| Moderated by: Steve Adkins | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Anna Diemer Member
|
This election year we have a very peculiar primary race--so early in the year, numerous candidates have declared their desire to run for president for both parties. It's hard to keep up with all of them! If anyone is as politically aware as I am (a lot of people I know don't start thinking about the election until after the primaries), who are you favoring in the next presidential election? I am personally supporting Barack Obama in the primary, and I believe that his powerful grassroots movement can help him to beat out Hillary. Should Obama not receive the nod from the Democratic party, I plan to support Rudy Giuliani assuming he earns the Republican nomination. I don't know how political we're allowed to be on these forums, but I've been dying to ask some adults about this. |
|||||||||||
|
Aberystwyth Member 
|
I am new to these forums, but I suspect that as long as we are simply expressing honest opinions about political issues no one should be offended. That said, so far I really like Barack Obama and really don’t like Hilary Clinton. My opinions are based on my perception of their character and values, including moral values. Of course I don’t really know any of them personally, but based on what I have read and what I have heard them say, I have a sense of Obama’s values, which I like. He hasn’t done anything ( yet ) that I know of that would cause me to distrust him. On the other hand, I tend to be a little cynical. There are few, very few, political candidates over the years whom I have truly admired and respected. Guiliani is not someone I could support, because to me marital fidelity is very important, so he doesn’t qualify. It doesn’t matter to me what his other values may be or what talent he has. If he doesn’t respect his spouse or marriage, then I cannot trust him. Of course each of us is biased to some extent according to our own perceptions and values and priorities. But hopefully we are informed as well as biased. In any event, thanks for starting this ... Last edited on Mar 30th, 2007 12:32 am by Aberystwyth |
|||||||||||
|
Anna Diemer Member
|
You're quite welcome. Being politically aware is something that I've come to value a lot recently. I believe that I most likely support Obama and dislike Hillary for the same reasons that you do. For anyone interested, there is a grassroots organization forming in Greensboro to support Barack Obama in '08. I already bought a bumper sticker. ^_^ I like the way this election is turning out because it promises not to become a contest to elect "the lesser of two evils." Though I could not vote in '04, I supported Kerry only because I disagreed so much with Bush. I personally think that America needs a change from the big government neoconservatism that Bush has instated. (How many billion dollars are we in debt now?) I think that Obama represents a fresh face in politics and a change from the partisan bickering from which our country has been suffering lately. As for Giuliani...I don't really take moral values into consideration like that when looking at a political candidate. I would trust him to represent our country to the world and also to handle foreign and domestic affairs well. I admire the way he handled New York during 9/11, and I think many believe that he would make a good president. Of course, all politicians (and people) have skeletons in their closet...just in today's world (and since Watergate, but more often now) those closets are open for the country to see. Obama seemingly has no skeletons, and I find it amusing how the anti-Obama crowd keeps trying to find things that he's done wrong or somehow is inconsistent. |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member 
|
Anna Diemer wrote: I don't know how political we're allowed to be on these forums, but I've been dying to ask some adults about this. Anna, welcome back. We've missed you. This subject is perfectly appropriate in the National Events section, thank you for starting this thread. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 11:18 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Starcatchr Member 
|
It's way too early for me to make a decision on a presidental vote. Both Democrats and Republicans have policies that are agreeable to me and both have their failings. It seem to work better for me to consider the individual as well as party. This morning news - Another 300 peoople in this area have lost their jobs! It must be devastating to have worked for many years for a company and then being thrown on the trash heap. Luckily, some can restart and form new careers, but there are some for whom the obstacles are too great. For them, it's kind of like an attorney being laid off and having to go into doctoring. I'm afraid to think of the number of people giving up homes, savings. A friend from the Detroit area says that homes are selling for ten, twenty, thirty thousand or whatever is owing on them, but when 35,000 people are unemployed, it's still hard to sell. Seems it's like that, perhaps on a smaller scale, all over the country. Thus far, the front line candidate wannabees have held personality contests and have spoken in generalities on issues When voting time comes, I will consider a candidate who includes in his campaign a plan that makes it feasible for companies to stay in America, and to begin reducing dependency on other countries. While a global economy is necessary to a point, I'm becoming a little fearful of offshore and outsourcing. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member 
|
I agree it's too early to make a serious selection. Parties don't mean as much to me as they used to. I see good and bad on both sides. I think a lot more people share that view these days an' I wonder how that will play out in the future of partisan politics. I like what I've seen so far of Obama, too. He'll be one to watch fer sure. Hillary may be smart, but somethin' ain't right about her as far as I'm concerned. It might be fun to see Bill back in the White House as First Man though. Hee hee. Still, we've come a long way, I reckon, when a woman and a black man are serious contenders for President of the United States! Yee haw! It's gonna be interestin' to watch. |
|||||||||||
|
Anna Diemer Member
|
Pappy and Starcatchr: I see that in both of your posts you have mentioned "when voting time comes." Is this in regard to the primaries, or the general election? Jim: If you're interested, there will be an organizational meeting for the grassroots Obama campaign in the Triad next Monday evening (April 2). I can give you the details when I find out, if you'd like. There's also a fundraising breakfast and rally in Charlotte on April 13. As for never supporting Republican candidates...I've always thought of myself as quite the liberal hippie, but as I've studied the Constitution further, I've become more fiscally conservative. I'd label myself as a Libertarian, but plan to register with the Democratic party and vote for whoever I believe is the best candidate, regardless of party lines. It's really interesting for me to read about everyone's opinions of political candidates and see the phenomenon of the American public in action. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 11:18 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 11:18 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Anna Diemer wrote:Pappy and Starcatchr: I see that in both of your posts you have mentioned "when voting time comes." Is this in regard to the primaries, or the general election? I was thinkin' more of the general election, not thinkin' of the primary comin' up. I get tired o' politics now an' then an' hafta take a break from ponderin'. It's fascinatin' but it'll wear you down after awhile. |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member 
|
what we need is someone like Clark Howard . His views on finances are excellent. but with all the money floating around DC he would not get far because both parties are tied to special interest and not the people. He also has a good plan to get us off mideast oil, expensive at first but it would work. Of course getting him to run as he said would probably not happen . No new Clinton!!!!!!!!. |
|||||||||||
|
Anna Diemer Member
|
FatPappy wrote: Anna Diemer wrote: See, I think that the primaries are just as important as the general elections. It's a shame not as many people get involved in them. Jim: I will certainly email you when I find out more! There's certainly nothing wrong with being a liberal hippie. It makes the world a better place. ^_^ Of course, I have close friends who are conservatives as well... |
|||||||||||
|
Starcatchr Member
|
Anna, I agree. The primaries are extremely important. Do you happen to know voter turnout percentages for either or both? I assume that local elections suffer the lowest turnouts. It never ceases to amaze me that some people I know who are involved in many activities, just don't think it's important to vote in locals. Well, that's where our representation starts! |
|||||||||||
|
TCat Member 
|
I'm just curious. I hear alot that people don't like or don't want to support Hillary Clinton. Why is that? What do you not like about her? What do you feel would keep her from being a good president? <still forming my opinions> |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 11:17 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
TCat Member
|
How many of our leaders (including our current President) ever say they made a mistake? From what I have read the vote in Congress was passed by the Senate with a vote of 77 to 23 and the House of Representatives with a vote of 296 to 133. So a whole lot of folks made a decision based on the info they had at the time to pass the resolution. I don't think those are great reasons to write her off. Are you basing your decision on just one decision she made? Last edited on May 4th, 2007 04:29 am by TCat |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 11:37 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Last edited on Jun 28th, 2007 08:51 pm by FatPappy |
|||||||||||
|
WHE Member 
|
I'm with you, ff12. |
|||||||||||
|
Stonefree Member 
|
I am all about the Obama in this election. He has a good record and he is focused. He doesn't have as much civic leadership as some others but I think he is honest. Remember we are voting for a LEADER, not just someone to drive the bus. Voting for a leader means we vote for someone that moves us to following them, their ideas and their directions, not someone who says "I am running things, don't question me, just follow." Bush is not a leader, he doesn't inspire people he "tells" them what to do, that is why we need to avoid another "Bush". Remember that in 2004 the thing to remember is that 50% of the country didn't vote for Kerry, they voted against Bush. That should say something about his leadership even if you believe in him. I am not necessarily a Demo or Repub, I just think we need good leaders, and we haven't had one in a long time, let's see if we can make a good choice this time around. We came close with Clinton, he wasn't perfect but he had the leadership spark. On a side note i am concerned about people who say "You don't like this country, then leave." That is a wholly un-American stance. This country is based on the idea that if you don't like the leadership then question it, change it, make it right. But in the same breath it is the right of those people to continue to say their phrase. America isn't easy, freedom isn't easy and it is not, ever, simply black or white, on or off, American or Anti-American, Democrat or Republican. Who knows maybe the Independants will win...lol! Last edited on Jul 25th, 2007 01:37 pm by Stonefree |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
Stonefree wrote: Remember that in 2004 the thing to remember is that 50% of the country didn't vote for Kerry, they voted against Bush. That's an interesting statement, but I'd like you to explain your thought process. How do you know who and how many didn't vote "for" John Kerry and who and how many voted "against" George Bush? Every election that I've participated in only allowed me to vote "for" a candidate. I do not recall a box to vote against anyone. In 2004, there were 3 candidates (Ralph Nader was the independent candidate). Were the votes for Nader "for" him or were they "against" the other two? Were the Kerry votes "for" Kerry or were they "against" Bush and Nader? How do you know? According to CNN and the Washington Post, Bush received 51%, Kerry 48%, and Nader 1%. Now, exactly how did 50% of the country vote against Bush? I can state with a high degree of certainty that there are many that voted "for" each candidate because they believed in their leadership abilities and positions on the issues they felt were important. I'm certain of my statement because I'm told by individuals in open debates and forums who they had voted "for". I don't recall anyone telling me who they were voting against. If your point was to express a level of displeasure with the options, say so. Many would agree. If your point was to state that, in your opinion, neither candidate showed the leadership qualities you were looking for, then say that too. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to support your stated opinion as fact. But it is an interesting twist to consider. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 11:38 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member 
|
What did you think about the Democratic debate held earlier this week? Interesting format.... had folks post questions on "YouTube." The candidates had to be spontaneous instead of having prepared questions that they knew were coming at them. |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: mstone wrote:Stonefree wrote:Remember that in 2004 the thing to remember is that 50% of the country didn't vote for Kerry, they voted against Bush. Kind of a twist on that "vote early - vote often" process. Right?  |
|||||||||||
|
Stonefree Member
|
Sorry my point was to characterize the vote to represent a distaste for the incumbent. I am certain many people voted for Kerry because they liked him, although i didn't think he was a great candidate, he was the lesser of two evils, and at the end of the day that is sometimes all we get. Stonefree |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
Stonefree wrote: Sorry my point was to characterize the vote to represent a distaste for the incumbent. I am certain many people voted for Kerry because they liked him, although i didn't think he was a great candidate, he was the lesser of two evils, and at the end of the day that is sometimes all we get. "the lesser of two evils"... How sad, but how true. In a world where America needs strong, moral, honest, and transparent leadership at all levels, all we can sometimes get is "the lesser of two evils" for viable candidates. God Bless (and please help) America. |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
mstone wrote: Stonefree wrote:Sorry my point was to characterize the vote to represent a distaste for the incumbent. I am certain many people voted for Kerry because they liked him, although i didn't think he was a great candidate, he was the lesser of two evils, and at the end of the day that is sometimes all we get. Unfortunately the best at raising campaign funds usually is who we get to vote for...so we end up with a "bought candidate". If people would research the candidates and vote their conscience during the primaries we might end up with two good candidates. Primaries; should all be held the same day or keep it like it is??????? |
|||||||||||
|
Anna Diemer Member
|
I think that primaries should all be held the same day. The current system allows the candidates to concentrate their campaigning in the states with the earliest primaries--until this election, New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina. In addition, this race for states to move back their primaries is ridiculous. Primaries should be on the same day to avoid all of this nonsense. Doing that would also be a better test of a candidate's nationwide appeal, instead of his or her chosen spin towards the important states. There are still a few things about the election process that I don't agree with (mainly the electoral college). It's interesting to observe the trend that's occurring, though--when an unfavorable candidate is put into office, clearly something is wrong with the system and must be fixed. However, if one's chosen candidate wins, then the system is okay. If 9/11 hadn't happened in 2001, electoral college reform would have been an important legislative issue. Which reminds me of the 2000 election...though it doesn't seem like he will run, who here would vote for Al Gore? I'm pretty sure that I would, but for now, I'm an Obama girl through and through. |
|||||||||||
|
jkinneman Member 
|
My concern with a national primary is I think it would tend to be much like the national election and the amount of travel and costs would go way up so I am not sure we would get to know the candidate any better, as with the national election they would just focus on the states they need to win to get nominated. An idea that I like is to break up the country into 4 or 5 blocks of about equal size and run a primary in each block. A block would ideally be states next/near to each other making travel easier and cheaper. Not exactly but the blocks of states would tend to have similar issues that the candidate would have to address but at the same time keep in mind that a position taken in one block may work against him/her in the next block. Since the block would be made up of big and small states the candidates could take different approaches to get the votes they think they need but in general I think they would need to campaign in more states than the current process. Each election cycle a different block would go first so that who goes first would not be something to fight over. |
|||||||||||
|
Starcatchr Member
|
Getting away from politics for a minute to comment on the tragic bridge collapse. I heard on the news tonight (CNN) that there are 70,000 to 80,000 bridges in the US that are structurally unsound. First, I wondered how they found this information so quickly. Maybe there's a data base somewhere that keeps these kinds of records. Second, I will be looking for a large signs with flashing lights that tell me when a bridge is on this list. Oops, sorry, I've posted under the wrong topic. Last edited on Aug 3rd, 2007 12:41 am by Starcatchr |
|||||||||||
