Marxist Communist.

[Claizen]

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....

I totally agree with WickedWitchOz, though I'd rather choose McCain over Obama. I see Obama as an idealist and a demagogue (dunno if Im using it in the right context) for those of the younger generation. I believe that Obama isnt definite and experienced enough to run the country.

As for McCain, I'm not proud of the Bush Administration and the conservative views shared by the Republican party. And I hope when McCain suceeds in office he won't elect uber conservatives or die-hard Republicans in Congress. I hope that Congress is split Democrat/Republican.

If McCain suceeds as President and Obama as Vice President, problem solved, right?

Unfortunately for me, I miss the legal voting age just by a couple of weeks.

[AROCES]

If obama does get into office... i fear for the rights that are taken from the american public, the supreme court liberal nominations, the sociallist society that will be forced on the public, where if you make too much money, everyone else gets the credit, and the programs that your profits pay for. Where healthcare would not be nationalized, but rationed, and non-existant if youre deemed unworthy. The only change obama is offering is taking away the way of life we all know. The only change left after he's done with us would be whats left in our pockets.

I dont want to vote for mccain, but i will vote against obama.

I say let it be. The Democrats will do the same thing all over again when they had control of both houses, and the result will be the same.

Jimmy Carter era, and the last time was when Clinton became the President. By the mid term election voters gave the congress to the republicans

[Cradle of Fish]

His liberal base, his associations, the books he's written, all marxist communist views and opinions. He's distancing himself from all that in order to get votes. His campaign is well aware that if he were to show his true ideas (or at least the ones he's paid to believe) he'd have no chance in hell.

Do you even know what a marxist communist would look like? He isn't calling for the proletariat to rise up and revolt against the bourgeoisie and install an atheistic Communist, leaderless, state. Socialised health care is no more a step towards communism than 'socialised' police and fire departments. He's as religious if not more than John McCain. The only thing remotely far left that I can think of is his statement about decriminalizing Marijuana(not legalizing it), which isn't marxist communist by any definition, and who knows if he'll stand by it or not.

I dont want to vote for mccain, but i will vote against obama.

That's no way to do it. If you have to vote find a third party candidate who you agree with instead of playing in the little game they have going. If you do vote for McCain you have no right to complain about anything he does.

[jesspy]

Obama even though im not American (one day maybe)

If I had it my way my vote is for Fluffy Bunny, Kratos or Coldethyl for President. We need an UM member to run for pressie

Edited July 30, 2008 by jesspy

[Finsup22]

I say Ron Paul, we need our next President to sound like he has his own line of hair products.

[Mr Honeybadger]

I will be writing in Ron Paul, thank you.

That's probably what I will end up doing too.

I was giving Bob Barr a chance. But the more I read about his past voting record, the less I like him. ( Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage Act, War on Drugs, flip-flopping on Global Warming )

Bob Barr is no Ron Paul.

[sbradj]

I voted mccain. as will I in the election as well. by looking at the poll both seem to be a a tie. I find that kinda interesting.

[supercar]

What flip-flops would those be?

Here's another one. During a Democratic presidential debate in July 2007 Obama was asked "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?" To which Obama replied "I would."

Then,three weeks ago,he said he would meet with Iranian leaders "only if it can advance the interest of the United States"

So Obama lied when he said he would meet Iranian leaders without precondition.

Full story here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4999088&page=1

[ODIN-X]

I am stuck here and I really don't know which way I will vote.

Is anyone representing the paranormal socialist party? Maybe I vote for them.

[ninjadude]

Here's another one. During a Democratic presidential debate in July 2007 Obama was asked "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?" To which Obama replied "I would."

Then,three weeks ago,he said he would meet with Iranian leaders "only if it can advance the interest of the United States"

soo you want him to go "party" with world leaders just for the fun of it? I'm not sure there is any precedent for that - well except maybe Bush.