Unofficial U.S. Presidential Poll

Obama, and here's reason number 76 why...

I'm voting for Obama. I think he's better for the job.

Although I wouldn't feel as bad about a McCain presidency as I would about a 3rd Bush term :p

Anyways, I feel relatively safe about McCain's age. His mother is still alive, believe it or not, and in good health at 95.

Not that it doesn't exempt McCain from any of old age's effects.

Yeah my great grandma lived to be 101 and she was swatting t imaginary flies and talking to her dead husband for the last 10 years of her life.

McCain and his want for more war scres me and should scare anyone of draft age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldensamba

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PapaGrande

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janie2261

The fact that the United States is the ONLY developed nation that does not provide adequate healthcare for its people is an obscene tragedy. Even people with insurance are finding that it covers less and less.

Incidentally, as many of you know, transgendered people are completely excluded from healthcare coverage, in almost all cases.

Republican rule is impoverishing the middle class while enriching the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the defense industry.

Any one who votes for McCain is helping to perpetuate this absurd system of corporate welfare at the expense of people at the bottom. I will be voting for Obama, but I think Nader has the right agenda.

Corporate welfare at home and hugely expensively wars abroad (which enrich the defense industry) IS the Republican agenda. That is what you are voting for with McCain.

---

And you really think Democrats are against corporate welfare? LOL

Democrats have started most wars the US has been in. Most voted for the current war we are in. Democrats control the Congress (house and senate) and what did we get from them? $150 billion in additional war spending in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009, on top of the pentagons already ridiculous budgets.

Democrats are not against war, they are against wars that don't do well in public opinion polls. Equally as bad they are all for using the military for "nation building". Obama, back when he was advocating a rapid pull out from Iraq, said that he would send troops back into Iraq if al-Qaeda gained a foothold there. Obama said that he would send US troops into Pakistan even without the Pakistani governments approval, he said that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, under no circumstances, how you can say he is opposed to military action against Iran? Obama is all for the war in Afganistan as well.

---

Republicans controlled the congress for 12 years before the last congressional election and we got more corporate welfare, corruption, greed, wars we can't handle, etc. Than ever. You need to check our facts before opening mouth and inserting foot.

When the democrats tried to hold hearings to investigate public issues they were stuck in the basement. Don't believe me, google it and do some research. Both parties are fucked but there is nothing in the history of this country that can touch the stupidity, hatred and utter incompetence of the current republican party.

The issue they should be strong on (national security) they have become a joke on as well by getting us into Iraq. On top of this stupidity these idiots run around yapping about support the troops but continue to vote against anything that gives proper medical benefits, mental care, job training, college tuition assistance, etc. As a Naval Academy alum and veteran I am disgusted by this. Supporting the troops doesn't mean running around with a bumper sticker on your car or calling someone non-patriotic because they don't support your bad idea for a war.

---

Foot in mouth? You didn't refute anything I said. Also, you have a basic logical flaw, me pointing out the issues with Obama and Democrats doesnt mean I think the Republicans or McCain are any better, you concede that "both parties are fucked". I only focused on Obama and Democrats because this thread mostly reads like a DNC talking points memo, and the Idol worship of Obama is just plane disgusting. What is your evidence for your claims against the Republican led congress the 12 years you are talking about? Again, I'm not saying I support them, I dislike them as much as Democrats, but to say they are the worst ever is a pretty bold claim.

Obama is nothing special, a total politician. If you don't understand this then you are just another sheep blindly following. If you believe in his policies, or support him solely because you think he is the lesser of two evils, then fine, but lets not pretend there is anything special about him.

BTW, 27 Democrats in the Senate voted for the Iraq war, including Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Bayh, Dodd, Kerry, and Reid. They had the same evidence that Republicans Senators had. Again look at past wars, Democratic presidents got the US involved in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, and our military action in Kosovo under the last Democrat to hold the Presidency, and I know what your response is to this so let me say I can point you to some good resources exposing the myth of the "Just War".

Some of you really need to wake up, the Democratic Party (and GOP) are not your friends, they both use FUD and emotional pleas to persuade you to keep them in power and in control. Currently Democrats are all about class warfare rhetoric, and Republicans are all about Islamofascism fear mongering. Sure they differ on some issues, but both parties believe in big obtrusive government, the Democrats at least admit this (hell, they seem to brag about it) while the Republicans pretend they are fiscally conservative.

I have been watching and listening to some of the convention, and its funny to here the Democrats talk about how Republicans are tools of "Special Interests", and I gather most here believe that as well. So this might come as a surprise, but the Democrats are just as much beholden to special interests as the Republicans are (although a slightly different mix), in fact the Democratic Party gets more money from special interest groups than the Republican party.

27 democrats voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq. They did not vote to go to war in Iraq. Its a big different. Some indeed wanted to go to war but others were trusting the president and the info he was giving them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baron Of Hell

27 democrats voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq. They did not vote to go to war in Iraq. Its a big different. Some indeed wanted to go to war but others were trusting the president and the info he was giving them.

---

Point well taken, they only authorized the use of force, but that seems like a bit of a cop out to me. Democrats and Republicans looked at the same info and decided the US was justified in using force. Of course one theory is that the Bush administration fabricated evidence to make their case, I would think they would have come up with something better if that was the case, but who knowns maybe it is true. It seems to me from what I have read that this was more a case of selective use of data, they had a forgone conclusion and searched out evidence to support their case, instead of an objective analysis. This happens all the time in the media and academia, unfortuately in this case the stakes were billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

All this seems to miss the key point that Democrats say they were "fooled" into supporting the war, and to that I say even if WMD were found in Iraq the war would not have been justified. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a direct threat to our security.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think the Democrats are the party of peace. They have no problems with starting wars, and IMO even worse using the military for "peace keeping" and "nation building". They might be right (in hindsight) about Iraq being a mistake, but it illustrates how quick many of them were to support the war on the flimsiest of reasons.

When it comes to war mongering, the current neo-con Republicans are #1, but the Democrats are clearly not far behind. You might find it interesting that the "old right" Republicans of the past were non-interventionists, its only in more modern times with the rise of the neo-cons that they have become the main supporters of war, regime change, etc. There is an active movement by some conservatives to retake the Republican party from neo-cons and bible thumpers, unfortunately I think this is a lost cause as these two demographics seem to have a strangle hold. Some conservaties actually want Obama to win, not because they agree with any of his policies, but because they feel an Obama win might diminish the power of the neo-cons and religious right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PapaGrande

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baron Of Hell

27 democrats voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq. They did not vote to go to war in Iraq. Its a big different. Some indeed wanted to go to war but others were trusting the president and the info he was giving them.

---

Point well taken, they only authorized the use of force, but that seems like a bit of a cop out to me. Democrats and Republicans looked at the same info and decided the US was justified in using force. Of course one theory is that the Bush administration fabricated evidence to make their case, I would think they would have come up with something better if that was the case, but who knowns maybe it is true. It seems to me from what I have read that this was more a case of selective use of data, they had a forgone conclusion and searched out evidence to support their case, instead of an objective analysis. This happens all the time in the media and academia, unfortuately in this case the stakes were billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

All this seems to miss the key point that Democrats say they were "fooled" into supporting the war, and to that I say even if WMD were found in Iraq the war would not have been justified. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a direct threat to our security.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think the Democrats are the party of peace. They have no problems with starting wars, and IMO even worse using the military for "peace keeping" and "nation building". They might be right (in hindsight) about Iraq being a mistake, but it illustrates how quick many of them were to support the war on the flimsiest of reasons.

When it comes to war mongering, the current neo-con Republicans are #1, but the Democrats are clearly not far behind. You might find it interesting that the "old right" Republicans of the past were non-interventionists, its only in more modern times with the rise of the neo-cons that they have become the main supporters of war, regime change, etc. There is an active movement by some conservatives to retake the Republican party from neo-cons and bible thumpers, unfortunately I think this is a lost cause as these two demographics seem to have a strangle hold. Some conservaties actually want Obama to win, not because they agree with any of his policies, but because they feel an Obama win might diminish the power of the neo-cons and religious right.

---

You ar actually right on one point. A bunch of them supported the war for idiot reasons. Like being afraid of being called unpatriotic. It's a cop out and a bad reason to go along. I have no problem with theat fact. But, trying to say both parties are equally corrupt is garbage. Especially when statistics show different.

And by the way, I am an independent. At least I was until this latest crop of republican idiots decided our country should be run based on religion and hatred for people who aren't white males.

Wow we have some "pink" republicans......wow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beagle

I don't get the big deal about McCain (actually Mrs McCain) owning 7 homes. I believe some are investment properties.

Why is this a problem?

Did you feel the same way about Kerry's wife being rich and owning a lot of stuff?

Do you know how Obama purchased his properties?

---

most people online and in general dont and dont care they watch too much mtv to actually know the facts

they go oh Obama makes a good speech even though all his speeches are a in sharp contrasts to everything hes done in his whole life they will vote for him

Well the house thing is simple. People think McCain is not that good with money. He had 200k credit card debt and his top economic advisor didn't think there was a problem with the economy. A person that doesn't know how many houses he owns might not think the economy is in bad shape.

So basically it is just one more thing that makes him look like the wrong choice to fix the economy.