2008 Election Options

[impala454]

Ok well now that we pretty much have the two major party candidates, lets get this show on the road. Obviously some of you will vote for 3rd party candidates, just list them if you think they'll actually be on the ballot.

[Seeker]

ron paul

[impala454]

is he still going to run?

[Seeker]

duurrrrrrrr, i see someone doesn't keep up with politics in the u.s.

[impala454]

you could just answer the question, ass

[Spectatrix]

No, Ron Paul is not going to be on the ballet. Mike Gravel, however, is trying for the Libertarian candidate spot.

I'll be voting for Obama.

[impala454]

Hmm... so I guess I keep up with American politics better than someone else thought...

[woody]

ron paul...

[Spectatrix]

Hmm... so I guess I keep up with American politics better than someone else thought...

He hasn't officially quit his presidential campaign, but since McCain clinched the nomination, it's been purely to get ideas out there.

[Billy]

The reason I cannot vote for Obama, despite feeling he would make the better president, simply put, is his proposed policy on Iraq and his desire for universal health care.

Policy on Iraq

From his speeches, it appears he wants to slowly withdraw from Iraq. Definitely the popular opinion, but I feel such a policy is very short sighted. By slowly withdrawing, it's obvious he doesn't want to just destabilize the region by one swift removal of security there. That sounds smart. But if he wants to slowly withdraw, he probably doesn't want to invest further into the project. I really feel such a move would completely waste the efforts of our country in Iraq. And by efforts, I am talking about the 4000+ American lives already spent, as well as the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in investment of Iraq. I feel the ultimate goal of this war was to "Americanize" Iraq. By Americanize, I mean culturally convert the population to become more similar to the American way of rationale, by having similar type of government, similar type of economy, and most important of all, similar views of fair trade. It is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks, and so convincing the adult population to Americanize is not an easy task. However, convincing the Iraqi youth to adopt our ways is easy, as youth have a natural desire to adopt new cultures and are typically more accepting than their adult counterparts. By having a long-term presence in Iraq, we can ensure that the American friendly youth will grow up to be an Iraqi population that is culturally friendly to America. Culturally similar countries are, hands down, easier to diplomatically co-exist with, than dissimilar (stating the obvious). And with strong diplomatic ties, we can ensure long lasting, fair trade agreements.

There will not be any instant rewards with Iraq. However, long term occupation has promise that America's future remains a rich one. There is no denial that we are heavily dependent on oil, and our economy suffers greatly, as well as the people in that economy, when the price is high. It will suffer even more when the resource becomes scarce. Allowing our children's generation easy access to trade with Iraq, our future generation should have the same quality of life as we did, and possibly a better one. And one day, Iraq of the future may be like Japan is today, and we will have a strong ally in a region where we need allies.

But this is not Obama's approach. No, instead he would rather concede to the media. He would rather say, "yes, this is very unpopular war, as all wars tend to be, and media you win. Let's sell out our future so that, one, I can be president, and two the media can be happy". Let's waste all of the hard work, the bravery, and the lives that have been sacrificed in stabilizing Iraq, for America's desire of instant gratification. Let's continue to have the philosophy that a little happiness now is better than a lot of happiness later. And instead of producing a great ally for the future, we would rather save some money now and live with a country with a vicious hatred for us for generations to come.

And I'm sorry, but I just disagree.


Universal Health Care

I'm not going to say as much about this because I'm not really sure of his plan here. But I suspect I will end up paying more, and receiving less, as has been shown to happen in the UK. Germany has almost a 50% income tax, and a 19% sales tax. And I'm sure Canada is equally oppressive in order to have such a program. I really feel we have a an excellent medical system right now, in fact, one of the best, if not the best, of the world. I do not understand trying to meddle with something that works, and works well. If they really want to reduce medical costs, they need to put caps on medical malpractice lawsuits. Universal health care will not do this.

And thus, John McCain has my vote.

[impala454]

He hasn't officially quit his presidential campaign, but since McCain clinched the nomination, it's been purely to get ideas out there.

yeah i looked at his site after lance's post and thought the "THERE WERE 11. NOW THERE ARE TWO." thing was pretty funny...

[THECHICKEN]

The reason I cannot vote for Obama, despite feeling he would make the better president, simply put, is his proposed policy on Iraq and his desire for universal health care.

Policy on Iraq

From his speeches, it appears he wants to slowly withdraw from Iraq. Definitely the popular opinion, but I feel such a policy is very short sighted. By slowly withdrawing, it's obvious he doesn't want to just destabilize the region by one swift removal of security there. That sounds smart. But if he wants to slowly withdraw, he probably doesn't want to invest further into the project. I really feel such a move would completely waste the efforts of our country in Iraq. And by efforts, I am talking about the 4000+ American lives already spent, as well as the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in investment of Iraq. I feel the ultimate goal of this war was to "Americanize" Iraq. By Americanize, I mean culturally convert the population to become more similar to the American way of rationale, by having similar type of government, similar type of economy, and most important of all, similar views of fair trade. It is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks, and so convincing the adult population to Americanize is not an easy task. However, convincing the Iraqi youth to adopt our ways is easy, as youth have a natural desire to adopt new cultures and are typically more accepting than their adult counterparts. By having a long-term presence in Iraq, we can ensure that the American friendly youth will grow up to be an Iraqi population that is culturally friendly to America. Culturally similar countries are, hands down, easier to diplomatically co-exist with, than dissimilar (stating the obvious). And with strong diplomatic ties, we can ensure long lasting, fair trade agreements.

There will not be any instant rewards with Iraq. However, long term occupation has promise that America's future remains a rich one. There is no denial that we are heavily dependent on oil, and our economy suffers greatly, as well as the people in that economy, when the price is high. It will suffer even more when the resource becomes scarce. Allowing our children's generation easy access to trade with Iraq, our future generation should have the same quality of life as we did, and possibly a better one. And one day, Iraq of the future may be like Japan is today, and we will have a strong ally in a region where we need allies.

But this is not Obama's approach. No, instead he would rather concede to the media. He would rather say, "yes, this is very unpopular war, as all wars tend to be, and media you win. Let's sell out our future so that, one, I can be president, and two the media can be happy". Let's waste all of the hard work, the bravery, and the lives that have been sacrificed in stabilizing Iraq, for America's desire of instant gratification. Let's continue to have the philosophy that a little happiness now is better than a lot of happiness later. And instead of producing a great ally for the future, we would rather save some money now and live with a country with a vicious hatred for us for generations to come.

And I'm sorry, but I just disagree.
Universal Health Care

I'm not going to say as much about this because I'm not really sure of his plan here. But I suspect I will end up paying more, and receiving less, as has been shown to happen in the UK. Germany has almost a 50% income tax, and a 19% sales tax. And I'm sure Canada is equally oppressive in order to have such a program. I really feel we have a an excellent medical system right now, in fact, one of the best, if not the best, of the world. I do not understand trying to meddle with something that works, and works well. If they really want to reduce medical costs, they need to put caps on medical malpractice lawsuits. Universal health care will not do this.

And thus, John McCain has my vote.

Wow i agree with billy.... heh

Oh except for if there are caps put on malpractice, there should be a judge given option, or legislature decided circumstance, to remove the cap in certain extrenuous situations. Mainly because there are some situations when a party is extremely wronged and the caps provide little relief. Caps work to a degree (my moms hospital was almost going bankrupt before) but they run the risk of screwing over people with valid larger claims. Need to develop a system to better weed out bad claims, or perhaps auto counterclaim against bad plaintiffs.

Insurance ... don't get me started

[Melanie]

The Libertarian Party has already chosen Bob Barr for their candidate.

[Seeker]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian in the Republican party.

Bob Barr is a Republican in the Libertarian party. If you look at Bob Barr's voting record it's downright scary. Why the Libertarians ever chose a fascist neo-con as their candidate is beyond me.

[Spectatrix]

The Libertarian Party has already chosen Bob Barr for their candidate.

Ah, didn't realize they'd had their convention already.