Sadly no matter who wins America loses ;(

Unless we can somehow get Ron Paul elected....or at least brought on as the V.P. or a cabinet position...

Ron Paul can't get elected, so a vote for him is still a loss ;(

Call me naive but why can't he?

Call me naive but why can't he?

I shouldn't have said "can't", but when has a write in won in recent memory. In a major election mind you...

Fandros, I don't know why you're so sensitive about the television.

Chill about it already though. If you make your own decisions, based on your own thought on the issues, then you don't have anything to be so defensive about in every thread that I mention the word in.

I know some people legitimately think Obama is the the best candidate, and I think it's great that they're voting for him if that's what they think. However, if you vote for McCain or Obama because you think one of them is the best of two bad choices, then you are voting for who the television told you to.

As far as write-in votes, I couldn't care less if people write in Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Ross Perot, or Mickey Mouse. The point is that you have to have the balls to vote your mind, instead of allowing yourself to be told what your choices are. If we don't collectively do that, we will never have better choices, and we won't deserve them anyway.

If someone walked up to you and asked if you preferred higher taxes or increased oil dependence, hopefully you would have the sense to say neither. Unfortunately, when it comes to Presidential voting, all of that sense goes right out the window.

If someone walked up to you and asked if you preferred higher taxes or increased oil dependence, hopefully you would have the sense to say neither.

What happens if we get both regardless of who gets voted in? Will it be enough to incite a Revolution? Somehow I doubt it.....

What happens if we get both regardless of who gets voted in? Will it be enough to incite a Revolution? Somehow I doubt it.....

Keep in mind that every independent vote lowers the number of independent votes are necessary to effect change. Like most things, there is a tipping point where it would have non-linear benefit.

If Mickey Mouse gets 5% of the vote, that's a serious "no confidence" message that I guarantee you won't be ignored. It will encourage more people to vote their mind in the next election, and the politicians know that. Nothing will happen overnight, but it's a necessary step toward moving the power from the lobbies back to the constituents.

If you are voting for either candidate because you think he's the best of two bad options, you are part of the problem! People voting that way is exactly why we're getting these lousy choices.

This is ridiculous.

The fact is that Obama is going to make a pretty great president in my opinion.

Here are my reasons why, leaving out the dumb touchy feely "Oh gosh he's black" stuff.

1. Look at the way he is running his campaign. Smooth, efficient, disciplined, organized. There are no highs and lows, just day in and day out consistancy. It, as an entire organization, never gets too up nor does it get panicky when things go wrong. Contrast that with the campaigns that Hillary and McCain are running. They are all over the place, they shift messages, they waver here and there, they panic. Doesnt happen with Obama, he is running the same campaign style he ran when he was in 3rd place in Iowa as he is running today. That is how I want my government run.

2. No Drama. He just doesnt get emotional or effusive. He is at all times calm and composed. He refuses to get into pissing contests in elections or debates and doesnt let his ego make decisions for him. This is the mark of a good negotiator and statesman.

3. He is, by any account, a brilliant man. 1st black editor of Harvard Law. Taught law at Harvard as well in his 30s. If you cannot recognize the mans intellect, then you arent paying attention. This ties in with his oratory skill and ability to deliver a truly great speech. Its not all reading off a tele-prompter.
As way of example, Compare
skElJ8LF-Sc&hl

with

-Iym-8Q7uBY

The ability to think on his feet, go into detail, have instant recall in the face of a fairly hostile interview. McCain cant even read his words off his index card.

(hit post by accident when checking Youtube videos, continuing and will edit in.)

4. He is a pragmatist. He does what works. If you have been watching you see that Obama is not an ideologue by any stretch of the imagination. He finds what works and goes with it. This was President Clintons greatest strength. He would take from the left and the right if he liked it. Obama shares that. The willingness to work across the aisle and cross party lines is not a joke. we have seen this over and over again from Obama. He parted ways with the Hardcore Left and voted for the FISA bill. He said that he would be willing to include drilling in negitioations with the Right. Havent we had enough of a President who is so grounded in his ideology and world view that no amount of reality can break through? Obama isnt going to invade a country and think he can change the world by spreading magic democracy dust all over the place. The time for Idealists and Ideologues as our President is over. We need a guy who is practical and pragmatic.
Here is some back up reading on this point
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/2/8/obama-the-pragmatist.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_pragmatist.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

This guy isnt tied into some ideology or hard core lefty liberal. He does what it takes to win. Period. This is what we need.

5. He is a natural leader. Some people are born with it. He was.

Its tough to explain or quantify, but its obvious when you see it. Can you inspire the people closest to you and make them work hard? Can you do the actual LEADING.
You can see it here in a very small informal setting and it can easily translate into how a Obama Whitehouse would work.
bnhmByYxEIo

I have more, but I need to get some shit done atm and Ill finish later.

Didn't Ralph Nader get 5 percent? What change did that bring about?

If someone walked up to you and asked if you preferred higher taxes or increased oil dependence, hopefully you would have the sense to say neither. Unfortunately, when it comes to Presidential voting, all of that sense goes right out the window.
I wouldn't mind higher taxes if it meant that we'd have health care and decent education for every child in this country.

Taxation is already bad enough that you could have damn near anything you wanted if spending were in check (even excluding the cost of the war). As we have seen every time taxes have been raised for some "good" reason, raising taxes will just encourage spending to spiral even farther out of control.

It's like Einstein said: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Point is, everyone isn't as patently against taxation if they see actual results from it like you are. For you to make any blanket statement like you made is just as much folly as what you are trying to throw at people that choose to vote for 'the lesser of two evils."

You are making assumptions based upon how you feel everyone should feel about something, and that's no better than others making different assumptions or generalizations about other subjects. There's lots of clean-up that needs to be made in Washington, that doesn't somehow make me feel differently about providing tangible health care and world class education to every child in this country. IF that requires more taxation to attain, no I'm not against it.

I'd much rather the trillion dollars we've pumped into Iraq going towards those things I feel we need here, but I don't have a mystical time machine to somehow go back five years and change our country's spending habits. We definitely need reform going forward. That doesn't somehow mean that the bigger issues I feel need to be handled shouldn't be handled, again in my opinion.

If anyone could put forth a legitimate plan to put our current tax revenues to good use, and then needed even more money to do good things, I could see increasing taxation being plausible.

Our current system is so amazingly far from that scenario that it's a pipe dream to think that giving them more money will solve problems though.

Either way, arguing that you want more taxes completely misses the point of the analogy. It had nothing to do with specific issues, but accepting a forced choice between two negatives.

Living in a state that had one of the closest gubernatorial races in recent history i'm inclined to believe protest votes are dangerous. well within your right! but still dangerous.

I hold the view that this is the single most important election this country has faced in the last 60 years and to think it might hinge on wether a disgruntled group of people in one state decide to write in for mickey mouse is a horrifying prospect!

Here are my reasons why, leaving out the dumb touchy feely "Oh gosh he's black" stuff.

1st black editor of Harvard Law.

Except for stepping on yourself there, a good post, espically point 4.