Which presidental canidate would you vote for?

Who's your choice?

  • Total voters
    124
Mr Stabby said:
We don't know if he's a creationist, not supporting evolution doesn't automatically make them a creationist.
Click to expand...

I never said he was a creationist ..I havent mentioned any of the candidates at all ..it was a hypothetical question
 
Atomic_Piggy said:
What the hell does it make him then?
Click to expand...

I don't know, he never said what he believed. He's probably one of those people that thinks that God and evolution are mutually exclusive as they think evolution covers the origin of life.
 
What bothers me mostly about all the candidates in general and Ron Paul in particular is that they think that the Constitution holds the solution to all the problems of the modern society. I mean sure, considering it's over 200 years old it's very progressive, but it really cannot be applied anymore IMO.

It's insane to think that we don't need a central authority. There must be a public sector to prevent, at the very least, people from ****ing starving to death. I mean sure, all the talk about how to "stop the government from stealing people's money" sure sound nice to some people, but FFS, do you really think any society would function without taxes?

I'd like Ron Paul and the other neo-liberals (IE most republicans) to answer how the **** the children in the ghettos will get health insurance if you dismantle the entire government.
 
look at Swizterland.


And also why should I pay with my taxes for "children i the ghettos?"
 
He's not for dismantling the entire government. It's quite simple really, America has state governments, state governments are capable of dealing with crime, poverty, marriage etc.. The US federal government has vastly expanded in the last 80 years, and it is entirely unnecessary and wastes a lot of money. America doesn't have universal health care, so that's not what he's challenging.
Also the republican party as a whole is not 'neo-liberal' although by neo-liberal you mean true liberalism.

The U.S constitution seems a very good basis for a nations constitution IMO, what's wrong with it?
 
Mr Stabby said:
The U.S constitution seems a very good basis for a nations constitution IMO, what's wrong with it?
Click to expand...

It's got a very... varied level of quality.

It's absolute shit, for example, in terms of partition of powers - it doesn't precisely outline the boundaries within which the executive power has to operate within, which has resulted in extreme power being concentrated in the hands of a single man (as only the President holds the de facto executive power - all other members are more or less advisors).

EDIT:

And also why should I pay with my taxes for "children i the ghettos?"
Click to expand...

I'd love to see you say "Why should people pay with their taxes for me?" when you yourself would need social welfare.
 
Getting "universal healthcare" will only increase taxes beyond the normal cost of health insurance. Health insurance costs so much because of anti-competitive practices, government & union involvement, and jobs provide health insurance. If health insurance was truly a free market, these health insurance companies wouldn't be able to rape so much, they'd have to offer the best deals.

Did anyone possibly think that I personally might not want health insurance at all?
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
It's got a very... varied level of quality.

It's absolute shit, for example, in terms of partition of powers - it doesn't precisely outline the boundaries within which the executive power has to operate within, which has resulted in extreme power being concentrated in the hands of a single man (as only the President holds the de facto executive power - all other members are more or less advisors).
Click to expand...

Wrong, that's why Ron Paul talks about the constitution so much, as Bush has ignored it. Ron Paul wants more power to congress and state governments not the federal government, as outlined in the U.S constitution.
 
Obama, I've been listening to his speeches and it felt so good knowing he could lead the free world.
 
The Monkey said:
Wrong. Health insurence is much more expensive per person in the US than in France, and yet France's health care is vastly superior to the US'.

France: $3500 per capita in health care expenses; World Health Organization ranking: 1
United States: $6100 per capita in health care expenses; World Health Organization ranking: 37

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/
Click to expand...

It doesn't clarify whether that $6100 figure is the cost of health cover, or the result of uninsured or underinsured people having to pay out of their own pockets for care.
Personally I find it extremely hard to believe that health insurance costs $6100 per year. When I was looking into studying in the US, it was a few hundred dollars a year - including cover for my epilepsy.
 
Solaris said:
Obama, I've been listening to his speeches and it felt so good knowing he could lead the free world.
Click to expand...

He seems cool, but he strikes me as a bit too much of an idealist. Naive and possibly out of his depth in the real world. Whether anything would actually work out the way he apparently plans is a big question mark.
That being said, he's not a duplicitious, mincing socialist or a slack-jawed Christian fundamentalist, so that's progress.
 
I would only vote if Stephen Colbert was in the ballad
I refuse to vote for the other liers
 
I haven't decided yet, I'm going to wait for the primaries to be over to really start paying attention. Probably Obama. I sort of want to like Ron Paul but I'm afraid that if he was President he'd probably just **** everything up trying to change things.
 
repiV said:
When I was looking into studying in the US, it was a few hundred dollars a year - including cover for my epilepsy.
Click to expand...

Who was the provider? Because I've never heard of an individual being insured for only a few hundred dollars.
 
Irksome said:
Who was the provider? Because I've never heard of an individual being insured for only a few hundred dollars.
Click to expand...

I can't remember, this was years ago. They were certainly a rare find, being willing to cover a pre-existing condition.
When I say a "few hundred", I mean more like 7-800. And it's possible I'm thinking in pounds, which would bring it to about $1400 or so. Far short of 6k, whichever way you look at it.
 
Obama seems like Tony Blair to me, all charisma and spin, but no real solutions.
 
Ennui said:
I haven't decided yet, I'm going to wait for the primaries to be over to really start paying attention. Probably Obama. I sort of want to like Ron Paul but I'm afraid that if he was President he'd probably just **** everything up trying to change things.
Click to expand...

how so?
 
He wants to abolish the income tax, doesn't he? That kind of radical action isn't going to work very well without Congress's support, which he definitely wouldn't have.

I dunno, this is my first election as a voter :D so I'll definitely look into it deep... once the primaries are over, like I said. I can't discuss it too much more without risking looking like a moron because I don't know that much about a lot of the candidates (RP included).
 
you realize the income tax doesn't actually pay for anything other the FED fat cats salaries etc.....Thats why we don't need it.
Also when your bored go to YT and just browser through all the candidate videos I'm pretty sure every candidate has their own YT page :)
 
You can't attack a candidates ideals because all the corporate lackeys in congress will oppose them.
 
Mr Stabby said:
You can't attack a candidates ideals because all the corporate lackeys in congress will oppose them.
Click to expand...

Umm yes you can, since the whole country would be put into a deadlock. If Ron Paul keeps his same voting record he might lose my vote, since he's pretty much votes no on everything.
 
I hate how Russert didn't let him finish answering the earmark question. He had a perfectly reasonable response going there. Once the money has been stolen from his congressional district and ends up in Washington, the least he could do is get some of the money back by putting some earmarks in the bills. He votes against the bills in the end which, while fruitless, is the right thing to do. So, I don't see it as much of a contradiction when he is required to represent his people.
 
2real said:
for all the haters tghat think he's nutjob he speaks the truth and nothing else.
Click to expand...
If the truth is that the Civil War (War of States' Rights or Norther Aggression if you're from the South) was over slavery, then yes. But it wasn't. Failure to know and understand the past has gotten many people, including presidents, in trouble that was clearly avoidable if different actions had been taken. I heard nothing in there that I could get behind. His idea of dumping everything back to the states is nice, if it's a slow and metered changeover.

I still see no way any person with even half a brain and a little common sense could vote for the man. Seriously, if you're thinking of voting for him, look over his positions again. Think about them. Not just how they would be in the long-term, but also in the short-term. Spend more than a few minutes on it. Then come back and tell me if you'd still vote for this man.
 
Black Osama.

Opps, I meant Barack Obama
 
C'mon, that's not even an anagram.

Maraca Kabob for Den Priest!
 
I choose John Mccain because he can kill a helicopter with a car.
 
ericms said:
I hate how Russert didn't let him finish answering the earmark question. He had a perfectly reasonable response going there. Once the money has been stolen from his congressional district and ends up in Washington, the least he could do is get some of the money back by putting some earmarks in the bills. He votes against the bills in the end which, while fruitless, is the right thing to do. So, I don't see it as much of a contradiction when he is required to represent his people.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm not sure what Russert was trying to achieve there, anyone watching could figure out what Paul was doing (representing his constituents). I have to say having watched all 4 parts Paul held up pretty well to some savage treatment with the questions. I doubt any of the other candidates get that kind of grilling, the Neo-cons are clearly getting worried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

katsung47
Ron Paul Defends Russia After Malaysian Plane Crash
Replies
0
Views
3K
katsung47
katsung47
RakuraiTenjin
Crossing the Line for Paul
Replies
23
Views
3K
Krynn72
Krynn72
bluechirri
What do you want to see in L4D3?
Replies
14
Views
5K
TheWiktor
TheWiktor
CptStern
Have you had sex with Rick Perry?
Replies
2
Views
793
hool10
hool10
Raziaar
  • Poll
Who are/would you vote for?
4 5 6
Replies
205
Views
9K
Kase
Kase
Back
Top