Who are you voting for?

[frogboy]

No, he supports getting rid of them because the Constitution says that those should be the states' responsibility (such as the department of education).

Which isn't practical at all. One of the departments he suggests axing is the FDA. I really hope I don't have to spell this out, but obviously you can see what would happen if every state had different regulations on food, or none at all, letting the "free market" sort it out. Also, I think I'm probably being cynical but I wouldn't be surprised if he would only repeal such laws because he knows that states are going to be more conservative about such issues. Not that it's really that important anyway, seeing as he has about as much chance of me as being US President.

Those are all topics for congress buddy. President doesn't get to touch those with a 10 foot pole.

Already been said, but yes, he can veto them, much like Bush has vetoed decisions involving stem cell research.

[Radical Terrorist]

Some problems shouldn't be decided by any one person. Democracy is supposed to be based on that theory, but it seems to be slipping away from that. The whole idea behind democracy was that the leader "Represented" the people, but now it's becoming more like the leader Decides everything for the people. What clothes are acceptable, whether wearing any clothes is acceptable at all, whether it's considered "Immoral" for scientists to practice something that theoretically could cure every illness, but not for them to be building weapons that can vaporize a human.

[Svirin Kerath]

No, he supports getting rid of them because the Constitution says that those should be the states' responsibility (such as the department of education).

Which isn't practical at all. One of the departments he suggests axing is the FDA. I really hope I don't have to spell this out, but obviously you can see what would happen if every state had different regulations on food, or none at all, letting the "free market" sort it out. Also, I think I'm probably being cynical but I wouldn't be surprised if he would only repeal such laws because he knows that states are going to be more conservative about such issues. Not that it's really that important anyway, seeing as he has about as much chance of me as being US President.

Those are all topics for congress buddy. President doesn't get to touch those with a 10 foot pole.

Already been said, but yes, he can veto them, much like Bush has vetoed decisions involving stem cell research.

I hate to say it, but I have not found anything to disagree with within frogboy's arguments here. These are the primary reasons Paul is not the top of my list. But I trust him much more than Clinton, and he's the only Republican I'd vote for.

Some problems shouldn't be decided by any one person. Democracy is supposed to be based on that theory, but it seems to be slipping away from that. The whole idea behind democracy was that the leader "Represented" the people, but now it's becoming more like the leader Decides everything for the people. What clothes are acceptable, whether wearing any clothes is acceptable at all, whether it's considered "Immoral" for scientists to practice something that theoretically could cure every illness, but not for them to be building weapons that can vaporize a human.

Actually, in Democracy, everyone rules (think Athens). In a Republic, citizens elect people to represent their interests. The U.S. is a Republic, technically.

[bja888]

Those are all topics for congress buddy. President doesn't get to touch those with a 10 foot pole.

Already been said, but yes, he can veto them, much like Bush has vetoed decisions involving stem cell research.

Then congress says "feck you" with a 2/3 vote. And the pres cant say sh*t.

[frogboy]

Then congress says "feck you" with a 2/3 vote. And the pres cant say sh*t.

And how much of congress is made up of the predominantly fundamentalist-Christian republicans? Surely more than one third. And then some of the Democrats and other parties could also disagree with certain decisions on the grounds of religion.

[Graham]

Then congress says "feck you" with a 2/3 vote. And the pres cant say sh*t.

And how much of congress is made up of the predominantly fundamentalist-Christian republicans? Surely more than one third. And then some of the Democrats and other parties could also disagree with certain decisions on the grounds of religion.

I think Democrats have the majority now. I may be thinking of something else though.

[bja888]

Then congress says "feck you" with a 2/3 vote. And the pres cant say sh*t.

And how much of congress is made up of the predominantly fundamentalist-Christian republicans? Surely more than one third. And then some of the Democrats and other parties could also disagree with certain decisions on the grounds of religion.

Don't forget that before it even makes it to the president it needs a 51% vote (I think?). Thats only a 15% difference. The president doesn't have much to do with law or taxes.

Edit:
Correction...
The president doesn't have much to do with making law or taxes.

[Vltava]

Then congress says "feck you" with a 2/3 vote. And the pres cant say sh*t.

And how much of congress is made up of the predominantly fundamentalist-Christian republicans? Surely more than one third. And then some of the Democrats and other parties could also disagree with certain decisions on the grounds of religion.

I think Democrats have the majority now. I may be thinking of something else though.

Did we forget that majority means more than 1/2? A 2/3 majority is needed to override an executive veto.

[Graham]

Then congress says "feck you" with a 2/3 vote. And the pres cant say sh*t.

And how much of congress is made up of the predominantly fundamentalist-Christian republicans? Surely more than one third. And then some of the Democrats and other parties could also disagree with certain decisions on the grounds of religion.

I think Democrats have the majority now. I may be thinking of something else though.

Did we forget that majority means more than 1/2? A 2/3 majority is needed to override an executive veto.

I didn't take math in grade school. Thank you for opening my eyes. I finally see all that was behind the curtain!

[VijchtiDoodah]

In a Republic, citizens elect people to represent their interests. The U.S. is a Republic, technically.

Not to be contrary, but many would say we're actually a representative democracy.  In reality, we're a plutocracy heading towards a theocratic oligarchy.

Who am I voting for?  Let's begin with who I'm not voting for:

Mike Huckabee: this man wants to hasten our path towards a theocracy by amending the Ten Commandments of his religion into the Constitution and believes that there is no place for any other faith in these United States (in essence, if you aren't Christian, you don't belong here).  If his parenting is any indication of his ability to effectively rule a people, then we're in serious trouble when you consider that one of his sons captured, lynched, stoned, and slit the throat of a stray dog while Mike (poorly) attempted to cover the whole affair up.  He has been known to silence dissent by arresting protesters, silencing critics, and intimidating or suppressing activism.  He believes all women should be subservient to their husbands.  And let us not forget that, while the national media loves him, he has an absolutely horrendous track record of corruption and immorality as a governor in Arkansas (read).

John McCain: this man wants to continue the bumbling war in Iraq for as long as possible and intends to incite other wars elsewhere (not to mention the fact that he would have begun the war regardless of the existence of WMDs). He publicly announced his racism of the Chinese (our greatest benefactors) by stating "I hate the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live" and has exhibited his racism against several other groups.  He admits that he “doesn’t really understand economics."  He demonstrates his utter ignorance of the main issues surrounding drug prohibition.  And, like Huckabee's embarrassing faux pas when he was conned into believing that the Canadian capitol building was an igloo, has such a weak understanding of international politics that he thinks Putin is the president of Germany.

Mitt Romney: though we founded them to protect the population from tyranny, Romney believes in the systematic dismantling of our Bill of Rights.  He has been publicly scolded for changing his position on important issues to support his ambitions more than any other candidate.  He wants to double the size of Guantanamo Bay prison despite the many atrocities committed there.  He aided investors in tax evasion in order to increase investments and profits at his own company -- the same company he claims gave him the skills necessary to lead the country.  Romney himself uses offshore "companies" (in reality, they are nothing more than mailboxes) to evade paying his own income taxes.  And he does not believe the president should follow the Constitution -- specifically that the president should be able to order the nation into war at his fancy.

Of course, this leaves much of their policies out of the picture, but I can't pretend to have the same interests as everyone else on these forums.  You'll have to research those on your own.

I would love to vote for Ron Paul -- not because I agree with all of his policies but because his views are strictly constitutional, put priority on rebuilding the nation over international interests, and demonstrate an understanding of economics (even if his first instinct in the matter may not be the best, say our pseudo-economists on the forums).  But then we all know that Ron Paul is a lost cause at this point thanks primarily to our "fair and balanced" friends at Fox News and the rest of the self-interested media corporations.

My vote then falls to Obama who, at the very least, is better than any of the remaining Republican or Democrat candidates.

[Svirin Kerath]

Big Block of Awesome

Mostly agreed. I think representative democracy is a more specific branch of republicanism, buttheocratic oligarchy is a bit far-fetched. I admittedly had to research plutocracy to come to the opinion that while it is more possible than it was 8 years ago, it is still far less possible than it was 100 years ago.

Only other point would be that McCain is a 'Nam vet, was captured and tortured by the Vietnamese for a length of time which he exacerbated himself by volunteering to stay despite plans to extract him due to the power of his father. If he says he hates 'gooks,' are you sure he doesn't mean the North/Vietnamese?

Not that I'd vote for him, but the 'gooks' comment seems to lack context.

[VijchtiDoodah]

Checked a second source.  He was referring to the North Vietnamese, not the Chinese or Asians in general.  Good catch.

[a-4-year-old]

what a jackass. Everyone knows the canadian capitol is a log cabin.

[Radical Terrorist]

No, it's a giant Igloo!
Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans!
Not meant to invoke a flame war and not meant to be a generalization, he probably picked the low-watt bulbs of the pack, but Euro's outta get a kick out of this (P.S. Rick Mercer is Canadian if you haven't already figured that out).

[Dascoo]

what a jackass. Everyone knows the canadian capitol is a log cabin.

Sorry no it's an Igloo.

[Cookie.]

what a jackass. Everyone knows the canadian capitol is a log cabin.

Sorry no it's an Igloo.

This is fact.

[BondJamesBond]

Hello. I'm browsing through email and dug up this letter (just a week old)

�  � People who don't study politics will reasonably conclude that Sen.
Obama got a big victory in SC. I thought so too. However, now that the
exit polls are available, I think Obama is destined to lose big on Super
Tuesday when 50% of the delegates will be selected. After that, Hillary
will sweep the nomination. Here are the 3 major reasons.

[A] How Sen. Obama Got his SC Victory

�  � As the mainstream media stressed: Obama's courting of the black vote in
SC may cost him the white vote. Exits poll showed that his white support
went down by 50%. Since the white vote is still about 75% of the nation's total,
the repercussion dooms Obama on Super Tuesday and later primaries.

�  � See http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/SC.html
Obama got only ¼ of the white votes, while Clinton and
Edwards split the rest. In the 22 state primaries on Super Tuesday,
Clinton will get a lion's share of the white votes, with Edwards getting
much less because Edwards is out of time and money to campaign.

�  � High electoral politics is mathematical. The 55% Obama got in SC were
almost all from blacks and white Republicans who strongly dislike
Clinton, according to a CNN reporter (John King, I believe). Note that in
SC, voters may cross party to vote. In contrast, 2/3 of the 22 states allow
only Democrats or (Democrats plus Independents) to vote in a
Democratic primary. Polls after polls show that Democrats strongly
prefer Clinton. In addition, Clinton has very strong infrastructure in all
big states, planted since Bill Clinton's time in the White House.

The Big States Strongly Favor Clinton

�  � Big states like CA, NY, NJ and IL will select delegate on Super Tuesday.
Clinton has a 12 pt lead in CA, a 26 pts lead in NY, while NJ is next to
Hillary's home state of NY. Visit
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/election/index.html
and go down the page to "Super Tuesday" and see the CA and NY polls.
To put things in perspective, just CA has more delegates than all the
delegates selected so far.

�  � As of yesterday, Clinton has a lead in every one of those 22 states
except IL, which is Obama's home state.

�  � However, I think Obama will also win GA, where there is a 30% black
population just like SC. Note that blacks are registered predominantly
as Democrats. Even TN may go Obama.

[C] Not Much Time and money left for Obama

�  � There are only 9 days left for Obama to play catch up. His strength is
rhetorical skills. He can't use those skills effectively when there are 22
states, some huge, and he has only 9 days left.

�  � Obama has raised $81Million, while Clinton has raised $91 million. My
impression is that Obama has been spending much faster than Clinton,
because he must do very well in early primaries in order to shock and
crumble the Clinton foundation. However, he didn't achieve his
objectives. They each took 2 states (NH and Nevada for Clinton).

�  � Believe it or not, there is an 85% chance that the election is
over for Obama! Why doesn't the media inform you of the facts shown
above? A close race helps increase readership, viewership & listenership. :-)

Respectfully,
S. B. Woo
Member, Executive Comm., 80-20 PA, Inc.

(Sorry for the big block of text, just wanted to share this with you.) I can't really present any arguments, because I have not been spending time researching who is likely to win. I've been researching the actual candidates.

[Radical Terrorist]

Hah, the igloo game from that rick mercer video, he tricked some people into congratulating Canada for "Preserving our national igloo" and for "Legalizing Insulin".

[tehsnipah]

i don't think Hilary Clinton should be a president, she's smart enough to make our country strong or fecked up. and yeah, she'll highly possibly make a stupid laws

[Radical Terrorist]

So you want a dumb ass behind the desk? Sorry, but you know that sometimes (especially with America) the first person foreigners look at first is the Leader who is supposed to be the best of the breed. If your leader is a retard, what do you think everyone will think of the rest of the country?