If Obama and McCain..

[Sphinx625]

won their nominations as president for their parties who would you vote for?

I'd vote for Obama.

[fullmetalfan720]

Obama.

[E-Z-B]

Ralph Nader. :lol:

[Trenchalicious]

Would McCain even make it through a term? He looks terrible these days.

[zionoverfire]

Tough choice, honestly I'd have to wait until after I'd watched a couple debates.

edit: Oh and running mates would be important. Considering McCain's age I don't want that fucker dieing and sticking up with some Jesus freak like Huckabee.

[Unickuta]

This thread needs a poll. Oh, and I'd vote for McCain.

[BigT]

Well McCain gives me about 50-75% of what I believe in.

Obama, the new age son-of-a-hippie socialist, gives me 0-10%.

Clinton 10-20%.

It's an easy choice: McCain>Clinton>Obama

[E-Z-B]

McCain: "I voted for torture before I voted against it." :lol:

[sweeetja713]

McCain, I will not have Obama's death on my conscious and you just know if he's elected some racist bastard will do it

[Dead of Knight]

McCain is an incredible douche and I'm a democrat. Obama. I would vote for Hillary over McCain if necessary, but I'd be wearing a gas mask, not simply holding my nose.

[pittpizza]

Obama.

McCain, I will not have Obama's death on my conscious and you just know if he's elected some racist bastard will do it


Which is why Al Sharpton would be VP.

[sweeetja713]

That is a great way to solve the problem. No one would ever shoot Obama then

[62t]

Ralph Nader. :lol:

and he doesnt even need to get his party's nomination

[dmaul1114]

Obama, already voted for him in the primary and made a small donation to his campaign.

I'd vote for Hillary over McCain as well. I didn't have too much problem with him back in 2000, but his war mongering talk about Iran and him talking to the religious right whom he ignored in 2000 (stick to your principles man!) has me pretty against him this time.

[dopa345]

McCain as long as he does not pick Huckabee for his VP. If he does..... ugh, not sure what I'd do.

[schuerm26]

Mcain, Clinton, Obama? No Thanks.

Ill write in Ron Paul.

This is funny on the onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/child_bankrupts_make_a_wish_0

[mykevermin]

Mcain, Clinton, Obama? No Thanks.

Ill write in Ron Paul.

This is funny on the onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/child_bankrupts_make_a_wish_0

I'm not going to be able to convince you to vote for Obama - but let me at least say that, as someone who voted for Nader/LaDuke in 2000, the "principled vote that's merely symbolic but stands no chance in hell of actually doing anything" left me feeling more empty than damn near anything I've done in my life.

If you go through with your vote for Paul, I hope you don't end up like that. Not so much a feeling that I wasted my vote or that I regretted it, but more a feeling of "what the hell was I thinking?"

[Xevious]

I can't decide to be honest. The choices are a hell of a lot better than Kerry and Bush....that's for sure.

[GuilewasNK]

I can't decide to be honest. The choices are a hell of a lot better than Kerry and Bush....that's for sure.


Truth.

I don't owe my soul to either democrats or republicans so I could see myself voting for either Obama or McCain. Hilary though? I'd vote Jack Thompson before I vote that shrew in for anything. She is almost coming off as a bigger jackass than John Kerry IMO. Obama has great charisma which is IMO an underrated quality in a leader. Whether you liked him or not, it was Bill Clinton's greatest strength and something his wife has a total absence of.

[looploop]

what're your beefs with Hillary in particular, Guile?

[GuilewasNK]

what're your beefs with Hillary in particular, Guile?


She seems combative and abrasive to me.

[BigT]

I like Hillary right now... she sounds like me while mocking Obama with her sarcastic renditions of his hope and change speeches (and arguably leaking pics of Obama in a Somalian Warlord outfit).

Good times. Hillary must be really pissed right now. I can't wait until she throws the kitchen sink at Obama.

[dmaul1114]

what're your beefs with Hillary in particular, Guile?

To give my opinion, I don't have huge issues with her and would vote for her if she beats Obama.

My main beef is that we've had literally 20 years of Bushes and Clintons in the White House, and I'd like to see some new blood in there.

Policy wise, the only thing I don't like is her health care plan, it's a little too universal for me. I prefer Obama's ideas regarding making it affordable for everyone and only requiring it for children.

Make it universal and you have long waits like in Canada, and I just don't like the notion of forcing adults to buy coverage (or giving it to them) beyond children who need coverage and have no choice in the matter (i.e. they can't get a job and by their own).

Make it affordable, and give people the choice whether to buy it for themselves, while requring them to buy it for their children. That I can sign on to.

[JolietJake]

She seriously needs to stop smiling at every god damn thing. I get it that she's trying to seem warm, but you'd think she'd been hit with laughing gas or something.

[looploop]

She seriously needs to stop smiling at every god damn thing. I get it that she's trying to seem warm, but you'd think she'd been hit with laughing gas or something.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080213/i/r1797012930.jpg
case in point?;)

[billyrox]

Batman movies

She could be better than Jack Nickelson

[The Crotch]

Make it universal and you have long waits like in Canada...... or you learn from our mistakes (as we are glacier-slowly doing) and develop a better system.

But, y'know, nobody would ever vote for that.

[Magehart]

McCain > Hillary > Nader > Write in my name > Obama

Hillary is a ball busting cutthroat New York broad as opposed to a hippy that Barack "Lets all give everyone a hug" Obama. I would rather waste a vote on myself than vote for Obama because I want someone who is willing to pull out all the dirty tactics to win. Thats a sign of a dedicated leader. Albeit not a great leader but still better than a socialistic leader. The only way I can see myself not voting for McCain is if Huckleberry is the VP. Last thing I want is a bible thumping televangelist to gain power.

So until we get running mates I truly cannot say. If it was Hillary/Edwards against McCain/Huckleberry then I'll truly consider crossing over. But McCain/Paul... we got ourselves a winner.

[Zenithian Legend]

The only person I'd vote Obama before is Hillary.

[hiccupleftovers]

I'd vote for anyone before McCain/Paul (blech :barf:)/Huckabee/Romney....pretty much anyone the republicans have put out this year. Also, Obama is my choice. In the end, if I had absolutely no choice or no one I really liked, then I could also see myself voting for Hillary, but like guile said, she's combative, a shrew, abrasive, should use her face as a corporate billboard for all the lobbyists that own her, etc.

[t0llenz]

McCain for me.

[pittpizza]

This year, instead of having to choose between the evil of two lessers, I actaully am happy with the candidates, really like all of em, and feel like I don't have to choose between a douchebage and a turd sandwhich.

It makes me happy. I feel....represented!

[dmaul1114]

... or you learn from our mistakes (as we are glacier-slowly doing) and develop a better system.

But, y'know, nobody would ever vote for that.

True. But that's why I had the other part about not liking forcing adults to pay for coverage for themselves. That's just a bit too much for me, as is giving free coverage to all adults if anyone took it to that extreme.

Non-disabled adults have to fend for themselves and should have the option not to pay for coverage if they like--so having a system of making health care more affordable for adults who want it, while requiring them to cover their kids who have no way to earn money to buy their own coverage fits my beliefs best.

[JolietJake]

One thing that Paul must be happy about, with Nader in the race he's no longer in last place.:lol:

[schuerm26]

I'm not going to be able to convince you to vote for Obama - but let me at least say that, as someone who voted for Nader/LaDuke in 2000, the "principled vote that's merely symbolic but stands no chance in hell of actually doing anything" left me feeling more empty than damn near anything I've done in my life.

If you go through with your vote for Paul, I hope you don't end up like that. Not so much a feeling that I wasted my vote or that I regretted it, but more a feeling of "what the hell was I thinking?"

I will gladly vote for Obama before McCain. I have thought about the "symbolic" vote and I think that it really isn't even symbolic since the numbers will be far to small to even be considered a statement.

Worse comes to worse, Obama and Hillary would both get my vote over McCain. Can't stand the guy and if he ends up being the repub nom. he is going to get smashed. How he came from basically being dead in the water to being the nominee is beyond my grasp. If it was a year ago and you had told me McCain would be the nominee I would have said your full of s==t. It baffles me how he is where he is now.

[mykevermin]

You used to post in the vs forums quite often, didn't you? Are you/were you a self-identified "conservative"? Or do I have you confused for someone else?

[schuerm26]

You used to post in the vs forums quite often, didn't you? Are you/were you a self-identified "conservative"? Or do I have you confused for someone else?

Yeah, same person. Im just fed up with what is going on. I just don't understand after 8 yrs of Bush how the party can somehow decide that McCain should be the nominee.

I don't even consider myself truly to be a "conservative" anymore because that isn't what's going on on the repub. side (Ron Paul excluded).

Having lived in Illinois though for 2 1/2 yrs (just moved a month ago) I can say that Obama scares me a little bit.

I will state that the health care system in Illinois is phenomenal. I used it for my 2 kids and it unbelievable. Not sure how much Obama had to do with it as it was labeled under Governor Blagojevich's (spelling?) name, but it was an unbelievable system. It's called All Kids Covered. We literally saved about $600 a month because of it.

The reason it scares me is I just don't know how long it could be sustained. If I recall correctly it started in 2006 sometime.

[CocheseUGA]

I like Obama. Personally. But beats me by listening to his speeches if he's going to do anything other than end the war and give everyone 'hope.'

I fully understand what he stands for via his website, but the man needs to address these issues with the people he's talking to, not point them in the direction of the internet.

The 'A vote for me is a vote for hope,' and 'A vote against me is a vote against hope' stuff his campaign has been putting out there has gotten a bit stale for me.

[Dynasty1756]

id vote for Obama

[SpazX]

Obama. And I'll vote for Hillary if she beats Obama. They're not really all that different policy-wise although I do like Obama's personality more than Hillary's so I'd vote for him over her.

[dopa345]

I just find it interesting and a bit troubling that in an election discussion, people are concerned far more about the personality of the candidate rather than the issues they stand for.

[SpazX]

I just find it interesting and a bit troubling that in an election discussion, people are concerned far more about the personality of the candidate rather than the issues they stand for.

I think maybe two people only said stuff about personality, almost everybody in here said something about policy or didn't mention a reason.

[dmaul1114]

And the person above who mentioned personality pointed out that in their view Hillary and Obama are very similar policy wise, so personality was kind of the tie breaker for them.

[GuilewasNK]

I just find it interesting and a bit troubling that in an election discussion, people are concerned far more about the personality of the candidate rather than the issues they stand for.


Personality is a window into what a person is really about. It trickles down to everything else. Opinions on issues often change with what they think their party wants to hear. It doesn't matter how brilliant a person is if their personality keeps people from listening. Look at people in the non-political realm like Bob Knight. Sheer genius, but has the personality of a toilet.

When the average person has to slosh through the dregs and flotsam that is campaign and debate, personality is the only thing left to differentiate the candidates. It killed John Kerry in the last election and it gives rise to Obama now. If Kerry had been half as likeable as Obama we would be looking at a totally different situation now.

[mykevermin]

And the person above who mentioned personality pointed out that in their view Hillary and Obama are very similar policy wise, so personality was kind of the tie breaker for them.

I am extremely interested in, and support, Obama's policy plan to increase funding for rehabilitation programs for prisoners. I also think his health care plan is more feasible (based on how much staunch resistance the Clinton plan would face).

His personality is nice, but I take it as an affront that it's the difference, for me, between supporting one candidate and another. They are indeed alike, but not entirely - not by any stretch.

[ph33r m3]

McCain or Obama.

But, I swear to god, if Obama says "Change" another 1231232123 times in a speech? I'll go McCain.

[t0llenz]

I like John McCain as a candidate. I like that he takes a more practical approach to his conservatism as opposed to just pushing it in your face like some candidates try to do (Huckabee for instance). I also like that he's not afraid to buck his party, especially when it comes to the things that matter to him -- like torture, campaign finance reform, etc. And that's it...

I disagree with Clinton and Obama on more issues than I agree with them, so it seemed like a pretty straightforward choice to me.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I like John McCain as a candidate. I like that he takes a more practical approach to his conservatism as opposed to just pushing it in your face like some candidates try to do (Huckabee for instance). I also like that he's not afraid to buck his party, especially when it comes to the things that matter to him -- like torture, campaign finance reform, etc. And that's it...

I disagree with Clinton and Obama on more issues than I agree with them, so it seemed like a pretty straightforward choice to me.

Do you like how McCain is trying to do away with the First Amendment via McCain-Feingold?

[mykevermin]

It's a touch hyperbolic to say "do away with the First Amendment," no?

You can look at it that way; I, OTOH, look at it as a means of removing the "cash on hand = prominent candidate" element to elections. Several candidates in this cycle couldn't generate the money to get a campaign rolling. Some of them you may have already forgotten: Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel (I think he's out anyway), etc.

Why are these candidates inferior to those currently likely to win the primaries? Can you point out to me, on a policy level, why that may be the case? Or is it more likely that money = legitimacy in campaigns? When that's removed (or, realistically, reduced), candidates can compete on the terms of actual issues - we can't write off Ron Paul because he doesn't have money to compete, or Huckabee, or others (hell, even McCain in the middle/late of 2007!). That finances are related to how loudly a candidate is heard is an impediment to "free speech," in my opinion.

If we can silence partisan organizations in disguise, such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, then *great*, IMO. Free speech is often misused in campaign seasons to promote biased agendas by organizations that hide their true partisan underpinnings. Get rid of 'em.

[t0llenz]

I get the arguments about McCain-Feingold being an infringement upon free speech. If it's unconstitutional, let it be struck down -- until that point, it has proven more useful than I'm certain most on the right or left could have anticipated. This is what happens when you take a practical approach and are willing to work across the aisle to help get things done, even if they don't always seem like the 100% perfect solution your base would want. This is a perfect example.

It works, it may not be 100% perfect for any side -- but it works as a compromise. Sure, I don't necessarily have a problem with PACs being allowed to run ads naming a candidate 60 days before the general election and maybe a revamp of the legislation is in order to deal with the growth of new PACs, 527s, etc. Yet, on the other hand without this legislation wealthy individuals are just allowed free reign to wipe out opponents by canvassing the airwaves with ads. I agree with mykevermin (odd) that to a certain degree, this helps promote free speech...I suppose that makes me less of a conservative *shakes head*

[RAMSTORIA]

since mccain isnt conservative on the issues id like for him to be conservative on, im actually leaning towards obama. i figure at least hes not gung ho about continuing the war. not that it matters for me in the great state of california, obama will win our votes.

[GuilewasNK]

I might be alone in this, but the more I read in this topic the more I dislike all the candidates.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

It's a touch hyperbolic to say "do away with the First Amendment," no?

You can look at it that way; I, OTOH, look at it as a means of removing the "cash on hand = prominent candidate" element to elections. Several candidates in this cycle couldn't generate the money to get a campaign rolling. Some of them you may have already forgotten: Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel (I think he's out anyway), etc.

Why are these candidates inferior to those currently likely to win the primaries? Can you point out to me, on a policy level, why that may be the case? Or is it more likely that money = legitimacy in campaigns? When that's removed (or, realistically, reduced), candidates can compete on the terms of actual issues - we can't write off Ron Paul because he doesn't have money to compete, or Huckabee, or others (hell, even McCain in the middle/late of 2007!). That finances are related to how loudly a candidate is heard is an impediment to "free speech," in my opinion.

If we can silence partisan organizations in disguise, such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, then *great*, IMO. Free speech is often misused in campaign seasons to promote biased agendas by organizations that hide their true partisan underpinnings. Get rid of 'em.

Mitt Romney.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I get the arguments about McCain-Feingold being an infringement upon free speech. If it's unconstitutional, let it be struck down -- until that point, it has proven more useful than I'm certain most on the right or left could have anticipated. This is what happens when you take a practical approach and are willing to work across the aisle to help get things done, even if they don't always seem like the 100% perfect solution your base would want. This is a perfect example.

It works, it may not be 100% perfect for any side -- but it works as a compromise. Sure, I don't necessarily have a problem with PACs being allowed to run ads naming a candidate 60 days before the general election and maybe a revamp of the legislation is in order to deal with the growth of new PACs, 527s, etc. Yet, on the other hand without this legislation wealthy individuals are just allowed free reign to wipe out opponents by canvassing the airwaves with ads. I agree with mykevermin (odd) that to a certain degree, this helps promote free speech...I suppose that makes me less of a conservative *shakes head*

If I found a video of McCain blowing a dog or sitting down with shadowy types pledging to start WW3 the day after inauguration and the mainstream media wouldn't air the video, how would I put out the video for the masses to see without violating McCain-Feingold?

If I put that advertisement out a few weeks before election day, I can be fined.

From what I've seen so far, the two parties don't enforce the law against each other. However, I'm sure they'll have no qualms using it against an upstart third party or any credible independent.

It's an infringement on the first amendment because it potentially fines free speech. Waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down a law could take decades and there's no telling how the court will look by that time.

[HuppSav]

I voted for Sharpton 4 years ago because of the worthless Kerry-Bush ticket.
I plan on voting Obamma but if Hilary cheats and wins I will have to write in Ron Paul. I know he won't win but thats only because humans are inherently stupid.

[t0llenz]

If I found a video of McCain blowing a dog or sitting down with shadowy types pledging to start WW3 the day after inauguration and the mainstream media wouldn't air the video, how would I put out the video for the masses to see without violating McCain-Feingold?

If I put that advertisement out a few weeks before election day, I can be fined.

From what I've seen so far, the two parties don't enforce the law against each other. However, I'm sure they'll have no qualms using it against an upstart third party or any credible independent.

It's an infringement on the first amendment because it potentially fines free speech. Waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down a law could take decades and there's no telling how the court will look by that time.
Use blogs and other alternative news media, including Drudge who'd be all over a story like that like white on rice.

Also, first party candidates do try to smack each other with the regs, look at what happened to the Swift Vets and MoveOn.org with their mass fines after 2004.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Use blogs and other alternative news media, including Drudge who'd be all over a story like that like white on rice.

Also, first party candidates do try to smack each other with the regs, look at what happened to the Swift Vets and MoveOn.org with their mass fines after 2004.

If I had a video like that, I'd rather not run the risk of being fined in the case McCain wins and labels blogs and alternate news media as advertising.

Oh, wait, my first amendment just got infringed.

Think about Cindy McCain and Percocet while responding that McCain would never go after somebody trying to air something negative about him or his.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/

[itachiitachi]

Obama

[bigdaddy]

If it's Clinton McCain, Nader, if it's Obama McCain than Obama.

Not that my vote counts anyways.