2008 Election

**AE14** · 01-31-2008 06:04 AM

With the election down to basically a 4 person race (Sorry to Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee supporters, they are basically done), where do you throw your support.

I must admit that I am disheartened at this point with all 4, but the person I disagree with the least is Barack Obama, so to answer my own question, he is where my vote goes in November if he is there.

**Australian made** · 01-31-2008 06:29 AM

i got money on the demo's so as long as one of them gets in i don't care.

**zbtboy** · 01-31-2008 08:55 AM

I will be voting for Obama next week here in the NY State primary.

**bLacKjAck.** · 01-31-2008 10:01 AM

I am a Ron Paul supporter BIG time, but like you said --- there really is no chance. None of the other republicans are anything I am excited about, but I believe John McCain will be most well-able to work "across the aisle" and to me if something is going to change in this country that is what has to happen.

**AE14** · 01-31-2008 10:56 AM

Blackjack, just curious if his stance on Iraq (major expansion of the war) scares you at all?

**VolcomX311** · 01-31-2008 04:50 PM

I know I like Billary the least

**AE14** · 02-01-2008 07:03 AM

any reason why?

**Nabisco** · 02-01-2008 10:46 AM

I said it before this race began, that if McCain got the nod, I'd vote for him with no hesitation. I don't necessarily agree with all his stances (who really agrees with all of any politician's stances?) but I do believe strongly that he speaks his mind and will undoubtedly be a good leader for America.

**AE14** · 02-01-2008 10:57 AM

with McCain for me his stance on the war and immigration are a tad off IMO

**VolcomX311** · 02-01-2008 11:07 AM

McCain had one of his previous quotes brought up to question, "i hate all g**ks and I always will" but I suppose I could understand his rage being tortured as a POW.

The only significant difference in policies between Billary and Obama was their policy on immigration and being from Southern California, that's a main issue. Obama made his refute that illegal immigrants don't effect social economics based on his experience in the south side of Chicago. Chicago is not the same as Southern California and the borders of Texas. That didn't appeal to me well.

**AE14** · 02-01-2008 11:25 AM

McCain also had another quote brought up at the debate that was frightening: "We could very well be in Iraq for another 100 years"

**VolcomX311** · 02-01-2008 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Reaper329

McCain also had another quote brought up at the debate that was frightening: "We could very well be in Iraq for another 100 years"

hahaha

I'm not anti-Iraq war in all honesty. To be completely truthful, I've not taken the time to really do some self conviction in conjunction with international, short & long term concerns & consequence to really have a passionate stance on one side or the other. My surface reaction is more for it then against it, but I couldn't defend my stance with any convincing arguments from an internal belief or profound, informed reasoning. With that said, nothing about me can justify "another 100 years" even if that were a figure of speech, that mentality seems a bit crazy.

If it can't be fixed in the next 10 years, f** we tried, it's time to go.

I know we mean well, and I believe in "meaning well" to an extent, world peace & what not and abolishing enemies that threaten the U.S. I'm heavily for the latter (and I know we can get into why they're justified to hate us, bad international policies & what not, but my selfish side says if its I live or they live, I pick I live, and i'll leave it at that) But I just don't see Democracy band aiding tribal feuds that date back to the Book of Judges, no matter how bad we want it. I could be ignorant, but that's how I reason with my limited understanding of a very large picture.

**CryingEmo** · 02-01-2008 11:51 AM

Shoudn't start a war if you can't afford it... like body armor, etc.

**AE14** · 02-01-2008 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by VolcomX311

hahaha

I'm not anti-Iraq war in all honesty. To be completely truthful, I've not taken the time to really do some self conviction in conjunction with international, short & long term concerns & consequence to really have a passionate stance on one side or the other. My surface reaction is more for it then against it, but I couldn't defend my stance with any convincing arguments from an internal belief or profound, informed reasoning. With that said, nothing about me can justify "another 100 years" even if that were a figure of speech, that mentality seems a bit crazy.

If it can't be fixed in the next 10 years, f** we tried, it's time to go.

I know we mean well, and I believe in "meaning well" to an extent, world peace & what not and abolishing enemies that threaten the U.S. I'm heavily for the latter (and I know we can get into why they're justified to hate us, bad international policies & what not, but my selfish side says if its I live or they live, I pick I live, and i'll leave it at that) But I just don't see Democracy band aiding tribal feuds that date back to the Book of Judges, no matter how bad we want it. I could be ignorant, but that's how I reason with my limited understanding of a very large picture.

the funniest thing at the debate was when this was broached, Ron Paul looked at him dead in the face and said "care to tell me where we are going to get the money for that?" .....Priceless

**CNorris** · 02-01-2008 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Reaper329

McCain also had another quote brought up at the debate that was frightening: "We could very well be in Iraq for another 100 years"

Apparently you dont understand world issues very well. McCain has always said that its not troop presence the American public cant stomach, its casualties. How long have we been in Korea? I guarantee we will have been there for over 100 years by the time we leave. Same thing with Iraq unless we vote in a gutless cut and run Dem.

What he CLEARLY means by it is we will have a much much much smaller troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, as we have in Korea for around 50 years. Most likely a thousand troops or less. Anyone that is even capable of spinning that into making it look like he is saying our current troop numbers will continue for 100 years just doesnt understand world issues very well.

**VolcomX311** · 02-01-2008 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by CNorris

Apparently you dont understand world issues very well. McCain has always said that its not troop presence the American public cant stomach, its casualties. How long have we been in Korea? I guarantee we will have been there for over 100 years by the time we leave. Same thing with Iraq unless we vote in a gutless cut and run Dem.

What he CLEARLY means by it is we will have a much much much smaller troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, as we have in Korea for around 50 years. Most likely a thousand troops or less. Anyone that is even capable of spinning that into making it look like he is saying our current troop numbers will continue for 100 years just doesnt understand world issues very well.

Off Topic. Wasn't the show M*A*S*H* based in the Korean War?

**CNorris** · 02-01-2008 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by VolcomX311

Off Topic. Wasn't the show M*A*S*H* based in the Korean War?

Yeah it was.

**AE14** · 02-02-2008 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by CNorris

Apparently you dont understand world issues very well. McCain has always said that its not troop presence the American public cant stomach, its casualties. How long have we been in Korea? I guarantee we will have been there for over 100 years by the time we leave. Same thing with Iraq unless we vote in a gutless cut and run Dem.

What he CLEARLY means by it is we will have a much much much smaller troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, as we have in Korea for around 50 years. Most likely a thousand troops or less. Anyone that is even capable of spinning that into making it look like he is saying our current troop numbers will continue for 100 years just doesnt understand world issues very well.

first, so happy to see you back

now onto the issue at hand. you are saying he clearly means that and you know this how? When it was broached at the debate that was not what was being said. Dr. Paul's response and McCains lack of response were not indicative of your point. Additionally, McCain has been quoted as saying we could very well use force in Iran and Pakistan as needed. We DO NOT need another war monger in the white house. It is time for a change from that nonsense

**pistonpump** · 02-02-2008 07:09 AM

im not voting unless ron paul is on the ballot. call me crazy but if you dont think he is the best choice for president then i think youre crazy.

**Australian made** · 02-02-2008 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by pistonpump

im not voting unless ron paul is on the ballot. call me crazy but if you dont think he is the best choice for president then i think youre crazy.

I really do not understand why voting in the US isn't compulsary. All i can say is if members of the public do not vote and their man or women does not get the job then stfu and don't b1tch like everybody does about Bush.

2008 Election

2008 Election

Similar Forum Threads

Election Day Scenarios

This is how the election will be decided

The Henry Rollins Show - The Corruption of Election 2008

Is the U.N. Meddling in the U.S. Presidential Election?

Putin comments on election

Tags for this Thread