|
2008 Elections
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Kapedan |
Hello everyone.
This past weekend I got into conversations with people about possible 2008 match ups, and who would be the best choice for both parties.
Right now, I think that a Hillary/Obama would be a good choice for Democrats. I think they would get the women vote as well as the minority vote.
Now on the other side, I believe that republicans best choice is Giulian, and for vice president, I think someone from the south or the west coast would also be a great strategy for republicans.
I made this thread to discuss the upcoming elections, so feel free to express your thoughts and your candidates or other candidates that you think will not get the vote. Lets keep it clean please.
Alban |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
I think that Obama, Hillary, and Guiliani are all decent choices, especially comparitively to what we have now.
They all seem to talk with an honest conviction to themselves, and that to me is a powerful depiction of a person's leadership capabilities.
What pisses me off is that we've had such terrible choices on both sides in the last few elections, and now all of a sudden we've got all these seemingly great candidates.
Of course, I'll have to wait to see more of what they all have to say on various issues, and get more of a feel for their general output. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
a republican without special interests?... sounds like a libertarian:p |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| Oh no if he gets elected. The international bankers are going to assasinate another US president.:nervous: |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Republican Congressman Ron Paul. |
I was going to support this guy but I am too much of a liberal/moderate. I agree with some of his view points, however I don't really understand how such a limited of government could function....basically everything privated. What's the use of "government" if there hardly is one? I just don't think a "libertarian" like he is, works in a country this large, with such a diverse group of people and with such economic and social problems, including health care (would he privatize health care?, get rid of medicare?, medicaid? social security?). In my opinion, this country runs best with a government that isn't too large, and isn't too small either. Something like what Clinton had. A "moderate" government, with both liberal and conservative ideas. His brand of libertarianism, from what i've read and heard from him, reeks of isolationism and protectionism, which we may need some of that, but the world (and our country) has changed so much that it would mean a complete reform of the way we run our government (which would mean eliminating many government-run programs people depend on). |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Republican Congressman Ron Paul...
He's the only sane, real conservative, non-prowar candidate we have. Not only is he agiast the Patriot Act & Military Commissions Act and for maintaining/protecting our civil liberties... |
Wait, civil liberties? OUR civil liberties? Sure...(wait for it.........) unless you're gay!
Let's see what Ron Paul's done so far to hurt gay civil liberties:
The Federal Marriage Amendment would enshrine discrimination into the U.S.
Constitution by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman
and prohibiting federal and state laws from conferring same-sex couples with marital
status and “the legal incidents thereof.” The amendment would thereby endanger
civil unions and domestic partnership benefits. The House of Representatives voted
on the amendment on July 18, 2006, needing a two-thirds majority to approve the
amendment. The amendment failed to reach a two-thirds majority by a vote of 236-
187-1 (Roll Call Vote 378, 2nd Session).
Ron Paul voted to block gay marriage.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., offered an amendment to the Child Safety Act (H.R.
3132), adding the provisions of the HRC-supported Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act which would give the federal government jurisdiction to help
local law enforcement confront hate violence based on sexual orientation, gender
identity, gender and disability.
Ron Paul voted NO.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced May 26,
2005, that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes
perpetrated because of the “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability” of the victim. As of Sept.
29, 2006, the measure had 160 co-sponsors: Democrats 149; Republicans 10;
Independents 1.
Ron Paul voted NO.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation that would repeal "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual service people, and allow them
to serve openly in the military.
Ron Paul didn't co-sponsor this.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation (formerly called the
Permanent Partners Immigration Act) introduced June 21, 2005, that would amend
the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and
lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits legal spouses of U.S. residents
enjoy.
Ron Paul didn't co-sponsor this.
So maybe being anti-Patriot Act and anti-Federal Reserve is cool, but the way I view it that's completely overshadowed by the fact that Ron Paul likes to oppresses gay civil liberties. If it were up to me, I would jail the fool. Civil liberties my ass. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| I can't believe you're obsessing over your right to marriage/civil union, whatever term you prefer, when the constitution is being ripped to shreds and the republic is falling apart. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I can't believe you're obsessing over your right to marriage/civil union, whatever term you prefer, when the constitution is being ripped to shreds and the republic is falling apart. |
I can't believe you're obsessing over a fifth of my argument/selectively looking at part of it, whatever term you prefer, when my constitutional rights are being molested by Ron Paul.
Ron Paul's voting record on gay marriage was ONE OF FIVE parts of my argument. There's a lot more than just gay marriage that Ron Paul is trying to destroy. Please use valid counter-arguments to ALL FIVE PARTS of my argument if you want any merit to your argument.
Meanwhile, for fun, let's turn all my arguments from "gay" to "Muslim" and see just how much of an your hero really looks to YOUR minority group.
What would you do if Ron Paul did this?:
-Voted NO on MUSLIM marriage
-voted NO on giving the gov't enforcement to confront hate crimes against MUSLIMs
-voted NO to expanding federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the "MUSLIM nature" of the victim
-voted NO on letting MUSLIM serve openly as MUSLIMs in the military
-voted NO on providing MUSLIM partners of U.S. citizens and
lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits as NON-Muslim U.S. residents
Wow, Ron Paul sure looks like fun now. Maybe I'll go vote for him! |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
I can't believe you're obsessing over a fifth of my argument/selectively looking at part of it, whatever term you prefer, when my constitutional rights are being molested by Ron Paul.
Ron Paul's voting record on gay marriage was ONE OF FIVE parts of my argument. There's a lot more than just gay marriage that Ron Paul is trying to destroy. Please use valid counter-arguments to ALL FIVE PARTS of my argument if you want any merit to your argument.
Meanwhile, for fun, let's turn all my arguments from "gay" to "Muslim" and see just how much of an your hero really looks to YOUR minority group.
What would you do if Ron Paul did this?:
-Voted NO on MUSLIM marriage
-voted NO on giving the gov't enforcement to confront hate crimes against MUSLIMs
-voted NO to expanding federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the "MUSLIM nature" of the victim
-voted NO on letting MUSLIM serve openly as MUSLIMs in the military
-voted NO on providing MUSLIM partners of U.S. citizens and
lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits as NON-Muslim U.S. residents
Wow, Ron Paul sure looks like fun now. Maybe I'll go vote for him! |
Don't mix issues, homosexuality isn't a religion last time I checked, nor is it an ethnic/racial group. And the hate crimes bit is just BS, read this thread in case you're curious what I've said about that one in the past:
tranceaddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense
I'm not trying to undermine your personal concerns here, but have a little perspective.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I can't believe you're obsessing over your right to marriage/civil union, whatever term you prefer, when the constitution is being ripped to shreds and the republic is falling apart. |
Plus, most people from his generation aren't exactly pro-gay rights eigther you know. I don't see why this comes across as such a surprise. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| Most people nowadays are still anti-gay. That won't change. No one wants them around. They make us straight guys look bad and they steal our jobs too. Why just why do we want gays around? When they are assaulting our people and threatening our very existence with their dance music and good looks/personality??? Like I said they MOST definately make us straight guys look bad. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Most people nowadays are still anti-gay. That won't change. No one wants them around. They make us straight guys look bad and they steal our jobs too. Why just why do we want gays around? When they are assaulting our people and threatening our very existence with their dance music and good looks/personality??? Like I said they MOST definately make us straight guys look bad. |
Homo-Phobe!! ;)
The people I know who do not like gays are normally bill bob and peggy sue down at the farm. Closed minded, ignorant people really. |
|
|
|
|
