# Who will you Vote for 2008



## SkylarV217 (Jun 6, 2008)

Just wondering who you ladies support =)


----------



## Chikky (Jun 6, 2008)

An interesting poll, but I don't consider myself Republican OR Democrat. I just vote for who I like most (or dislike the least). I'm not sure I even know who's what.


----------



## pumpkincat210 (Jun 6, 2008)

I don't think i could ever vote republican again after the last 8 years of bullshit.


----------



## jenjunsan (Jun 6, 2008)

I usually always vote democrat, but I can't vote for either Obama or Hilary. This might be the first time in 17 years I vote republican.  (Although I agree that the last 8 years have been bullshit!)


----------



## NicksWifey (Jun 6, 2008)

I normally vote Republican, but I'm not impressed with John McCain. I do not like Obama or Hillary, just my opinion. I don't think I will be voting at all


----------



## xbrookecorex (Jun 6, 2008)

.


----------



## hr44 (Jun 6, 2008)

I'm republican but true republican ideas are not being supported by McCain  and he just rubs me off the wrong way more so than Hilary and Obama... soooo I'm pushing democrat...since it's now Obama who I favored more than Hilary although... all these candidates are not my cup of tea. 
I had my heart set on Ron Paul... yea I know, a dream in the clouds... but he still got my vote.


----------



## sofabean (Jun 6, 2008)

obama for sure. hillary is conniving. all of these very controversial threads that have started lately are headed for trouble, seriously...


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Jun 6, 2008)

Republican .


----------



## M.A.C. head. (Jun 6, 2008)

Obama ftw.


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 6, 2008)

I'll vote for someone I wouldn't trust to watch my children, wouldn't invite to my dinner table, and wouldn't spend a day walking through the zoo with.
I'll vote for someone who would rub me personally the wrong way, irritate me, and generally cause me negative emotion.
I'll vote for someone who wouldn't be invited to a family cookout, trusted with my wallet, or asked to dog sit while I went out of town.

Why will I vote for that person? Because those are the options we're presented with.


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Jun 6, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *sofabean* 

 
_obama for sure. hillary is conniving. *all of these very controversial threads that have started lately are headed for trouble, seriously...*_

 

Its the internet, and should NEVER be taken seriously.


----------



## purrtykitty (Jun 6, 2008)

I don't trust the government to run anything (referring to socialized heathcare).  If you want something fucked up, give it to the government to run.  I'm not saying the republicans are better than the democrats, but this one important point I can't overlook.


----------



## NicksWifey (Jun 6, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_I'll vote for someone I wouldn't trust to watch my children, wouldn't invite to my dinner table, and wouldn't spend a day walking through the zoo with.
I'll vote for someone who would rub me personally the wrong way, irritate me, and generally cause me negative emotion.
I'll vote for someone who wouldn't be invited to a family cookout, trusted with my wallet, or asked to dog sit while I went out of town.

Why will I vote for that person? Because those are the options we're presented with._

 
Right on sister.


----------



## *Stargazer* (Jun 6, 2008)

I am not sure I'm voting this year. These people suck. It's a case of who sucks less and I HATE that.


----------



## CaseyKezerian (Jun 6, 2008)

I'm normally a democrat, in most cases I have a very liberal view. This year, I'm definitely voting for John McCain.


----------



## SkylarV217 (Jun 6, 2008)

This year I don't really see a good candidate and I think thats sad.


----------



## CantAffordMAC (Jun 7, 2008)

Obama.


----------



## Divinity (Jun 7, 2008)

I got a crush on Obama.


----------



## alwaysbella (Jun 7, 2008)

im not really like the 3 but if i have to pick for either -which i will- more likely Obama...


----------



## HeavenLeiBlu (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *sofabean* 

 
_obama for sure. hillary is conniving. all of these very controversial threads that have started lately are headed for trouble, seriously..._

 
I agree. I've taken the bait the last few times... I think I'll just swim around it this time. I hardly ever discuss my views on abortion/religion/politics publicly, and somehow my comfort level got so high that I spilled here. Not this time.... or YET, rather, LOL


----------



## KikiB (Jun 7, 2008)

I'm definitely Obama, I caucused for him, and both my mom and I are huge fans of him. I originally was for Kucinich, but as soon as he dropped out I jumped on the Obama bandwagon and never looked back.


----------



## riacarolina (Jun 7, 2008)

I'm voting Democratic. I'm a Canadian with dual citizenship, and its worth the trip to the states for me to vote against another George Bush in the making. Don't really feel strongly about Obama, but hey, at least hes not McCain


----------



## Hilly (Jun 7, 2008)

I'm sure they're all crooks anyways but I always vote Democrat.


----------



## mizzbeba (Jun 7, 2008)

Obama b/c he keeps it real.


----------



## sinergy (Jun 7, 2008)

I havent decided yet, obviously we arent given a great choice, both of my sisters live in chicago and are big Obama supporters, but where I live, realistically if I want job security for my husband for the next few years it would have to lean more towards McCain since my husband works for the government. I dont know, I probably wont vote, since I am not really impressed with anyone.


----------



## MAC_Whore (Jun 7, 2008)

Ahhhh Christ, I'm not happy with any of the choices.  I think I am going to vote for Pedro.

Write-in vote for Pedro.  There you go, problem solved.


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 7, 2008)

It makes me so sad to see people say they won't vote.


----------



## elegant-one (Jun 7, 2008)

Small Business owners are the backbone of this Nation. My husband & I are small business owners that actually provide jobs for others...single moms, new business owners, etc. 

While I'm not thrilled with McCain, at least he will keep the tax cuts permanent & understands that you  cannot continue to tax the people & businesses. I have listened to many top Economists that have stated that if Obama's Robin Hood rob from the rich to give to the poor & raising taxes gets implemented it will definitely hurt the Nation, Small Business & the Economy as a whole right now. The Government needs to stay out of our personal lives & our money. 

But hey...as long as Obama is cute...what does the Economy matter.


----------



## makeupgrl8 (Jun 7, 2008)

Obama! Its about time we have a pres whose concerned about problems in the US and pulling out of the god damn war. We have plenty of problems to fix in our own country.


----------



## MAC_Whore (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *makeupgrl8* 

 
_Obama! Its about time we have a pres whose concerned about problems in the US and pulling out of the god damn war. We have plenty of problems to fix in our own country._

 
Makupgrl8, not directed at you, just my thoughts on the candidates' plans for pulling out of the war to keep a political promise.

The sad part about most plans for pulling out of the war is that they leave behind a group of soldiers who will bear unbelievably dangerous and heavy burden.    

A lot of politicians are selling withdrawal in a way that is misleading to the public.  Withdrawals aren't like pulling off a band-aid.  It's not one clean sweep.   They come out in stages, but never _completely _for quite some time.  As the majority leave, the minority face higher instances of danger, injury and death.

I guess to the majority of americans, if the numbers look good on paper (i.e. masses of soldiers leaving Iraq and Afghanistan), then everyone feels good and happy.  Sadly, for the military families, and for the soldiers left behind ill-equipt and short of manpower in the war zones, it's a different story.  Higher numbers out of Iraq and Afghanistan does not automatically mean success.  It goes deeper than that.


----------



## Sikfrmthemirror (Jun 7, 2008)

You guys are terrible! and I dont mean that in a bad way. I love that all of you speak your minds. Love it. 

but uh some things are alittle harsh. 

The whole pulling out of the war is the same old crap that happen during the veitnam war. History continues to repeat itself right infront of us, on paper/tv ect. 

I would really hope you guys all thought twice about voting, not voting only means that when someone does get elected and all of you who didnt vote, may or may not be happy with the results. 

I would atleast like to have a reason to complain. because even if it isnt who I wanted in the first place, I will be voting. 

and who ever said that racism doesnt exist anymore, is soooo wrong. Especially for us on here we should embrace colour, I mean its what were here for right?

oh and were looking for a president, not someone to bring home to meet mom.


----------



## *Stargazer* (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MAC_Whore* 

 
_I guess to the majority of americans, if the numbers look good on paper (i.e. masses of soldiers leaving Iraq and Afghanistan), then everyone feels good and happy.  Sadly, for the families, and for the soldiers left behind ill-equipt and short of manpower in the war zones, it's a different story._

 
I've found that most people that want to pull out of Iraq don't actually have a clue how things work in the military or how warfighting works. And there is nothing more annoying that people who claim to want withdrawal "for the troops." For my peace of mind, I'll pass on the withdrawal.


----------



## Sikfrmthemirror (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_I've found that most people that want to pull out of Iraq don't actually have a clue how things work in the military or how warfighting works. And there is nothing more annoying that people who claim to want withdrawal "for the troops." For my peace of mind, I'll pass on the withdrawal._

 


There are just some things america has to do, in order to stay on top of things. It may or may not work for some people, but im sure it makes some people feel alittle safer here at home.


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Sikfrmthemirror* 

 
_oh and were looking for a president, not someone to bring home to meet mom._

 
Sure we are.
But why in the world is it reasonable to vote for someone you'd be embarrassed by? Why in the world is it reasonable to vote for someone you wouldn't trust alone with you in an elevator, or with your purse while you run to the bathroom? 
The people we elect (or just vote for) into our representative offices are supposed to be people we would be comfortable saying "That person is a representative of me and my view points."  I wouldn't be happy, as a person, if my peers were to say "Yeah, she can go speak for us but I wouldn't want her in my house or around my kids."


----------



## Hilly (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_Sure we are.
But why in the world is it reasonable to vote for someone you'd be embarrassed by? Why in the world is it reasonable to vote for someone you wouldn't trust alone with you in an elevator, or with your purse while you run to the bathroom? 
The people we elect (or just vote for) into our representative offices are supposed to be people we would be comfortable saying "That person is a representative of me and my view points."  I wouldn't be happy, as a person, if my peers were to say "Yeah, she can go speak for us but I wouldn't want her in my house or around my kids."_

 
I think she meant about looks. I'll take a fugly president- as long as he or she does their job the right way then I am happy as a pig in shit.


----------



## Sikfrmthemirror (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_Sure we are.
But why in the world is it reasonable to vote for someone you'd be embarrassed by? Why in the world is it reasonable to vote for someone you wouldn't trust alone with you in an elevator, or with your purse while you run to the bathroom? 
The people we elect (or just vote for) into our representative offices are supposed to be people we would be comfortable saying "That person is a representative of me and my view points." I wouldn't be happy, as a person, if my peers were to say "Yeah, she can go speak for us but I wouldn't want her in my house or around my kids."_

 

I understand, now what you mean by that because I wouldnt want to be misrepresented. When I voted, I was not thinking about how much I could trust them with my purse. I should have though, because when they become president I will have to trust them with more then just a silly purse.


----------



## sofabean (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MxAxC-_ATTACK* 

 
_Its the internet, and should NEVER be taken seriously._

 
???

These are HEAVY topics and when I said that these threads are headed for trouble, I meant that it's because everyone has their own opinions and some of those are stronger than others. Just because it's the internet doesn't mean people take things lightly. Discussing politics over the internet is the same as discussing them with a friend in person. Because these are heavy topics and hit so close to home for some people (I don't mean me, but maybe for others) that this would stir up some trouble.


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *sofabean* 

 
_???

These are HEAVY topics and when I said that these threads are headed for trouble, I meant that it's because everyone has their own opinions and some of those are stronger than others. Just because it's the internet doesn't mean people take things lightly. Discussing politics over the internet is the same as discussing them with a friend in person. Because these are heavy topics and hit so close to home for some people (I don't mean me, but maybe for others) that this would stir up some trouble._

 
If you let yourself get stirred up , over some one you don't even KNOW and doesn't even know anything about you, except for what you type on an internet forum, then the internet isn't the place for you.

EDIT

Discussions over the internet are extremely different than discussing something with a FRIEND, in person.


----------



## sofabean (Jun 7, 2008)

don't make this personal because i wasn't talking about me. this is exactly what i meant about controversial topics stirring up trouble. It doesn't mean that we can't have them. It just means that everyone has their own opinions and some express them more strongly than others.


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 7, 2008)

Specktra is primarily a makeup and beauty related site. That doesn't remove more intense and controversial subjects from discussion though.


----------



## blindpassion (Jun 7, 2008)

I think its great these things are being discussed. I value specktra more then I could explain, and for all topics, I couldn't think of a better place to ask for advice and opinion, whether it be on makeup, life, love, money, religion, politics, etc. Sure some of these topics are heavy, but if someone chooses to be intense and forceful (so to speak) when responding to some ones opinion, its our job to just step back from it and remember, its their opinion, and we're here to feel supported by the site members, its easy to take things over the top but its important to keep it calm and collected. I always feel like specktra is like having hundreds of sisters and brothers around who always have positive words. (And being an only child, I appreciate it more than all of ya'll know!) So I'm glad the controversial topics are here, you just have to do your best to stay your best, if you know what I mean 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








And as far as the question asked of us in this thread, I don't live in the US and therefore could not vote. But I do live in Canada, and a lot of what happens over in the US directly impacts us in a huge way. I follow US politics intensely on a daily basis. If I could, I would vote for Obama (but by default, I had hoped for John Edwards). I dont like to classify it, I just support whoever I feel is best for the job, no matter what their party is.


----------



## sinergy (Jun 7, 2008)

I think this is the first year that Ive ever felt like I dont want to vote, and thats wierd for me because Ive always been extremely annoyed with people who talk a lot of B.S about elections and how things are run, but never even register or go out and do something about it. Even if you feel like your one little vote isnt going to count, I mean, shouldnt you stand for something? Anyhow, after reading thru this thread and a few others on other sites, Im sure I will change my mind, (about voting)  none of us want anyone in office who will put us more in debt and we need a strong leader not someone who is making promises that are unrealistic. I know everyone hates the fact that we are so many years involved in a war, but it happens, there are always people who want control and power, I dont think the smart thing would be to pull out of the war and when a candidate says thats what they aim for, its not likely going to be something that is just going to happen without consequences. And the area that I live in, its a economically prospering and growing place, because a lot of the jobs in this area are government provided. 

You know its hard for me to talk about politics with my sisters. Well, my whole family they are all really strong minded and a few of them pretty narrow minded in my opinion, and I can see their point of view on some things, but on others I think its just ridiculous, but instead of trying to talk about it, a few seem to feel its necessary to talk down to people, who dont have the same views they do instead of trying to make it easier to understand. I enjoy reading everyones views and responses, it makes me stop and think about a lot of stuff I might not normally take the time to think about. =)


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *sofabean* 

 
_don't make this personal because i wasn't talking about me. this is exactly what i meant about controversial topics stirring up trouble. It doesn't mean that we can't have them. It just means that everyone has their own opinions and some express them more strongly than others._

 

Just, to keep things straight. 

I was using the word "you" , as if Who-ever, Not you , single as a person. 

But thats the internet for you .(not you as, in YOU "Sofabean" )


----------



## malteze_bubbleg (Jun 7, 2008)

I cannot vote cos im not a US citizen but if i hate to it would be Obama


----------



## coachkitten (Jun 7, 2008)

I am sad too when I hear that people don't want to vote.  I believe that I am really lucky to have the right to vote and take my vote seriously.  Even though I am not sure who I am going to vote for I am going to do my homework to make sure that I pick the one that will do the best job making our country thrive again.


----------



## vcanady (Jun 8, 2008)

Obama all the way.


----------



## purrtykitty (Jun 8, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_It makes me so sad to see people say they won't vote._

 
As far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote (assuming you're eligible to do so) then you don't have the right to bitch.


----------



## Dahlia_Rayn (Jun 8, 2008)

I have always felt that when voting for a candidate you had to choose the lesser of the evils.  I really like Obama, but he's a politician, and I inherently don't trust him.  The problem is that I trust McCain far less!  He's done great things for our country and served the nation well, but I feel we'll be in for more of the same politics if McCain is elected, and that hasn't done awesome things for our country.


----------



## SkylarV217 (Jun 8, 2008)

I feel like we as Americans were miss lead about the "WAR ON TERRORISM"  & would love to have all of our Soldiers home and out of harms way, however simply pulling all of our troops out at one time under-minds everything that has been accomplished up until this point. Thats a terrible shame to all of the men and women that have given their lives up until this point. I know our country is in terrible need of reform in every area possible. But I would like to see that after all our soldiers and country has been through since 9/11 that some good comes out if it. Simply backing down now would open us up to further attacks. Things should be handled differently without throwing out everything that has been worked for up until this point.

*I want to let you Ladies know I respect you all so much ! Thats why I ask for your opinions. I trust you with more than my Make up*


----------



## SkylarV217 (Jun 8, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Dahlia_Rayn* 

 
_I have always felt that when voting for a candidate you had to choose the lesser of the evils.  I really like Obama, but he's a politician, and I inherently don't trust him.  The problem is that I trust McCain far less!  He's done great things for our country and served the nation well, but I feel we'll be in for more of the same politics if McCain is elected, and that hasn't done awesome things for our country._

 
My only problem with Obama is that I don't know what he stands for, I know he wants CHANGE ... But what kind of change ?????


----------



## blindpassion (Jun 8, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *SkylarV217* 

 
_My only problem with Obama is that I don't know what he stands for, I know he wants CHANGE ... But what kind of change ?????_

 

I support obama but in a way I kind of agree with this
Im always watching his speeches going
"but what are you changing!? lemme in on it!" lol


----------



## captodometer (Jun 8, 2008)

I will vote for Obama, only because I think he is the lesser of two not quite evils.

I don't think Obama really knows what he's doing, but McCain is just too damned old.  The average life expectancy of an American man is 78. Remember when Reagan kept saying "I do not recall" during Iran Contra?  We all thought he was lying through his teeth, but he probably really didn't remember.  Because he got diagnosed with Alzheimer's not too long after leaving office.  I don't see the point of electing somebody who could become senile or die of old age while in office
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The Constitution says you have to be 35 by inauguration day to become president.  So I couldn't have run this year because my 35th birthday will fall 5 weeks after the inauguration.  It's not exactly as if a lightbulb will go on the day I turn 35, suddenly giving me the insight to run the country. So if I'm too young, McCain is too old.  But the Constitution doesn't specify any upper age limit; it probably should.


----------



## Suzyn (Jun 8, 2008)

yeah, well all the candidates SUCK, so the only way I will vote will be a write in of someone, and well, they surely won't get president.  I think we're screwed with any of them as our leaders... Just like we were with Bush...  and either way I will bitch because none of them are good. We've been screwed for choices the last few elections. 
Not to offend anyone, but its just my person opinion, and Im definitely not trying to force it on anyone, cause I live by this phrase : Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.


----------



## SkylarV217 (Jun 8, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *blindpassion* 

 
_I support obama but in a way I kind of agree with this
Im always watching his speeches going
"but what are you changing!? lemme in on it!" lol 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 
The fact that he never states it kind of scares me. If its all so good, why don't you tell us about it ?? Why are you refusing to tell us?


----------



## blindpassion (Jun 8, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *SkylarV217* 

 
_The fact that he never states it kind of scares me. If its all so good, why don't you tell us about it ?? Why are you refusing to tell us?_

 
I definitely think that now that the race for the general election has begun, and its not just two democrats fighting for the nomination, that Obama will definitely become more detailed about his plans. I think that now that hes only got one opponent, so to speak, he can really start laying out his plans and starting the groundwork if that makes sense. When he was fighting for the nomination, it didn't much matter what changes he was going to make, they were just in a race for the democratic superdeligates. Now things are real, hopefully he'll step up and roll out some great changes so to speak.


----------



## SkylarV217 (Jun 8, 2008)

I hope you're right... =) I don't just wanna vote for someone b/c they are going to make change


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Jun 8, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *captodometer* 

 
_I will vote for Obama, only because I think he is the lesser of two not quite evils.

I don't think Obama really knows what he's doing, but McCain is just too damned old.  The average life expectancy of an American man is 78. Remember when Reagan kept saying "I do not recall" during Iran Contra?  We all thought he was lying through his teeth, but he probably really didn't remember.  Because he got diagnosed with Alzheimer's not too long after leaving office.  I don't see the point of electing somebody who could become senile or die of old age while in office
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The Constitution says you have to be 35 by inauguration day to become president.  So I couldn't have run this year because my 35th birthday will fall 5 weeks after the inauguration.  It's not exactly as if a lightbulb will go on the day I turn 35, suddenly giving me the insight to run the country. So if I'm too young, McCain is too old.  But the Constitution doesn't specify any upper age limit; it probably should._

 
too old? ..I honestly would rather have an older president than a young one who hasn't experienced as much.


----------



## user46 (Jun 8, 2008)

lol how damn cute is that?
i'm voting for obama. not based on anything except for his word. he's a powerful speaker and i think he'll work wonders for the country. i just hope nothing happens to him. Quote:

   Originally Posted by *mizzbeba* 

 
_Obama b/c he keeps it real.



_


----------



## blindpassion (Jun 8, 2008)

IMO Obama is one of the most powerful and gifted speakers in MANY presidents.


----------



## mreichert (Jun 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Chikky* 

 
_An interesting poll, but I don't consider myself Republican OR Democrat. I just vote for who I like most (or dislike the least). I'm not sure I even know who's what._

 
I completely agree- I am generally Republican, but... I'm not too happy with McCain's view on the war.  (I need to study up some on both his and Obama's view on different things before I really decide)

I truly don't get the whole Republican vs. Democrat "setup"- does it have to be a clear cut line? Shouldn't there just be 2-3 candidates that we vote for.  I can't remember much from Government class, but it just doesn't make sense to me about the clear cut separation... A candidate is a candidate- I vote for what they believe in and if I think they will do what's best for our country.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_I've found that most people that want to pull out of Iraq don't actually have a clue how things work in the military or how warfighting works. And there is nothing more annoying that people who claim to want withdrawal "for the troops." For my peace of mind, I'll pass on the withdrawal._

 
Many people who want to pull out of Iraq and never supported the war in the first place have a very good understanding of how the military works, and are correct in thinking that it's more dangerous to continue than it is to withdraw.

People who have family in the military have a ringside seat to see how war affects the military, but it doesn't give them the authority over how everyone should think.

And can I just point out, people who join the military know the risks involved.  If we can't provide that level of support through international coalitions and a steady flow of money - and we really really can't afford to stay in Iraq - we have no business expecting the military to carry out the over-extended duties without at least exploring the option of withdrawal.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *SkylarV217* 

 
_I feel like we as Americans were miss lead about the "WAR ON TERRORISM"  & would love to have all of our Soldiers home and out of harms way, however simply pulling all of our troops out at one time under-minds everything that has been accomplished up until this point. Thats a terrible shame to all of the men and women that have given their lives up until this point. I know our country is in terrible need of reform in every area possible. But I would like to see that after all our soldiers and country has been through since 9/11 that some good comes out if it. Simply backing down now would open us up to further attacks. Things should be handled differently without throwing out everything that has been worked for up until this point._

 
Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11.  There was more consensus about the role the Taliban played, so attacking Afghanistan was more easily justified, but Iraq was just something Bush wanted to do to show up his daddy.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





And can I just ask, why exactly would withdrawing and looking for diplomatic solutions for peace, homegrown from the Iraqi people rather than dictated from our way of life, be a bad way to honor the troops who've died in Afghanistan and Iraq?


----------



## MAC_mallory (Jun 9, 2008)

I support McCain.


----------



## MahalMac (Jun 9, 2008)

*Mccain.    *I feel like the demo's have been lying and I don't like Obama because he's so cocky..  I hated when he called that one reporter "sweetie".. just how he said it then NEVER answered her question until she went public, pist me off..  Michelle Obama makes me mad, also. I can't stand watching her on the tube.. ugh.. shes on the chicago news every night and it makes me sick.. 

I live in chicago and I am probably the only non-obama lover here.. but who cares..


----------



## newagetomatoz (Jun 9, 2008)

I'm more of a libertarian than anything else, but I'm voting for Obama.  I just can't take having another republican for four more years.


----------



## crissy22 (Jun 9, 2008)

So not voting.


----------



## KAIA (Jun 10, 2008)




----------



## Shimmer (Jun 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *crissy22* 

 
_So not voting._

 
By not voting, you effectively eliminate any serious consideration of any complaints you may have about the candidate who wins.


----------



## *Stargazer* (Jun 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_By not voting, you effectively eliminate any serious consideration of any complaints you may have about the candidate who wins._

 
Do you think this holds if someone votes for someone that they know can't possibly win? If I vote for Ron Paul or Nader, have I forfeited my right to complain because I know realistically that neither one is getting elected? I always think about that. 

I've always thought that you lose the right to complain when you don't vote at all. I think it's hard for a lot of people to cast a vote for someone when they are really opposed to the policies of both candidates. Sometimes I don't vote in every single race on my ballot and every now and then it's for a major race. I didn't mark a presidential vote in '04 even though I picked a candidate in every other race on my ballot. I'm an equal opportunity complainer, though. I think everyone in DC sucks regardless of party 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Oh and HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA to KAIA's picture. Don't you think BC is probably overdressed? I get the feeling that guy wears little to bed. Probably little silk thongs.


----------



## xsnowwhite (Jun 10, 2008)

I liked Guiliani but obviously he's out. Honestly, I don't even care. I really dislike Obama and Hilary, and I do not like Mccain either.


----------



## xsnowwhite (Jun 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *SkylarV217* 

 
_My only problem with Obama is that I don't know what he stands for, I know he wants CHANGE ... But what kind of change ?????_

 
I agree. He never mentions


----------



## purrtykitty (Jun 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_Do you think this holds if someone votes for someone that they know can't possibly win? If I vote for Ron Paul or Nader, have I forfeited my right to complain because I know realistically that neither one is getting elected? I always think about that._

 
I think that as long as you're doing your civic duty by voting, then you have every right to demand the best representation possible.  By voting for someone outside the 2 major political parties, you're sending them a message that you don't agree with what they stand for, and therefore someone else is getting your vote.  And for every person who doesn't think their vote doesn't count, just look at the democratic primary and the Bush v. Gore elections - those weren't landslides by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Fearnotsomuch (Jun 10, 2008)

I'm registered independent, but still not sure who I'm voting for at this point.  While I appreciate the "drive" Obama has, I worry about his lack of experience especially dealing with international/military issues.  I'm also not too fond of the idea of government controlled healthcare.  Yes there needs to be reform, but there are better ways to go about it.

On the end of McCain, on the issues I stated above, I agree more with his platform.  My concern with him is that he will not provide a needed change from the Bush administration.


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_Do you think this holds if someone votes for someone that they know can't possibly win? If I vote for Ron Paul or Nader, have I forfeited my right to complain because I know realistically that neither one is getting elected? I always think about that. _

 
I don't care if they write in Bugs effing Bunny, at least they got off their butts and went to the polls.
 Quote:

  I've always thought that you lose the right to complain when you don't vote at all.  
 
Yes.


----------



## purrtykitty (Jun 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_I don't care if they write in Bugs effing Bunny, at least they got off their butts and went to the polls._

 
Hell, in some states you don't even have to get off your butt, except to walk to the mailbox, because you can vote by absentee ballot.


----------



## Aprilrobin (Jun 11, 2008)

Somewhat begrudgingly voting Republican this year. While I consider myself a traditional conservative, there is no longer a real Republican party, it bites.

There's no real conservative party anymore period, except maybe the Libertarians. they're kinda cool in theory, but I do dig things like building codes.

I digress, McCain doesn't get me excited but I'll be casting my vote for him against Obama becase I DO NOT very much care for socialism.


----------



## Aprilrobin (Jun 11, 2008)

Now after I've read every thread a few more comments.

2 ) I absolutely have the right to not vote and to complain! In fact, perhaps MORE right to complain than those that voted for whatever screw up will end up in office. So there! My choice to not vote is hand in hand with my ability to do so. However, I will be voting.

3) McCain is too old??? WTF? He has to stay alive for FOUR YEARS. I'd be willing to put my money on him making it.

How come racism and sexism are so not OK, but ageism is absolutely fine? Gross.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_Now after I've read every thread a few more comments.

2 ) I absolutely have the right to not vote and to complain! In fact, perhaps MORE right to complain than those that voted for whatever screw up will end up in office. So there! My choice to not vote is hand in hand with my ability to do so. However, I will be voting.

3) McCain is too old??? WTF? He has to stay alive for FOUR YEARS. I'd be willing to put my money on him making it.

How come racism and sexism are so not OK, but ageism is absolutely fine? Gross._

 
Yeah, he has to stay alive for four years, but this is four years in a job that probably has the highest stress and longest working hours than any other in the world (though Bush was renowned for keeping his hours as close to 9-5 as possible and taking as many sojourns to his ranch as possible).  I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether McCain's health is up to the task.  It's really not the same as asking whether someone's gender or colour can handle the stress of the position.  If either of the other candidates were McCain's age, we'd be hearing the same arguments about them too.


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_Now after I've read every thread a few more comments.

2 ) I absolutely have the right to not vote and to complain! In fact, perhaps MORE right to complain than those that voted for whatever screw up will end up in office. So there! My choice to not vote is hand in hand with my ability to do so. However, I will be voting._

 
Sure. And whoever listens to the complaint has the right to say that the complaint is unsubstantiated because you had the chance to voice your opinion in the most meaningful manner possible and didn't take it. 
At least people who vote can say "MAN, that guy sucks balls. You people who voted him in are fucking retarded." or "MAN! That guy really let me down! He talked a mad game and I fell for it, and he's not done ANYTHING like what he said he was going to do." 
People who don't vote can complain, but their complaints aren't generally taken seriously.
 Quote:

  3) McCain is too old??? WTF? He has to stay alive for FOUR YEARS. I'd be willing to put my money on him making it.

How come racism and sexism are so not OK, but ageism is absolutely fine? Gross.  
 
Because, as Ratmist pointed out, it's one of the, if not THE, most stressful, mental and physical and emotionally demanding jobs on the planet? Take a look at Clinton before his first term, then take a look at him at the start of his second, and the end of the two. Look at Bush the same. The office aged them visibly in a *very* short period of time.


----------



## DominicanBarbie (Jun 11, 2008)

Obama


----------



## ratmist (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_Take a look at Clinton before his first term, then take a look at him at the start of his second, and the end of the two. Look at Bush the same. The office aged them visibly in a *very* short period of time._

 
I tend to think the same of Tony Blair.  He downright looked like a kid in 1997 when he took over as Prime Minister of Britain.  When he left office at 2007, he looked _oooooold_.  

That's not to say that looking old equals being frail, unable to cope, etc (all the negative things we tend to associate about old age).  It's superficial, I'm sure.  On the other hand, you can't deny that physically, these jobs seem to wear on the person badly.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_ People who don't vote can complain, but their complaints aren't generally taken seriously._

 
I'm kinda half and half about this.  I tend to get pissed off at people who refuse to vote unless they have a genuinely good reason for not voting.  I know some people that have conscientiously objected to voting on the principle that they could not morally support anyone on the ballot.  I can't really look down on someone for that, even if I think they should still vote because the principle of the matter is at stake.  I mean, _you get to vote! _ So many people in the world do not.  

However, for others it seems more about not wanting to bother to register, taking the time to fill out the paperwork, not educating themselves about the candidates or issues, etc.  Just blatant laziness.  When it's clear I'm talking to someone who didn't bother to vote due to sheer blatant laziness, I get quite angry and tend to ignore every single thing they have to say about political topics, doubly so if they're complaining.


----------



## Aprilrobin (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_Sure. And whoever listens to the complaint has the right to say that the complaint is unsubstantiated because you had the chance to voice your opinion in the most meaningful manner possible and didn't take it. 
At least people who vote can say "MAN, that guy sucks balls. You people who voted him in are fucking retarded." or "MAN! That guy really let me down! He talked a mad game and I fell for it, and he's not done ANYTHING like what he said he was going to do." 
People who don't vote can complain, but their complaints aren't generally taken seriously._

 
So, if no candidate represents me and I still take the time to go down to the polls and 

A) write-in someone completely irrelevant, then my complaints are taken seriously? Because I spent my time doing THAT instead of say, hanging out with my dog?

B) I vote for the "lesser of two evils", then I am thereby being a good citizen by sanctioning positions I believe to be wrong, even though they're just a hair less wrong than the other guy?

Apparently, the right to vote has nothing to do with choice.

If they put an "i abstain" button in the polling box, then I'd have a slightly different opinion.


 Quote:

  Because, as Ratmist pointed out, it's one of the, if not THE, most stressful, mental and physical and emotionally demanding jobs on the planet? Take a look at Clinton before his first term, then take a look at him at the start of his second, and the end of the two. Look at Bush the same. The office aged them visibly in a *very* short period of time.  
 
I'm going to guess that if anyone knows anything about stress and endurance that its John McCain. Of course it's possible that he could drop dead, any president could drop dead for one reason or another at any given moment. Remember our youngest president?
That's why there's a an order of presidential succession. Currently, the President pro tempore is a 91 year old democrat.

So I dunno. Is this ageism really out of concern for the man's well-being? I doubt it. Sounds excusey to me.


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_So, if no candidate represents me and I still take the time to go down to the polls and 

A) *write-in someone completely irrelevant, then my complaints are taken seriously*? Because I spent my time doing THAT instead of say, hanging out with my dog?

B) I vote for the "lesser of two evils", then I am thereby being a good citizen by sanctioning positions I believe to be wrong, even though they're just a hair less wrong than the other guy?

Apparently, the right to vote has nothing to do with choice.

If they put an "i abstain" button in the polling box, then I'd have a slightly different opinion.
_

 
Yes, absolutely, because the time was taken and the _privilege was exercised_ regardless of the system and its failures. 
 Quote:

  I'm going to guess that if anyone knows anything about stress and endurance that its John McCain. Of course it's possible that he could drop dead, any president could drop dead for one reason or another at any given moment. Remember our youngest president?
That's why there's a an order of presidential succession. Currently, the President pro tempore is a 91 year old democrat.

So I dunno. Is this ageism really out of concern for the man's well-being? I doubt it. Sounds excusey to me.  
 
For his wellbeing? No. For a country's? Yes, because his choice for vice president could make or break his campaign.  There's a very solid chance the veep could take the office, given McCain's age. 
There's a VAST difference between stress and endurance on a fairly young man, and stress and endurance on a man his age.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_I'm going to guess that if anyone knows anything about stress and endurance that its John McCain._

 
If this is in response to his fine military record, he was a lot younger back then.  And he's suffered long-term physical effects as a result of the POW camps.  I'm not saying this is any reason to dismiss him as a candidate.  I'm just saying it's worth thinking about his health and the impact the office would have on it - which is why he released his medical records around the Memorial Day weekend.

That being said, do you really think it's not strange that he had 1,173 pages of medical records for just the past 8 years?  I'm not sure I have that many pages at the age of 26!
Details of his health (from The Times Online):

Mr McCain is a gnarled Vietnam veteran who uses that conflict as a reference point for much of his political philosophy. His body carries the scars of being shot down over Hanoi in 1967 when he broke his arms and his right leg. He was twice stabbed by a bayonet, had his shoulder smashed by a rifle butt and was beaten by a mob. 

Those injuries, as well as torture suffered during his five-year imprisonment, has left him unable to raise his arms above shoulder level. He also routinely wears a baseball cap and high factor sunscreen to protect himself from skin cancer, and sometimes appears physically frail in public after gruelling 16-hour days on the campaign trail. 

The disclosures show that he takes regular medication for cholesterol and kidney stones, sometimes uses sleeping pills, suffers from degenerative arthritis and occasional dizzy spells. ​ Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_  So I dunno. Is this ageism really out of concern for the man's well-being? I doubt it. Sounds excusey to me._

 
It's not concern for his well-being as much as it's concern for who is best suited for the office.  The willingness to just assume he's all right because one doesn't want to appear ageist is well.... a bit naive, don't you think?


----------



## Hilly (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_So, if no candidate represents me and I still take the time to go down to the polls and 

A) write-in someone completely irrelevant, then my complaints are taken seriously? Because I spent my time doing THAT instead of say, hanging out with my dog?

B) I vote for the "lesser of two evils", then I am thereby being a good citizen by sanctioning positions I believe to be wrong, even though they're just a hair less wrong than the other guy?._

 
I believe we should vote for who we feel fits best for ours and our family's needs. Great example- Bush and Kerry. I did vote for the "lesser of two evils" but only because there was no other choice. I waited in line for FOUR hours to vote. I was making the point, "can't complain unless you vote". Well really- I was voting in a Red State (Indiana) with a Dem vote. Kind of a waste of time. ANd really did any one give a crap if I voted and complained? No. Complaining is inevitable. 

In no way am I saying don't vote- but don't vote just for the reason to have a ticket to complain. Vote because you're excercising your right to vote for the person you feel could do the job. 

I am definitely voting this year. GO DEMS!


----------



## ratmist (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_There's a VAST difference between stress and endurance on a fairly young man, and stress and endurance on a man his age._

 
There's also a vast amount of difference between someone who never went through what McCain has endured in his life, and someone like Hillary or Obama, who've never served in combat.

John McCain, cancer and PTSD | Salon News
McCain has survived three plane crashes, four melanomas, and more than five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, enduring torture and solitary confinement, though he tried to commit suicide twice during that time. A SAM missile knocked his A-4E Skyhawk out of the sky above Hanoi on Oct. 26, 1967. 

By then, McCain had already survived three other harrowing incidents involving airplanes (not counting the time he snapped some power lines in Spain by flying too low). Soon after graduating from the Naval Academy in 1958, McCain's plane dove into the water near Texas. Knocked unconscious, he woke up as the aircraft settled on the bottom and he swam to the surface. McCain ejected from another plane near the Maryland coast in December 1965 when the engine died. McCain was also lucky to escape with his life on July 29, 1967. He was sitting in the cockpit of his A-4E Skyhawk on the deck of the USS Forrestal off Vietnam when a missile on another plane accidentally discharged, striking his plane. He dove out of the cockpit through flames. Fire engulfed the Forrestal, nearly sinking her, and killing 134 men. McCain was hit with shrapnel in the legs and chest, but recovered. 

Less than two months later, McCain was shot down during a mission over Hanoi. He ejected from the cockpit, breaking his right knee and both arms. Dragged from a lake by an angry crowd, he was bayoneted in the ankle and groin. Today McCain suffers from arthritis in his shoulders and knee, his records show, and he may need joint replacement surgery. 

During the five and a half years of captivity that followed, McCain was held in solitary confinement for two years straight, inflicting psychological strain the senator has described as worse than a beating. 

What were perhaps McCain's darkest hours came in the summer of 1968, during three days of nearly continuous beatings and torture with ropes that left him in an interrogation cell with a broken arm, cracked ribs, broken teeth and lying in a puddle of his own blood and waste. He gathered enough strength to stand on a waste bucket and try, twice, to hang himself with his shirt. Both times guards disrupted his suicide attempts.​We don't know if he was ever diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder because PTSD wasn't in use until at least seven years after he was released from captivity.  1500 pages of his medical files including pyschiatric and mental health reports were shown to select journalists for viewing only in 1999, and his new release of health data (1173 pages alone for the past 8 years) in the past month was for a selected number of journalists only as well.  It was also a timed release, over a public holiday, for a weekend when no one would really want to go through the paperwork.  

The man is going to turn 72 in August.  I remember my grandparents being in great condition at 72.  My grandfather was still working full-time at a power plant and acting as Trade Union representative at that point in his life.  He is also a veteran of WW2.

I think it's very possible McCain is as strong as my grandfather was at that time.  But my grandfather wasn't under nearly the amount of pressure McCain would be under as president.  In a nutshell, that's why I'm wary.


----------



## Aprilrobin (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_Yes, absolutely, because the time was taken and the privilege was exercised regardless of the system and its failures._

 
I'll keep that in mind when I go down to the polls and try and figure out if I should vote for socialism or war.

Some people have a conscience and like to exercise that instead of some misguided idea that a right is a duty.
People that vote for the "lesser of two evils" need to realize that they condoning ideas they don't agree with.

Congressmen and Senators have the privilege to abstain every day, I'd like it too.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_For his wellbeing? No. For a country's? Yes, because his choice for vice president could make or break his campaign.  There's a very solid chance the veep could take the office, given McCain's age. There's a VAST difference between stress and endurance on a fairly young man, and stress and endurance on a man his age._

 
I guess we shouldn't vote for a women president because she could become pregnant and it would be too stressful.


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_There's also a vast amount of difference between someone who never went through what McCain has endured in his life, and someone like Hillary or Obama, who've never served in combat.
_

 
That's very true. Hillary wouldn't be allowed to serve in combat arms MOSs anyway, but my respect for either politician is severely diminished due to their lack of any kind of military service record.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_That's very true. Hillary wouldn't be allowed to serve in combat arms MOSs anyway, but my respect for either politician is severely diminished due to their lack of any kind of military service record._

 
See, I disagree with that.  I don't think you have to serve in the military to be a good president.

EDIT:  I don't disagree with the validity of your feelings.  I disagree with the logic (as I perceive it through your post) behind them.  Just thought I'd make that clear - you're obviously free to feel however you want.


----------



## Aprilrobin (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_It's not concern for his well-being as much as it's concern for who is best suited for the office. The willingness to just assume he's all right because one doesn't want to appear ageist is well.... a bit naive, don't you think?_

 
No, exactly the opposite of naive. Naive would be basing a man's ability to be president based on his assumed physical ability to withstand stress.
To a small degree I can agree with the sentiment. I wouldn't elect somebody on his/her death bed. I don't think being 74 is death-bed criteria.

So, should each president's ability lie on his/her physical well-being and what might happen?

Obama was a smoker. What if he gets lung cancer?
JFK had a dabilitating disease.
I said it already, but what if we elected a female president and she became pregnant? Could the job be too stressful?

It's also naive to not consider that the presidency is more than just one man at a desk. The president appoints his cabinet and supreme court judges, etc.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_No, exactly the opposite of naive. Naive would be basing a man's ability to be president based on his assumed physical ability to withstand stress.
To a small degree I can agree with the sentiment. I wouldn't elect somebody on his/her death bed. I don't think being 74 is death-bed criteria.

So, should each president's ability lie on his/her physical well-being and what might happen?

Obama was a smoker. What if he gets lung cancer?
JFK had a dabilitating disease.
I said it already, but what if we elected a female president and she became pregnant? Could the job be too stressful?

It's also naive to not consider that the presidency is more than just one man at a desk. The president appoints his cabinet and supreme court judges, etc._

 
Well, first of all, McCain is 71.  He'll be 72 in August.

Secondly, while I see that McCain's health isn't a problem for you, the fact that it is of concern to others doesn't mean it's fair for you to call that ageism.  

Thirdly, the failure of JFK and his administration to be open and forthcoming about Addison's Disease lead to the 25th Amendment, providing for two mechanisms to cover inability or impairment of Presidential faculties: one for a President to step down temporarily, the other to be removed by the Vice President and Cabinet.

Yes, voting for anyone is voting for everyone that comes with them.  However, history has shown us that it is extremely rare for the Vice-President to actually become President.  Therefore, it's entirely appropriate to focus on the actual candidate and his/her ability to do the job, rather than assume that the rest of the cabinet and the VP will sort it out in the event of poor health.


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_See, I disagree with that.  I don't think you have to serve in the military to be a good president.

EDIT:  I don't disagree with the validity of your feelings.  I disagree with the logic (as I perceive it through your post) behind them.  Just thought I'd make that clear - you're obviously free to feel however you want._

 
It's not the be all and end all of my criteria for who receives my vote, by any stretch, but someone who is going to be in the position to command millions of people without having EVER been in their shoes? It's a recipe for disaster, IMO.  Does it make them a better president if they've served? Possibly, possibly not, but it certainly does give them a perspective of the lives they impact *very* directly, perhaps even more than the average American's life.


----------



## *Stargazer* (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_It's not the be all and end all of my criteria for who receives my vote, by any stretch, but someone who is going to be in the position to command millions of people without having EVER been in their shoes? It's a recipe for disaster, IMO.  Does it make them a better president if they've served? Possibly, possibly not, but it certainly does give them a perspective of the lives they impact *very* directly, perhaps even more than the average American's life._

 
I have been wondering lately if it rankles the Dems that they can't play the "Your candidate ducked military service and doesn't have any family members directly impacted by Iraq and Afgahnistan" this time around. Not that it worked too well for them before.


I'm with you AprilRobin, we need an "I abstain because the candidates are all douchebags whom I can't support" option on the ballot.


----------



## Aprilrobin (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_Well, first of all, McCain is 71.  He'll be 72 in August._

 
Yep, you're right. My bad.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_Secondly, while I see that McCain's health isn't a problem for you, the fact that it is of concern to others doesn't mean it's fair for you to call that ageism._

 
Well, he doesn't really seem to be in any sort of ill health, so no it isn't a concern. But, the assumption that it is problematic due to his age is the definition of ageism, so its more than fair. Just calling a spade a spade. My question was regarding why people are OK with ageism.[/quote] 

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_Thirdly, the failure of JFK and his administration to be open and forthcoming about Addison's Disease lead to the 25th Amendment, providing for two mechanisms to cover inability or impairment of Presidential faculties: one for a President to step down temporarily, the other to be removed by the Vice President and Cabinet.

Yes, voting for anyone is voting for everyone that comes with them.  However, history has shown us that it is extremely rare for the Vice-President to actually become President.  Therefore, it's entirely appropriate to focus on the actual candidate and his/her ability to do the job, rather than assume that the rest of the cabinet and the VP will sort it out in the event of poor health._

 
Hmm. not so rare. 8 of our 42 presidents were not elected.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_It's not the be all and end all of my criteria for who receives my vote, by any stretch, but someone who is going to be in the position to command millions of people without having EVER been in their shoes? It's a recipe for disaster, IMO.  Does it make them a better president if they've served? Possibly, possibly not, but it certainly does give them a perspective of the lives they impact *very* directly, perhaps even more than the average American's life._

 
Can't argue that military service gives a President a better perspective, but the President is still going to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff more than his/her personal experiences.  To me, they outweigh any personal experiences the President may or may not have, because chances are, the President will never have served long enough to accrue the kind of experience needed to do without the help and guidance of the Joint Chiefs.

Also, last time I checked, Bush's 'military credentials' were pretty pitiful, and he still sent us to war more than once.  When he did, he was on the highest public approval rating of his presidency.  Just goes to show, whether the President was in the military or not, it's down to the administration of the military more than just the role played by the Commander in Chief.


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_Can't argue that military service gives a President a better perspective, but the President is still going to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff more than his/her personal experiences.  To me, they outweigh any personal experiences the President may or may not have, because chances are, the President will never have served long enough to accrue the kind of experience needed to do without the help and guidance of the Joint Chiefs.

Also, last time I checked, Bush's 'military credentials' were pretty pitiful, and he still sent us to war more than once.  When he did, he was on the highest public approval rating of his presidency.  Just goes to show, whether the President was in the military or not, it's down to the administration of the military more than just the role played by the Commander in Chief._

 
Very very true.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_Well, he doesn't really seem to be in any sort of ill health, so no it isn't a concern. But, the assumption that it is problematic due to his age is the definition of ageism, so its more than fair. Just calling a spade a spade. My question was regarding why people are OK with ageism._

 
The question you pose is a bit of a straw man, so I'm going to avoid it for now.  The assumption that with old age comes variable health concerns is a medical fact, not an opinion.  If that's ageism, then we're all going to be quite offended with our doctors when we get older.

As far as giving birth, if a female President wanted to do that, that'd be her choice.  But there is an age limit to even running for president at 35, but it's highly unlikely someone of that age would be elected, whether female or not.  Even at the age of the youngest candidate right now - Obama, who turns 47 in August - a woman of 47 would most likely be too old to get pregnant without medical assistance, and even with medical assistance would most likely fail to conceive, let alone bring to term.  The youngest ever president was 42 (Teddy Roosevelt) but he was a governor and VP before he became President by succession, so I'm just going to ignore your pregnancy argument as a parallel for legitimate ageism.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_ Hmm. not so rare. 8 of our 42 presidents were not elected._

 
Actually it's 9 out of 43, including the current President.

 1.  John Tyler - took over in 1841 when Harrison died of pneumonia.  That would almost certainly not kill a president today.

2.  Millard Fillmore - Took over in 1850 after Zachary Taylor died from gastroenteritis or heat stroke.  That would not kill a 21st century president in all likelihood.

3.  Andrew Johnson - 1865, following the assassination of Lincoln.  Lincoln had poor health but that isn't what allowed Johnson to take over.  Took a bullet to do that.

4.  Chester A Arthur - took over when James A Garfield was assassinated in 1881.  Assassination isn't ill health, so the point is moot.

5.  Theodore Roosevelt - 1901, after McKinley was shot.  Again, not ill health. 

6.  Calvin Coolidge - took over in 1923 when Warren Harding developed pneumonia during a cross-country tour and died of a heart attack or stroke a week later.  It's iffy whether a modern president would have died.  Surely the pneumonia would've madea 21st century Harding stop touring, at least long enough to recover. So that's 1 for ill health, but I still think a 21st century president may have been able to recover.

7.  Harry S Truman - 1945.  This is the only one where I think it's fair to say the VP became President as a result of the President's ill health.  FDR had a huge list of health problems, but he really died as a result of all of them.  

8.  Lyndon B Johnson - 1963, took over when JFK was shot.  

9.  Gerald R Ford  - 1973, and really doesn't count because he took over when Nixon resigned.  Ill health of the incumbent had nothing to do with it... unless you count the fact that Nixon was a nutbag.


----

In total, I'd say 1 as a result of ill health of the incumbent, 4 if you count diseases that wouldn't kill a sitting President today unless the numerous staff members, doctors and family members didn't watch his/her health closely - like that's possible, given the situation.  That's a 2.32% to 9.3% chance of succession, and I'd weight that statistic closer to the bottom number than the top, given medical science.

So.  Yes, I think it's fair to think about whether someone can physically handle the job, and not really focus too much on the VP or the cabinet.  The cabinet can be replaced fairly easily, after all.  And the VP?  Well, it's important to be happy with whoever the VP is, but at the end of the day, you're really voting in the candidate, not his/her buddy.


----------



## thehannahband (Jun 11, 2008)

I'm writing in Ron Paul


----------



## purrtykitty (Jun 11, 2008)

I am learning so much today!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Not necessarily what I'm supposed to, but I'll still put it in the win column!


----------



## Shimmer (Jun 11, 2008)

I added two options to the poll, simply because the spread wasn't quite encompassing enough.


----------



## Sweexy985 (Jun 11, 2008)

From what I've learned over the years about politics in general, I really don't care who fills the seat at the oval office. The agenda will run exactly as preplanned no matter who's president anyway.


----------



## blindpassion (Jun 11, 2008)

_"John McCain believes bringing troops from Iraq is “not too important.”_ "


RedLasso - John McCain believes bringing troops from Iraq is "not too important."


I just posted this for the general interest of the forum, I'm not trying to push a point or anything like that, I just thought this video was interesting


----------



## Aprilrobin (Jun 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_The question you pose is a bit of a straw man, so I'm going to avoid it for now.  The assumption that with old age comes variable health concerns is a medical fact, not an opinion.  If that's ageism, then we're all going to be quite offended with our doctors when we get older.

As far as giving birth, if a female President wanted to do that, that'd be her choice.  But there is an age limit to even running for president at 35, but it's highly unlikely someone of that age would be elected, whether female or not.  Even at the age of the youngest candidate right now - Obama, who turns 47 in August - a woman of 47 would most likely be too old to get pregnant without medical assistance, and even with medical assistance would most likely fail to conceive, let alone bring to term.  The youngest ever president was 42 (Teddy Roosevelt) but he was a governor and VP before he became President by succession, so I'm just going to ignore your pregnancy argument as a parallel for legitimate ageism.



Actually it's 9 out of 43, including the current President.

 1.  John Tyler - took over in 1841 when Harrison died of pneumonia.  That would almost certainly not kill a president today.

2.  Millard Fillmore - Took over in 1850 after Zachary Taylor died from gastroenteritis or heat stroke.  That would not kill a 21st century president in all likelihood.

3.  Andrew Johnson - 1865, following the assassination of Lincoln.  Lincoln had poor health but that isn't what allowed Johnson to take over.  Took a bullet to do that.

4.  Chester A Arthur - took over when James A Garfield was assassinated in 1881.  Assassination isn't ill health, so the point is moot.

5.  Theodore Roosevelt - 1901, after McKinley was shot.  Again, not ill health. 

6.  Calvin Coolidge - took over in 1923 when Warren Harding developed pneumonia during a cross-country tour and died of a heart attack or stroke a week later.  It's iffy whether a modern president would have died.  Surely the pneumonia would've madea 21st century Harding stop touring, at least long enough to recover. So that's 1 for ill health, but I still think a 21st century president may have been able to recover.

7.  Harry S Truman - 1945.  This is the only one where I think it's fair to say the VP became President as a result of the President's ill health.  FDR had a huge list of health problems, but he really died as a result of all of them.  

8.  Lyndon B Johnson - 1963, took over when JFK was shot.  

9.  Gerald R Ford  - 1973, and really doesn't count because he took over when Nixon resigned.  Ill health of the incumbent had nothing to do with it... unless you count the fact that Nixon was a nutbag.


----

In total, I'd say 1 as a result of ill health of the incumbent, 4 if you count diseases that wouldn't kill a sitting President today unless the numerous staff members, doctors and family members didn't watch his/her health closely - like that's possible, given the situation.  That's a 2.32% to 9.3% chance of succession, and I'd weight that statistic closer to the bottom number than the top, given medical science.

So.  Yes, I think it's fair to think about whether someone can physically handle the job, and not really focus too much on the VP or the cabinet.  The cabinet can be replaced fairly easily, after all.  And the VP?  Well, it's important to be happy with whoever the VP is, but at the end of the day, you're really voting in the candidate, not his/her buddy._

 
Unfortunately work took me away, however you're contradicting yourself over and over again and I'm afraid that now I'm not even sure what your point about the VP is. It's so advanced that it will save the life of a president and the rest of the party is irrelevant, but it can't help McCain and his oldness. I don't get it. Beyond that, there are reasons beyond death and illness that a president may be removed from office.

Yes medical science is very advanced, however it ony takes 1 bullet, one bomb, one attack in whatever way shape or form you'd like to use as an example to kill any of them. It wasn't all that long ago that the president was shot and I'll leave the terrorism topic out of it. Even, leave the violence out of it ... it only takes one aneurysm, one brain tumor...
It's been several administrations since a president has fallen, but I wouldn't rest on my laurels.  So yeah, dismiss an entire platform/ administration because their presidential is just "too old" and therefor might not live for 4 years. 

And on the topic of pregnancy, I see that what you're saying is that a woman is electable as long as she's menopausal. Ignore it all you want, but I guess if a 35 year old woman is ever nominated you won't vote for her because she's too young and female.

We'll just have to agree to disagee on his age being a factor in his leadership ability, but just think about the assumptions you're making based on a person's age. I hope nobody dismisses you or your abilities like that one day.

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 12, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_Unfortunately work took me away, however you're contradicting yourself over and over again and I'm afraid that now I'm not even sure what your point about the VP is._

 
I'm really not.  My point is that the VP will rarely take over the Presidency in the event that the President is too ill to continue his/her duties.  You said it wasn't that uncommon, at 8 to 42.  I listed the historical precedents, at 9 to 42, pointing out that statistically this is biased because only 1 to 4 cases involved ill health.  Of those cases, we can reasonably dismiss 3 due to advances in medical science.  So we're down to 2% likelihood, based on historical precedence, that the VP will take over an ailing President's duties.

This is to say nothing of how fucked up the political process would be to get the incumbent to step down and allow the VP to take over in the event we did have a diseased, demented or depressed President unable to continue the duty.  Here's a really good example that relates to WW2 (from Q J Med 2003; 96: 325-336:  Diseased, demented, depressed: serious illness in Heads of State -- Owen 96 (5): 325 -- QJM):
The most serious case of incapacity in a Head of State or Government over the last 100 years was that of President Woodrow Wilson

. He had had hypertension for many years, and retinal changes had been recorded in 1906. He suffered a right middle cerebral artery stroke in 1919 while in his second term as President of the US.5 His consciousness became impaired on 2 October, with a complete paralysis of the left side of his body and a left homonymous hemianopia, his speech was weak and dysarthyric, and he developed hemi-inattention and anosognosia. In not facing up to the seriousness of his illness, he referred to himself as being ‘lame’. This denial by the President was buttressed by his wife and by his personal physician, Admiral Grayson, who told the Cabinet on 6 October that Wilson was only suffering from a ‘nervous breakdown, indigestion and a depleted nervous system’. Grayson had made it clear he would not sign any certificate of disability. There is little doubt that Wilson should have stepped down at least for a period of time from October, until it was clear whether or not he was going to recover. Had he done so, it might have been possible to persuade Congress to ratify the Treaty establishing the League of Nations, which might have helped stop World War II. Between his wife and his doctor, the false image was given of a working President. As a result his wife is often spoken of as America's only woman President and his doctor has been much criticized for putting his patient before the needs of the country.​ Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_It's so advanced that it will save the life of a president and the rest of the party is irrelevant, but it can't help McCain and his oldness. I don't get it. Beyond that, there are reasons beyond death and illness that a president may be removed from office._

 
I'll allow that perhaps I wasn't clear, so I'll try to be less obtuse.

*It isn't about McCain's age.  It's about his medical health, which is impacted by his age.*  By reiterating that I'm going on and on about his age, you're willfully ignoring the fact that I've referred to his health over and over again.  You may think this is a smokescreen for ageism, but as I said in the previous post, with old age comes increasing health concerns - that's simply medical fact.  You can't have it both ways - that medical science can keep him alive, but medical science can't point out that he will may not handle the physical and mental stress of being President as well as a person half his age might.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_And on the topic of pregnancy, I see that what you're saying is that a woman is electable as long as she's menopausal. Ignore it all you want, but I guess if a 35 year old woman is ever nominated you won't vote for her because she's too young and female._

 
You assume I'd vote for a woman on the basis she's a woman.  I don't vote that way.  

I don't vote on party lines.  I don't vote the black guy because I'm concerned about civil rights.  I don't vote the white chick because I want to see a woman in the Oval Office.  I don't vote the old white guy because I'm a Republican and it's better than voting for a Democrat.  I vote who I think is best for the office.  No one under 46 has yet been considered experienced enough to be elected to the highest office in the land.  Even Obama, at nearly 47, is constantly attacked by McCain for being inexperienced.  You show me a 35 year old woman who is experienced enough for the job, and I'll vote for her, no problem.  She can menstruate all over the White House for all I care.  

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_ We'll just have to agree to disagee on his age being a factor in his leadership ability, but just think about the assumptions you're making based on a person's age. I hope nobody dismisses you or your abilities like that one day._

 
I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I've made no assumptions, merely pointed out the facts.


----------



## captodometer (Jun 12, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Aprilrobin* 

 
_3) McCain is too old??? WTF? He has to stay alive for FOUR YEARS. I'd be willing to put my money on him making it.

How come racism and sexism are so not OK, but ageism is absolutely fine? Gross._

 

Won't speak for anybody else, but don't think it's ageism on my part to be worried about McCain.  I work in public health: from a purely statistical basis the odds of McCain still being alive in 10 years just aren't good.

And it's not the being alive part that I'm worried about; being alive and functional enough to perform the duties of the office are what concern me.  Reality is that most of us manage to live most of our lives in decent health, and then spend the last 5-10 years in significant decline before we die.  Once the decline starts, it tends to be fast and we don't recover.  So the fact that McCain appears to be OK today means nothing for 2 years from now; the statistical odds favor him being dead or significantly disabled in 8 years.  The odds increase every single day he manages to stay alive.

Of course the country would continue to function if he became disabled or died.  But it would be better for the country if the president was able to finish one or both of his elected terms in office without interruption

The odds do favor Obama as an ex-smoker to develop lung cancer.  The relative risk for active smokers compared to never smokers is 9-10 times as high.  The risk for former smokers decreases after they quit, but it never decreases until it's equal to that of people who never smoked at all.  So since I believe he quit, his risk decreases with ever single day. Most smokers/ex smokers who develop lung cancer do so in their 60's onward: incubation period is generally accepted to be 30+ years.  So even if Obama succumbs to lung cancer in the future, it's not very likely that it's going to happen while he's in office.

History favors the re-election of sitting presidents who don't die during their first term in office.  In 8 years, assuming they are both still alive, Obama will be 55-56 and McCain will be 80-81.  The odds favor Obama being alive and well, and McCain not.

The government has always tried to hide negative info about the health of the president from the American public.  Other people basically ran the country during the 2 months after the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan: they wheeled the cameras into the hospital room to put on a show for the American public.  Reagan basically wasn't capable of doing squat, and he never really fully recovered: it's the expected outcome for an elderly man who has been shot in the chest. He was delegating everything and taking half day naps by the end of his presidency; they managed to maintain the coverup until after he died.  They would do the same for McCain or anybody else who suffered serious deterioration while in office, so I would prefer not to hand them the opportunity to do so.


----------



## blindpassion (Jun 13, 2008)

I dont think anyone in this forum is trying to be discriminative based on age
But at 72 my grandfather couldnt do his own taxes, let alone run a country. And thats okay, people get old, and they are still people and they are still just as important as anyone else, but the job of the president is a giant responsibilty even for someone whos healthy and in their 40's... I think thats just what everyones trying to say, if I had to help my grandfather cut his steak at 72 and watch him die infront of me in the hospital from a stroke at 78, (non smoking, healthy), I just dont feel like the stresses of running a country and making those kinds of decisions should be put on someone who maybe cant handle it. And I mean that with as much respect as possible.


edit: also, the government is known for hiding the condition of the various presidents from the public, what if in a year he comes down with a non-curable disease, and it takes 3 years before they go public about it, sure its illegal but it wouldnt be the first time such a thing has happened, wouldnt everyone feel so cheated? and not to mention unsafe.


----------



## Aingeal (Jun 13, 2008)

I'm not sure yet. I would like to vote for Ron Paul but he keeps saying that he won't run on the Independent ticket.


----------



## starxrie1 (Jun 13, 2008)

If you've liked the past eight years, don't vote for Obama


----------



## n_c (Jun 13, 2008)

Democrat.


----------



## Hilly (Jun 13, 2008)

I saw a funny bumper sticker today: 

Gas was $1.46 when Bush got into office....

Just thought i'd share..please don't shoot the messenger


----------



## purrtykitty (Jun 13, 2008)

For those of you following election coverage, sad news today...Tim Russert died suddenly of a heart attack.  He was 58.  At least he died was doing what he loved.  NBC's Tim Russert dead at 58 - Politics - MSNBC.com


----------



## kristina ftw! (Jun 13, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *elegant-one* 

 
_Small Business owners are the backbone of this Nation. My husband & I are small business owners that actually provide jobs for others...single moms, new business owners, etc. 

While I'm not thrilled with McCain, at least he will keep the tax cuts permanent & understands that you cannot continue to tax the people & businesses. I have listened to many top Economists that have stated that if Obama's Robin Hood rob from the rich to give to the poor & raising taxes gets implemented it will definitely hurt the Nation, Small Business & the Economy as a whole right now. The Government needs to stay out of our personal lives & our money. 

But hey...as long as Obama is cute...what does the Economy matter._

 
Okay, before I go on with what I was going to post, please let me say that I am *not *talking about the US here, because I do not have enough insight in the US Economy to form an opinion on it.
However, in all fairness ...
In Norway, we have pretty heavy taxes on everything - products and wages.
The more money you make, the larger percentage of your paycheck goes to taxes.
My parents have to pay over 50% of their income in taxes.
Some people tend to complain about it a lot, but the fact of the matter is, these taxes pay for our education (the first thirteen years of our education is completely free, unless we choose to go to a private school, and higher education levels are really affordable compared to other countries as well), our health care system (which is among the best in the WORLD), and a whole lot of other benefits for the people. Welfare for those who need it, child support for anyone with children under 18, public services such as health care, police, firefighters ... And a lot more.
There are political parties who wish to heavily reduce the taxes, but if they do, they will have to get the money for all these benefits elsewhere. We have an oil fund that they plan on taking it from, but what happens when that money's gone? THAT, my friends, could quite possibly lead Norway right into an economical disaster, because that oil fund is our security blanket.
So, when it comes down to it - When I have a job, I will pay my taxes with a smile. 
All I'm saying is, taxes exist for a reason.
Again though; I don't have much insight in American economy or tax policies - this is just how it is here in Norway.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 14, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *kristina ftw!* 

 
_Okay, before I go on with what I was going to post, please let me say that I am *not *talking about the US here, because I do not have enough insight in the US Economy to form an opinion on it.
However, in all fairness ...
In Norway, we have pretty heavy taxes on everything - products and wages.
The more money you make, the larger percentage of your paycheck goes to taxes.
My parents have to pay over 50% of their income in taxes.
Some people tend to complain about it a lot, but the fact of the matter is, these taxes pay for our education (the first thirteen years of our education is completely free, unless we choose to go to a private school, and higher education levels are really affordable compared to other countries as well), our health care system (which is among the best in the WORLD), and a whole lot of other benefits for the people. Welfare for those who need it, child support for anyone with children under 18, public services such as health care, police, firefighters ... And a lot more.
There are political parties who wish to heavily reduce the taxes, but if they do, they will have to get the money for all these benefits elsewhere. We have an oil fund that they plan on taking it from, but what happens when that money's gone? THAT, my friends, could quite possibly lead Norway right into an economical disaster, because that oil fund is our security blanket.
So, when it comes down to it - When I have a job, I will pay my taxes with a smile. 
All I'm saying is, taxes exist for a reason.
Again though; I don't have much insight in American economy or tax policies - this is just how it is here in Norway._

 
I think the problem I have with the US taxes, having grown up there and had family members who earned a significantly high amount of money...

is that you don't get jack back for the taxes.  

The pulic education system is poor, particularly in rural Texas where I grew up, and rural Arkansas where the rest of my family are.  Hell, there's a saying in Arkansas - "Thank God for Mississippi" - because if it weren't for Mississippi, Arkansas would be dead last in the performance tables for education.  

There is no national health service.  I'm sick of my friends and family members having to wait until they're nearly dead before they can get healthcare in an ER that shouldn't be their primary health care service.

Many of the public roads and highways are paid for through taxes.  Again, I lived in very rural areas, and some of those roads are just glorified pigtrails.

Welfare is paid for through taxes, but I have disabled family members that still can't make ends meet, even with the food stamps and welfare cheques.  On top of that, the government continuously tries to get them off welfare, but without any help for their disabilities and healthcare for on-going medical needs, I really can't see how they can survive without welfare.

I could go on, but the point I'd like to make is that most people in America pay a lot of taxes and really seem to get very little back from the government in terms of real benefits that they need to get by on a daily basis.  I am all for paying taxes, but I don't see where American tax dollars go.

Oh wait, yes I do - the "defense" budget.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Nevermind.


----------



## Suzyn (Jun 15, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_I added two options to the poll, simply because the spread wasn't quite encompassing enough. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 





See, now thats not fair... I would like to change my vote now.  Write in ALL THE WAY!


----------



## purrtykitty (Jun 15, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_I think the problem I have with the US taxes, having grown up there and had family members who earned a significantly high amount of money...

is that you don't get jack back for the taxes. 

The pulic education system is poor, particularly in rural Texas where I grew up, and rural Arkansas where the rest of my family are. Hell, there's a saying in Arkansas - "Thank God for Mississippi" - because if it weren't for Mississippi, Arkansas would be dead last in the performance tables for education. 

There is no national health service. I'm sick of my friends and family members having to wait until they're nearly dead before they can get healthcare in an ER that shouldn't be their primary health care service.

Many of the public roads and highways are paid for through taxes. Again, I lived in very rural areas, and some of those roads are just glorified pigtrails.

Welfare is paid for through taxes, but I have disabled family members that still can't make ends meet, even with the food stamps and welfare cheques. On top of that, the government continuously tries to get them off welfare, but without any help for their disabilities and healthcare for on-going medical needs, I really can't see how they can survive without welfare.

I could go on, but the point I'd like to make is that most people in America pay a lot of taxes and really seem to get very little back from the government in terms of real benefits that they need to get by on a daily basis. I am all for paying taxes, but I don't see where American tax dollars go.

Oh wait, yes I do - the "defense" budget. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Nevermind._

 
^^ITA.  I'd have no problem paying for public programs if they actually worked.  The problem is in the US, they don't.  There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare/Medicaid system it'll make your head spin, and as we all know, that's just the tip of the iceberg.  There's no way I want the government to even thinking about tackling healthcare before they fix the other fucked-up programs.

The only "public" programs I see that actually work are the ones that get public funding, but are run by private individuals.  As I said before, if you want something fucked up, let the government run it.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 16, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *purrtykitty* 

 
_^^ITA.  I'd have no problem paying for public programs if they actually worked.  The problem is in the US, they don't.  There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare/Medicaid system it'll make your head spin, and as we all know, that's just the tip of the iceberg.  There's no way I want the government to even thinking about tackling healthcare before they fix the other fucked-up programs.

The only "public" programs I see that actually work are the ones that get public funding, but are run by private individuals.  As I said before, if you want something fucked up, let the government run it._

 
I have to say, I'm 100% behind a national health service for the USA.  However, I just haven't seen many instances where the government has run a national program that really works, whether Republican-run or Democrat-run.  FEMA is a great example of how badly the Republicans fucked up (and continues to fuck up) in the Bush administration.  Medicare/Medicaide is a travesty for both Republican and Democrat-run administrations.  

I've discussed this issue many times with friends and family members, and we all agree that the Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security programs are really broken.  Again, I have family members with severe medical problems, and the system is set up currently in a way that basically punishes them for having poor health - especially those that have poor mental health.  So I'm really for a national health service because I've seen how well it works in other countries.


----------



## Aureliphonics (Jun 21, 2008)

I'm French but if I was American, I would definitely support Obama. You lucky American


----------



## zabbazooey (Jun 21, 2008)

Voting for John McCain. I hate the idea of socialized medicine.


----------



## bellaconnie80 (Jun 21, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_I'll vote for someone I wouldn't trust to watch my children, wouldn't invite to my dinner table, and wouldn't spend a day walking through the zoo with.
I'll vote for someone who would rub me personally the wrong way, irritate me, and generally cause me negative emotion.
I'll vote for someone who wouldn't be invited to a family cookout, trusted with my wallet, or asked to dog sit while I went out of town.

Why will I vote for that person? Because those are the options we're presented with._

 



























:t  rue:


----------



## ratmist (Jun 21, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *zabbazooey* 

 
_Voting for John McCain. I hate the idea of socialized medicine._

 
I'm not being mean or bitchy this time - I swear - but I really don't understand this.  

Most people, at some point in their life, will not be able to meet the cost of their medical care or the medical care of someone they love. We're all living longer and it's said that eventually, the new "parenting" burden that our society will have to meet is the cost of caring for geriatric family members, to say nothing of those of us that will need treatment for long-term illnesses like cancer.    

So why not (for example) have everyone pay a small amount every month towards the cost of medical care as part of their taxes so that everyone gets covered when the time of need comes?  

I don't buy the argument that America can't put together a viable nation-wide health service that can cover every American.  I was taught that if you wanted anything bad enough in America, you could make it happen there.


----------



## frocher (Jun 21, 2008)

The presidential candidates:

YouTube - Muppets for President


----------



## lovelyweapon (Jun 21, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *frocher* 

 
_The presidential candidates:

YouTube - Muppets for President_


----------



## zabbazooey (Jun 23, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_I'm not being mean or bitchy this time - I swear - but I really don't understand this.  

Most people, at some point in their life, will not be able to meet the cost of their medical care or the medical care of someone they love. We're all living longer and it's said that eventually, the new "parenting" burden that our society will have to meet is the cost of caring for geriatric family members, to say nothing of those of us that will need treatment for long-term illnesses like cancer.    

So why not (for example) have everyone pay a small amount every month towards the cost of medical care as part of their taxes so that everyone gets covered when the time of need comes?  

I don't buy the argument that America can't put together a viable nation-wide health service that can cover every American.  I was taught that if you wanted anything bad enough in America, you could make it happen there._

 
If you want something fucked up, give it to the government. We were so effective at helping the people affected by Hurricane Katrina, so let's put the health and well-being of all of its citizens in its hands.


----------



## florabundance (Jun 23, 2008)

*I'm not American, nor do I necessarily understand politics let alone American politics, but I read a very interesting article about McCain in a supplement that comes with our sunday paper, The Observer.

I thought it would be interesting to post what I read here, as the article struck a chord - quite long but very informative, if not a little shocking*:

"It is a vintage John McCain performance. Standing in a light-filled atrium at the University of Denver, McCain is espousing his vision for America's future relations with the world. He hits all the right notes, citing liberal icon John F Kennedy and conservative hero Ronald Reagan. He strikes a muscular tone against America's enemies, yet tempers it with restraint. He speaks of a 'common vision' among nations. 'I want us to rise to the challenges of our time, as generations before us rose to theirs,' he says. He addresses the audience as 'my friends' and promises a safer, more reasonable world. 'It still remains within our power to make in our time another, better world than we inherited,' he concludes. As the crowd applaud, McCain plunges into the throng to pump hands and sign autographs.

Welcome to the John McCain show 2008. It's powerful stuff, portraying McCain as the decent patriot of the middle ground and a steady hand for difficult times. For a lot of Americans - including many Democrats - it is a beguiling vision. They see a war hero whose courage was forged in a North Vietnamese POW camp. They see a maverick who spoke against the tortures of Abu Ghraib. They see a reformer who acts against lobbyists and political favours. They see a politician who has spent a lifetime serving his country and won a place in the hearts of the nation.

Now McCain is also trying to win the White House. He has taken his campaign to places far from the projected Republican road map to victory. He has spoken in the 'black belt' of rural Alabama. He has toured Appalachian coal country to talk about poverty. He has gone to the hippy enclave of Oregon to lecture on global warming. In short, he is a Republican that even liberals can love. And many do. McCain's appeal to America's vital middle ground could easily propel him to the Oval Office.

But there is another, very different side to John McCain. Away from the headlines and the stirring speeches, a less familiar figure lurks. It is a McCain who plans to fight on in Iraq for years to come and who might launch military action against Iran. This is the McCain whose campaign and career has been riddled with lobbyists and special interests. It is a McCain who has sided with religious and political extremists who believe Islam is evil and gays are immoral. It is a McCain who wants to appoint extreme conservatives to the Supreme Court and see abortion banned. This McCain has a notoriously volatile temper that has scared some senior members of his own party. If McCain becomes the most powerful man in the world it would be wise to know what lies behind his public mask, to look at the dark side of John McCain.

John McCain is an American hero in an age of war and terrorism. As young Americans return in bodybags from Iraq and Iranian mullahs cook up uranium, an old soldier like McCain seems a natural choice in a dangerous world. He is the son and grandson of warriors. Both his father and grandfather were four-star admirals. He was even born on a military base, on 29 August 1936, in Panama. And his life story reads like a movie script. The young, rascally McCain, nicknamed 'McNasty' by his classmates, attended the elite West Point military academy. He became a navy pilot, long before Tom Cruise made 'Top Guns' famous, and began his first combat duty in Vietnam in 1966, carrying out countless missions. Then came disaster. He was shot down and held prisoner for five years by brutal North Vietnamese captors. In his stiff gait and damaged arms, he still bears the scars of their tortures. His CV for the White House is written in his suffering as much as in his career as a senator.

That military legacy has made John McCain a legend. But it has not turned him into a peacemaker, at a time when most Americans desperately want the war to end. Anyone hoping for a new president who will quickly bring America's troops home from Iraq had better look elsewhere. McCain has always supported the invasion of Iraq and he wants to support it until at least 2013, or perhaps for many years beyond. He believes withdrawal would be a surrender to terrorists.

That warlike spirit was on full display in Denver when McCain's speech was interrupted repeatedly by anti-war protesters. They stood up, unfurling banners and shouting for a withdrawal from Iraq. When it happened a third time, McCain had had enough. In a voice suddenly filled with steely resolve, McCain broke from his carefully scripted speech and gripped the lectern. He looked out at the audience and spoke slowly. 'I will never surrender in Iraq,' he rasped. 'Our American troops will come home with victory and with honour.' The crowd cheered and chanted: 'John McCain! John McCain!' It was a perfect moment for unrepentant supporters of the Iraq invasion and a McCain who still smarts from defeat in Vietnam. No retreat. No surrender. This time America will win.

McCain believes in projecting American military power abroad. So it is no wonder that the neoconservatives who pushed for war in Iraq have now regrouped around him. McCain's main foreign policy adviser is Randy Scheunemann, who was executive director of the shadowy Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Other leading neocons on board include John Bolton, America's belligerent former UN ambassador, Bill Kristol, editor of the Neocon bible the Weekly Standard, and Max Boot, who has pushed for a US version of the old British Colonial Office. Another close McCain adviser is former CIA director James Woolsey, who has openly advocated bombing Syria. 
Such a group of warlike counsellors has raised fears that McCain may strike Iran to stop its suspected quest for a nuclear weapon, triggering a fresh war in the Middle East. The Republican candidate has openly joked about bombing Tehran. It was just over a year ago, in the tiny borough of Murrells Inlet in South Carolina, and McCain faced a small crowd in one of his characteristic town hall meetings. As McCain stood on the stage, one man asked him about the 'real problem' in the Middle East. 'When are we going to send an airmail message to Tehran?' the man pleaded. McCain laughed and - to the tune of the Beach Boys' classic 'Barbara Ann' - began to sing: 'Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.' But some think McCain's joke may well become policy. 'I think a McCain presidency would be very likely to strike Iran,' says Cliff Schecter, author of a new book, The Real McCain, McCain is still most at home with soldiers. Earlier this year I watched him on the stump in Charleston, South Carolina. He chose to speak at the Citadel, an elite military college, where old tanks and retired rockets dotted the lawns and squads of young recruits jogged around its quads. At the small rally McCain was relaxed and at home and the crowd loved him: here was their war hero made flesh. Here was a man unafraid to strike first.

John McCain's second bid for the presidency has been a long time coming. After being beaten by Bush in 2000, the Senator from Arizona has returned to the fray more determined than ever. And central to his success has been his media strategy.

Three years ago I followed McCain to a fund-raising dinner in Hartford, Connecticut, a wealthy city of insurers and bankers. McCain spoke at a private club downtown, giving an early version of his stump speech and already being introduced as the next president of the United States. He gave an impromptu press conference, bantering gamely with reporters. When that was done, aides tried to drag him away, but McCain raced across the room and sought out a local reporter to clarify an answer he had given. The journalist, unused to such personal attention from a potential president, looked like a spellbound deer in the headlights as McCain spoke to him for a further 10 minutes. The fact is, McCain loves journalists and they love him back. That is how the myth of the moderate maverick - the most powerful tool in his political armoury - has come to be. 

Nothing has changed since that moment in Hartford. McCain's campaign bus - dubbed the Straight Talk Express, just as it was in 2000 - is filled with journalists who travel at the back with McCain, relaxing on a U-shaped couch. McCain recently hosted a barbecue for journalists at his Arizona ranch. As TV anchors and newspaper reporters sipped beer and cocktails under a desert sun, McCain stood at the grill and literally served up their daily nourishment. He is someone you could have a beer with, in stark contrast to Barack Obama, who keeps his press entourage firmly at arm's length. Yet McCain's riskier strategy has worked like a dream. Reporters often overlook McCain's errors and flaps - especially in national security - clinging instead to the narrative of an unconventional patriot. 'The media love him, especially his war record. He is the GI Joe doll they played with as kids,' says Professor Shawn Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside.
There is also a little-reported back-up plan for reporters who do not toe the line: sheer aggression. A recent Washington Post piece on a land deal by one of McCain's allies prompted a brutal response from the McCain campaign. Without disproving facts, they labelled the story 'shameful' and a 'smear job'. When Newsweek ran a story on the Obama camp's perception of McCain's weak spots, McCain's team struck again. This time the story was 'offensive' and 'scurrilous'. The campaign is willing to strike out abroad, recently persuading one European newspaper editor to scrap a review of Schecter's book. For the fact is, McCain's benevolent public image is no accident. It has been carefully crafted and is forcefully policed. 'This has gone on for years. This is an image he has worked very hard to maintain,' says Professor Seth Masket of the University of Denver. 

John McCain has not always had his own way. His current reformist image was born from a career-threatening scandal that almost saw his political ambitions strangled at birth. It was 1987, and John McCain was a promising newcomer in the Republican party, still finding his feet in a world very different from his military life. Charlie Keating, a wealthy businessman, was a long-time friend and financial contributor to McCain's campaigns. When Keating was caught up in the disastrous collapse of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, he turned to his political friends, asking them to talk to federal regulators. McCain, along with four others, made the mistake of doing just that. When a massive government bailout of Lincoln followed, so too did public outrage. It almost destroyed McCain's career. Yet the Keating Five scandal also gave birth to a new John McCain: the reformer. In an astonishing transformation he now became the arch-champion of campaign finance reform.

Yet much of the dark side of John McCain lies behind the closed doors of K Street, a Washington DC boulevard lined with glitzy buildings and home to the capital's booming lobbyist industry. A close examination of McCain's campaign workers, political allies and backers reveals a dense world of dubious loyalties, uber-lobbyists and powerful corporate interests. McCain is very much at home with K Street's sharp-suited denizens, their wealthy clients and their art of influence-peddling.

Take one of McCain's closest aides and senior counsel, Charlie Black. For decades he worked as one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington DC. His firm represented some of the most unpleasant dictators in modern history, among them the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos and Zaire's kleptomaniac president Joseph Mobutu. Then there's Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, the man leading the effort to capture the White House. Davis, too, has been a top lobbyist. His firm's clients ranged from Ukrainian billionaire Rinat Akhmetov to telecoms giants such as Comsat and Verizon.

But Black and Davis are far from alone. McCain's staff was so riddled with lobbyists that at least four have resigned because of their contacts and businesses. They included Doug Goodyear, McCain's convention chairman, whose company was paid to improve the image of Burma's brutal dictatorship. 
The make-up of McCain's team has set alarm bells ringing among Washington's campaign watchdogs. 'We need to know who is advising the candidates and why,' says Josh Israel, a lobbyist investigator at the Centre for Public Integrity (CPI). 'Rather than advising them based on what is good for the candidate or the country, are they instead looking for their other interests?' McCain's campaign has even had to bring in special rules to cut down on the number of lobbyists on his team.

Nor is it just campaign workers who have extensive links to the lobbying industry. McCain's financial backers do, too. A recent survey of 106 elite fundraisers for McCain revealed that one in six were lobbyists. Watchdog groups such as the CPI believe McCain has a long history of helping people who also happen to be his wealthy backers, including several large landowners in Arizona, Nevada and California who have profited from McCain-linked property deals. 'McCain has a long way to go to line up his reformist image with the actual reality,' Israel says. Sceptics might conclude that McCain's post-Keating career represents a cosmetic makeover, not a true conversion. 

John McCain is level with Barack Obama in the polls in a year when Democrats should be a certainty. He is even winning in key swing states like Florida. His appeal to America's middle ground remains strong. These are people like self-confessed moderate Keith Gregory, 24, who filed out of the Denver auditorium as a convert. The young student, dressed in a freshly pressed suit and tie, had been deeply impressed by McCain's speech. 'I like him more than before,' Gregory said. 'He talked very sensibly and openly about the issues.' This is McCain's great strength and also one of his greatest myths. Few see McCain as an ideological warrior in America's culture wars. Unlike Bush, he is not a born-again Christian. In McCain's inner circle - unlike Bush's - there are no group prayer meetings. Yet the reality is that McCain is a social conservative who has actively sought out the far right of his party and forged alliances with Christian extremists. 

Just look at McCain's 'pastor problems'. He has enthusiastically sought the political blessing of some of the most conservative religious figures in the country. McCain gave the 2006 commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University, a college that has taught creationism alongside science. McCain also courted and won the endorsement of Texan preacher John Hagee, despite Hagee blaming Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans's liberal attitude towards gays. Hagee believes the disaster was God's judgement on the sinful city. Another McCain-backer, Ohio preacher Rod Parsley, has spouted hate about Muslims. Parsley, whom McCain called a 'spiritual guide', believes America was founded partly in order to destroy Islam. He has called Mohammed a 'mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil' and has supported prosecuting people who commit adultery. Though McCain later repudiated the endorsements of Parsley and Hagee, he did so only after bad headlines threatened his moderate image. Most of Hagee's and Parsley's views were widely known from public speeches or books. It was not their bigotry that caught the campaign out, it was the reporting of it. 'McCain has had links with these religious figures who are just way, way out of the mainstream,' says Cliff Schecter.

There are other nasties, too. McCain is friends with G Gordon Liddy, one of the Watergate burglars. Liddy, who once plotted to kill a left-wing journalist, has hosted a fundraiser with McCain in his own home. McCain also endorsed and campaigned for Alabama politician George Wallace Jr in 2005, despite Wallace's links to racist groups. Wallace has praised and spoken at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white-power group that opposes inter-racial marriage and promotes white racial purity. If a moderate voter were seeking to judge a politician by the company he keeps, then McCain keeps some very odd company indeed.

But it is not really that strange. McCain himself holds deeply conservative views, including proposing teaching the creationist idea of Intelligent Design in schools alongside evolution. McCain has also always been anti-abortion. He believes the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling that legalised abortion was a bad decision. McCain has vowed to continue the Bush policy of appointing extreme conservatives to the Supreme Court and many fear a McCain presidency will see Roe vs Wade overturned. 'McCain is neither moderate nor a maverick when it comes to a woman's right to choose. He's just plain wrong,' said Nancy Keenan, president of abortion rights group Naral.
On the environment, too, McCain is not the green warrior some might think. He has voted against tightening fuel efficiency standards for American cars. The League of Conservation Voters gives McCain an environmental rating of 24 per cent; Obama gets 86 per cent. 'His rhetoric does not match his voting record on this issue,' says David Sandretti, a director of the League. 'McCain is better than Bush, but that's not much of a yardstick, because the current 
president is abysmal.'

But it is not just McCain's politics that are disturbing. It is his personality, too. For McCain has a secret reputation as a man with a ferocious, unpredictable temper. He is a man who has a knack for pursuing vendettas against those he thinks have slighted him, even if they are lowly aides. 
The list of worrying incidents is long. In 1995 he ended up almost physically scuffling with aged Senator Strom Thurmond on the Senate floor. And, according to some accounts, in 2006 he had a fight with Arizona congressman Rick Renzi, throwing blows in a scrap whose details have only recently been detailed in Schecter's book. Schecter unearthed another unpleasant incident from 1992 in which McCain, tired after a long day's campaign, reacted badly to his wife Cindy teasing him about his baldness. 'At least I don't plaster on the make-up like a trollop, you cunt,' McCain snapped in front of eyewitnesses. Schecter says he has three sources for the story. McCain's campaign have denied it.

Such public outbursts, and many other private ones, have concerned people even in his own party. Former New Hampshire Republican Senator Robert Smith publicly voiced his concerns, once saying McCain's temper ' ... would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger'. That sentiment was echoed by Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran, who told a Boston newspaper: 'The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.' 

Yet McCain is still campaigning successfully as the lovable, maverick patriot. It is a strategy his staff believe will win the White House. So the tricks and stunts keep on coming.

A few weeks ago a letter was delivered to Barack Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters. It was from McCain and in gracious language it offered to hold weekly 'town hall' meetings across America where he and Obama would appear side by side. It would be a far cry from the rancorous circus of televised debates. The audience would be neutral independents. The questions would be random. It would summon back a golden age of gentlemanly politics. 'I also suggest we fly together to the first town hall meeting as a symbolically important act embracing the politics of civility,' McCain wrote.

Like the Denver speech, it was a vintage McCain ploy: superbly geared to his everyman image of decency. But the true McCain is far different. His dark side is real and Democrats will need to expose it if America is to avoid a third successive term of extreme conservative government. Now Democrat activists are pushing out their argument that McCain is a conservative wolf in a moderate sheep's clothing. They are highlighting the temper, the pro-war ideology and the links to lobbyists. 'We think he just means four more years of Bush,' says Karen Finney, a director at the Democratic National Committee. Finney's job is to convince Americans they have got McCain wrong, that they have been fooled. She and her fellow activists have less than four months to succeed. But for now, as America gears up to one of the most important elections in its history, McCain's dark side remains largely hidden behind closed doors"


----------



## ri0tdorque (Jun 23, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *SkylarV217* 

 
_Just wondering who you ladies support =)_

 
Wow - I voted (dem since that's what category I fit into) and am honestly shocked by the results.....not in a bad way per say just...didn't expect me to be in the minoity.


----------



## purrtykitty (Jun 23, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_I'm not being mean or bitchy this time - I swear - but I really don't understand this. 

Most people, at some point in their life, will not be able to meet the cost of their medical care or the medical care of someone they love. We're all living longer and it's said that eventually, the new "parenting" burden that our society will have to meet is the cost of caring for geriatric family members, to say nothing of those of us that will need treatment for long-term illnesses like cancer. 

So why not (for example) have everyone pay a small amount every month towards the cost of medical care as part of their taxes so that everyone gets covered when the time of need comes? 

I don't buy the argument that America can't put together a viable nation-wide health service that can cover every American. I was taught that if you wanted anything bad enough in America, you could make it happen there._

 
 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *zabbazooey* 

 
_If you want something fucked up, give it to the government. We were so effective at helping the people affected by Hurricane Katrina, so let's put the health and well-being of all of its citizens in its hands._

 
For me, it's not that I don't believe there is a need, because there is, but I don't think at this point the government should be taking on socialized medicine before working out the other problems such as Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc.  I could get behind the idea of socialized medicine if I could be reasonably assured that kind of program would work.  The problem is past history has proved that our government has issues with effectively managing social programs.  I don't think our government is incapable, but I need a showing of faith in order for me to believe that socialized medicine will work.  Fix Medicare/Medicaid and/or Social Security, then talk to me about taking on the monster that is socialized medicine.


----------



## frocher (Jun 23, 2008)

..........


----------



## static_universe (Jun 24, 2008)

McCain. Some of Obama's ideas frighten me, like pulling out of the war and socialized healthcare. Haaaale to the no.


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_I'm not being mean or bitchy this time - I swear - but I really don't understand this.  

Most people, at some point in their life, will not be able to meet the cost of their medical care or the medical care of someone they love. We're all living longer and it's said that eventually, the new "parenting" burden that our society will have to meet is the cost of caring for geriatric family members, to say nothing of those of us that will need treatment for long-term illnesses like cancer.    

So why not (for example) have everyone pay a small amount every month towards the cost of medical care as part of their taxes so that everyone gets covered when the time of need comes?  

I don't buy the argument that America can't put together a viable nation-wide health service that can cover every American.  I was taught that if you wanted anything bad enough in America, you could make it happen there._

 


Small amount? no. it wont be small .. Not in the slightest.  Healthcare for EVERY person in the United states. That will cost Billions upon Billions of dollars. and if you want good healthcare, you are gonna have to buy your own private insurance but you are still gonna have to pay taxes for universal. It isn't exactly fair. 

I dread going to the DMV .... I don't want to dread going to the doctors (even more than I do now) as well


----------



## ratmist (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *zabbazooey* 

 
_If you want something fucked up, give it to the government. We were so effective at helping the people affected by Hurricane Katrina, so let's put the health and well-being of all of its citizens in its hands._

 
The current system of healthcare is in the citizens hands via the insurance companies, and they can't get coverage or they can't afford coverage.  It is clearly a system that requires that you never need serious medical care, which is a stupid gamble because we'll all need it for ourselves or someone we love at some point in our lives.

McCain's plan involves allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines and a tax credit to put towards the cost of paying for insurance of $2500 for individuals or $5000 for families.  

My brother's health insurance - if he could get it - would cost him $3000 per month, and this would only cover him for emergency surgery and ER; it does not cover his visits to the doctor (he has a heart condition), his daily medication to prevent his heart from going into failure or any scans he needs to ensure his heart and his implant are healthy.  He's expected to pay for all of that on top of the $3,000 per month.

My grandfather's insurance costs around $2000.  My aunt and two of her daughters, who have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder/schizophrenia and autism, recently were able to get coverage through my uncle's work, but it costs them something like $1500 per month for my aunt and another $1000 for each daughter.  I have no idea how they're paying for it.

Long story short, McCain's plan won't do squat for my family.  And this is a programme that's supposed to put the money in the hands of the people?  It's a paltry amount!

PS - Regarding folk displaced by Hurricane Katrina, a lot of people were relocated to my hometown in Texas.  At first the medical professionals welcomed them, but when they realised that the insurance companies would not pay across state lines, they began to stop offering health care to the Katrina victims.  When I came to visit my mother and got ill, I had a global health insurance policy.  Since this was considered "across state lines", I had to pay up front for everything before the doctor would see me.

I think it's disgusting that sick people have to pay up front for help.  It just makes more sense to pay a small amount every month into a system that will ensure you get seen for free when you need the help, regardless of where you're from or who you are, so long as you're an American and you've been paying your taxes.  This is what Britain, Canada, Sweden, and other places with universal healthcare do.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MxAxC-_ATTACK* 

 
_Small amount? no. it wont be small .. Not in the slightest.  Healthcare for EVERY person in the United states. That will cost Billions upon Billions of dollars. and if you want good healthcare, you are gonna have to buy your own private insurance but you are still gonna have to pay taxes for universal. It isn't exactly fair. 

I dread going to the DMV .... I don't want to dread going to the doctors (even more than I do now) as well_

 
It's a typical knee-jerk reaction to the idea of paying for universal healthcare, but it's untrue to say that it'd cost us more than we can afford to pay.  It just depends on what your priorities are.

We currently pay something like $548.9 billion annually into the defense budget - the highest in the world.  I'd prefer that a lot of that money go into stuff we need at home - better education, a health system that works, and jobs that don't end up outsourced.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 24, 2008)

According to the Department of Defense:

"To date, $426.8 billion has been appropriated for DOD operations in the Global War on Terror. The funding requested in the President’s Budget would
increase this amount to $661.9 billion."

And you tell me we can't afford to pay for medical care?  Bullshit.  We just need to get our priorities straight.  We can afford to send aid all over the world, blow the shit out of countries whenever we see fit, but we can't afford to take care of ourselves when we're sick or our sick or elderly relatives?  Such bullshit.


----------



## ratmist (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *purrtykitty* 

 
_For me, it's not that I don't believe there is a need, because there is, but I don't think at this point the government should be taking on socialized medicine before working out the other problems such as Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc.  I could get behind the idea of socialized medicine if I could be reasonably assured that kind of program would work.  The problem is past history has proved that our government has issues with effectively managing social programs.  I don't think our government is incapable, but I need a showing of faith in order for me to believe that socialized medicine will work.  Fix Medicare/Medicaid and/or Social Security, then talk to me about taking on the monster that is socialized medicine._

 
I'd have to look more carefully at the plans laid out by Obama, but I would think that Social Security is a separate issue entirely.  Medicare/Medicaid would have to be swallowed up by a nationalised medical service.

I should say, I'm completely in favour of individual states deciding on how to cover their people.  The infrastructure basically already exists because of the insurance system.  The question is how the federal government would choose to regulate it and pay for it.  But it'd have to be negotiated at state-level because as you say, it's a monster of a job.


----------



## cupcake_x (Jun 24, 2008)

I've been supporting Obama for a long time, and would definitely vote for him if I was old enough.


----------



## mona lisa (Jul 4, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *captodometer* 

 
_I will vote for Obama, only because I think he is the lesser of two not quite evils.

I don't think Obama really knows what he's doing, but McCain is just too damned old. The average life expectancy of an American man is 78._

 
That is the average yes. But many live a lot longer than that -in varying degrees of health of course. 

I agree with you on Obama not knowing what he is doing but part of the reason is he is a young senator with less than a full term in the Senate. I am unaware of any senator ever who ran for president with less senate tenure than Obama (even Hillary had more than a full senate term before she actually decided to run). And while ideally someone with executive experience would be available for voting for -as executives such as former governors, mayors, etc. have some executive experience which seems to me important for the role of Executive of the United States- at least McCain can point to four years in the House of Representatives and twenty years in the Senate for some government experience. More on this in a moment.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *captodometer* 

 
_ Remember when Reagan kept saying "I do not recall" during Iran Contra?  We all thought he was lying through his teeth, but he probably really didn't remember.  Because he got diagnosed with Alzheimer's not too long after leaving office.  I don't see the point of electing somebody who could become senile or die of old age while in office
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 
Reagan was diagnosed with the early stages of Alzheimer's in 1994 -five years after he left office. I remember the whole Iran Contra thing and one reason Reagan could not remember a lot of stuff is it was his subordinates who did all the planning and executing of the funneling of arms to the contras. Reagan approved of the first part of the equation (the selling of outdated munitions to Iran to offset the Soviet's support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war) but the rest of it was handled by persons such as Oliver North and company who kept Reagan in the dark.

But whatever you think of Iran Contra -and I happen to think it was fine to arm those fighting the communist thug Sandinistas rather than cozying up to them the way the Democratic congress leaders of the time were disgracefully doing- not a single American soldier was killed in that policy. The scale in the Iran-Iraq war was kept balanced so they could continue to beat each other up and wear themselves out rather than focus their extremisms elsewhere, it kept the Soviet attempt to gain a foothold of influence in the Middle East in solid check, and it also gave the Contras time to get the Sandinistas to agree to an election with observers that they could not fix which resulted in their defeat in 1990 the year after Reagan left office. 

But those points aside, when it came out with all the hulabaloo, Reagan went on television and took responsibility for it as something that happened on his watch. Compared to President Clinton (who never took responsibility for anything he screwed up on and tried to take credit for things he did not do) and the current president (who seems to have his own problems admitting to mistakes made), that is no small thing to want to see in a leader.

I would vote for another Reagan in a heartbeat. But as that is not possible in this election, I look for the candidate most like Reagan and whatever you thought of Reagan, he stood by his convictions and did not let the public opinion sway him on matters he viewed as being of principle.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *captodometer* 

 
_ The Constitution says you have to be 35 by inauguration day to become president.  So I couldn't have run this year because my 35th birthday will fall 5 weeks after the inauguration.  It's not exactly as if a lightbulb will go on the day I turn 35, suddenly giving me the insight to run the country. So if I'm too young, McCain is too old.  But the Constitution doesn't specify any upper age limit; it probably should._

 
The rule is in place because someone at 35 is considered more mature than someone younger -one reason that the age minimum is 30 for the upper house (Senate) and 25 for the lower house. And that is an age I might add that was agreed upon by a room of men many of whom were not even 35 themselves. But even so, there has never been a president yet who was elected younger than their early 40's and that is probably a good thing -and I say that as someone who is not in their 40's yet and will not be for as long as I can be.

Both candidates running are flawed and that was the case when Hillary was running too. But I look at what candidate makes themselves accessible more and only one of the two left is willing to answer questions to the press and going out of his way to be accessible to them. That person is not Obama and such an omission is not insignificant as far as I am concerned. That is one reason why I will vote for McCain -there are others but that one is of significance to me which is why I note it here. Another is McCain has a trackrecord of going against his own party at times (even times that I was not happy with) whereas Obama has no similar record of independence from his party line so there is another reason.

There is also that I have no idea what sort of "change" Obama is touting: I would rather vote for something than an nebulous nothing and that is what the word "change" being bandied about with no explanation of its meaning being given sounds like to me. 

Those are some of the reasons why this longtime Independent voter will vote for McCain in 2008. But even if you disagree with me, at least vote for someone rather than no one. Otherwise, you lose the right in my mind to bitch afterwards if you do not like what happens -either with the election results or with various policies the next president decides to enact or strive to have enacted.


----------



## Bernadette (Jul 5, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *jenjunsan* 

 
_I usually always vote democrat, but I can't vote for either Obama or Hilary. This might be the first time in 17 years I vote republican.  (Although I agree that the last 8 years have been bullshit!)_

 
Exactly. I think I'm either nto going to vote at all or vote for McCain.


----------



## athena123 (Jul 6, 2008)

I'm not enthused about either McCain or Obama. As a registered Libertarian, I can't vote for the right wing nut job the Libs nominated for president (Bob Barr) and for the first time in years, I'm seriously considering a change in my party affiliation. The Libertarian party has been shifting to the extreme right for too long now I can't ignore it any longer. 

I don't trust Obama. His "change for the sake of change" mantra just doesn't make me swoon as it has for so many others. Sure, a change would be good from what we've had but give us an idea of what that change really IS before you can expect me to buy what you're selling. 

McCain is a least a moderate, much more moderate than Bush but I think the stain Bush is leaving on the Repubs will carry over to McCain. Plus I'm concerned by McCain's age, can he really pull it off? 

I still honestly don't know who I'll vote for come November. I'd love to vote FOR someone rather than AGAINST, but it's likely the best I can do is vote for the one I think will do the LEAST amount of harm.


----------



## red (Jul 6, 2008)

where's my Frocher 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




We live in a capitalist society, we're not very good at "socialism" -- something that works only in theory but in the long run it does not. 
With capitalism there are collateral damages, especially in health care ... that fall out is what we need to reach out and help. Not sure socialized medicine would help really. It still separates the "haves" and "have nots" ... because the folks with a low income can't very well buy the top medical plans and will still be discriminated against. 

We are not a society that believes in goverment assistance, hand-outs, smacks right into the "enterpreneur" spirit this country was founded on. All this government needs to do for me is protect me, and create an environment where I can work, make a decent living, I'll take care of the rest.

maybe I'm a democrat that's tired of paying taxes


----------



## PMBG83 (Jul 6, 2008)

Obama all the way! I finally feel this is chance for african americans. Whew and his wife is off the chain, so damn intelligent! Not that Mccain is outright blah but poor thing just looks out of it all the time. This will also be the first time wed have a president thats extremely handsome too:0p


----------



## PMBG83 (Jul 6, 2008)

Also why did bush take money from the katrina victims funds and give it to other funds?


----------



## athena123 (Jul 6, 2008)

Sorry PMBG, but I've actually heard others who've jumped on the Obama train who plan to vote for him on this very basis. I remember hearing the same thing for those who planned to vote for Gore back in 2000, and those who cast their vote for Edwards as well. Yes, vote for the cute one that's what a world leader should be in the age of video and television! Handsome, cute and above all..... Photogenic!


----------



## red (Jul 6, 2008)

_*So why not (for example) have everyone pay a small amount every month towards the cost of medical care as part of their taxes so that everyone gets covered when the time of need comes?* _



because if you read Obama's plans (as an example, but read McCain as well) on how we're going to pay for this, it's the top 10 percent of the population that will be carrying this burden. Ok, you may say, "so what, they have more money, they should contribute more" ... good point, but counter-productive in the long run. 

we need to ask ourselves how we're going to pay for all these grand plans ... and not put the burden on a small percentage of Americans. 

we need to ask ourselves a lot of questions, and not vote for someone, who "seems" like a nice guy (I'm talking in general, not in specific).

at the end of the day, when it's all said and done .. its politics as usual ...the more things change .. the more they stay the same.


----------



## mona lisa (Jul 6, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *red* 

 
_*So why not (for example) have everyone pay a small amount every month towards the cost of medical care as part of their taxes so that everyone gets covered when the time of need comes?* 



because if you read Obama's plans (as an example, but read McCain as well) on how we're going to pay for this, it's the top 10 percent of the population that will be carrying this burden. Ok, you may say, "so what, they have more money, they should contribute more" ... good point, but counter-productive in the long run. 

we need to ask ourselves how we're going to pay for all these grand plans ... and not put the burden on a small percentage of Americans. 

we need to ask ourselves a lot of questions, and not vote for someone, who "seems" like a nice guy (I'm talking in general, not in specific).

at the end of the day, when it's all said and done .. its politics as usual ...the more things change .. the more they stay the same._

 
Not to mention that every plan to impose another federal burden onto the populace is sold with the idea of "taxing the rich." The federal income tax amendment was sold by the notion that it would be a 1-2% tax on only the top percentile of income earners. To adjust for today's values (if I am doing this right and as it is off memory I may be wrong on the precise number) it would be about a 2% income tax on only those who make at least $80,000 a year. Last time I checked, more than the top percentile pay taxes now and the top rate is not 1-2% but instead is 39%. (It was 90% during the Depression -a mere twenty years after the amendment was adopted- 70% after Kennedy's marginal cuts in 1962, and 28% once Reagan's marginal cuts were phased in.) 

But there are and have been for a long time people of varying incomes paying taxes because once the machinery is in place, it is not that hard to manipulate. Whenever I hear anyone try to sell a tax increase of any kind, I do not trust them and if they try to claim they are going to "only tax the rich" or "only the top income earners" the lack of trust doubles. And I say this as someone who is not rich myself.

It is pathetic that we have a federal budget that is three times the size as the one in 1987 (which was the first trillion dollar budget) and the morons of congress still cannot balance the budget. I do not believe for a minute that this government cannot be run on a trillion dollar budget. And to have a three trillion budget and still have deficits? Are these people idiots? It is either that or they all have their hands in the till as far as I am concerned -the Democrats are historically the worst of all but the Republicans from 1/2001-1/2007 were just as bad. 

Everything the government runs it tends to run badly except for the military. Consider that we have had forty years and spent trillions on the "war on poverty" so far and have they improved the poverty rate? No they have not and yet where is the call for "withdrawal" from that "war"? Not only are they not withdrawing but they are increasing the monies spent every year.

In a nutshell on "national health care", I do not trust the federal government with running anything based on their horrid track record so not only do I say "no" to national health care but HELL no! (The same thing I say about that idiotic "cap and trade" idea to fight the latest Y2K joke called "global warming.") Stay out of my pockets, do not tell me where I have to go to the doctor, basically: leave me alone federal government. 

Sorry about the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 girls but this stuff really bothers me. But then again, I also favor privatizing Social Security -having (i) no faith whatsoever in the federal government to provide for me and (ii) knowing that even if I invested the money in low rate CD's I would get a better rate of return than with the way the system is structured. (Where you basically get no interest on your forced "investment" in case you did not know.)


----------



## red (Jul 7, 2008)

*We currently pay something like $548.9 billion annually into the defense budget - the highest in the world. I'd prefer that a lot of that money go into stuff we need at home - better education, a health system that works, and jobs that don't end up outsourced.*



Yeah, I thought the same thing for years, until the Iranians started buiding the nuclear bomb - these folks are a serious threat. They've threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a passage way on the Persian Gulf, which a significant portion of the world's petroleum passes thru.


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *PMBG83* 

 
_Also why did bush take money from the katrina victims funds and give it to other funds?_

 
Katrina isn't even something that enters into anything to do with the election.  
On a STATE level that mess was mishandled. Completely. From the STATE level moving upward.  It was an easy way for a LOT of people to get more money at one time than they'd ever had.


----------



## mona lisa (Jul 7, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *athena123* 

 
_Sorry PMBG, but I've actually heard others who've jumped on the Obama train who plan to vote for him on this very basis. I remember hearing the same thing for those who planned to vote for Gore back in 2000, and those who cast their vote for Edwards as well. Yes, vote for the cute one that's what a world leader should be in the age of video and television! Handsome, cute and above all..... Photogenic! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 
Voting _with any primary criteria in mind_ for "the cute one" is as much of a problem with politicians as it is with dates. (In both cases so often the "cute ones" show a different side to themselves when you know them better.)


----------



## PMBG83 (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *athena123* 

 
_Sorry PMBG, but I've actually heard others who've jumped on the Obama train who plan to vote for him on this very basis. I remember hearing the same thing for those who planned to vote for Gore back in 2000, and those who cast their vote for Edwards as well. Yes, vote for the cute one that's what a world leader should be in the age of video and television! Handsome, cute and above all..... Photogenic! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 
 Wait, the same thing was mentioned with Gore and Edwards too?? I never noticed any talk of it.


----------



## stacylynne (Jul 8, 2008)

I think their both terrible. McCain is a 71 year old man w/ health prob. already & Obama doesn't have the international exp.

I have no clue who i'm voting for yet. 
This is very scary decision, who will run the USA.


----------



## red (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *stacylynne* 

 
_I think their both terrible. McCain is a 71 year old man w/ health prob. already & Obama doesn't have the international exp.

I have no clue who i'm voting for yet. 
This is very scary decision, who will run the USA._

 

that's the reason Hilary was the better candidate


----------

