Who Scares You More? Dem or Rep. Prez

[BilltheButcher]

I know there was some stuff on the Rep debate. Got tired of looking for the thread.

Well I was watching the Democratic debate last night and I tell you Hillary scares the heck out of me. Instead of saying "Raise Taxes", she is using stuff like "Raising Profits?" "Everyone should be in it together." "Astronomical price gouging of the gas companies." I think in NY the gas companies get like $.08 of every gallon where the state and federal get like $.55 of every gallon, who is price gouging? I don't know a ton about it, so someone please shed some light on this for me. But Hillary and her socialist agenda freak me out, as a business owner why should I bust my butt to try and improve my financial situation and create jobs for people if she is just going to penalize me with more and more taxes and penalties for trying to be financially successful.

I voted for Bush twice and I think I regret it, since he is not acting like what I think a Republican should. Totally gone off the deep end, which makes me concerned people are going to vote that way b/c they hate Bush and the war. Anyways just curious of peoples thoughts on the Democratic debate last night.

[SW]

I didn't watch. I couldn't. Right now I'm of a mind for Romney. (sorry for off topic).

[seK]

Both are politicians rep of dem there is no difference.

[KingJustin]

I'm a libertarian. Ron Paul is the only one that comes close to matching my views. I hope everyone here that is remotely libertarian goes out and votes for him in the primaries.

That said, there's a few other candidates that I think are somewhat reasonable. I like...
Bloomberg (I don't know anything about him, but if Ron Paul unexpectedly does not get the Republican nomination, if he runs, I'm voting for him simply because he is semi-electable and may help transition to a multi-party system)
Newt Gingrich (fiscal conservative, sharp guy)
Barack Obama (seems to support limited government in social issues)
John McCain (I trust that he really will lower non-war spending ... he's been talking about it for years)
Bill Richardson (Great foreign policy experience, seems fiscally responsible compared to most of the dems)

Fred Thompson, Al Gore and Chris Dodd seem OK

I also really like having Gravel in the debates. He lets the people know when then electable candidates are making empty promises and spewing bull****.

That said, I really can't stand any of the other candidates. I HATE Hilary Clinton. I hope to god she doesn't win. She is a deceitful bitch that supports big government. Seeing her as the most likely president as of right now makes me cringe. I also really hate Rudy Guilliani. All he does is saber rattle and flag wave. He doesn't say anything of substance at all. He is a complete authoritarian. I don't see how anyone that actually watches the debates still likes him.

Oh, and Mitt Romney and John Edwards are terrible, too. They are the most fake politicians I've ever seen. How can anyone believe anything they say? Not to mention their platforms suck.

It's really frustrating for me, though. All I want is (much) lower government spending and withdrawal from Iraq. Ron Paul is the only person that supports that.


And the whole gas crisis really pisses me off. Yes, it costs a lot more than it used to in order to fill up our gas. It's not like this hasn't been expected for quite awhile. But, rather than continuing to subsidize oil while those companies are making record profits, the clear solution is to let the high gas prices cause the market to demand alternatives...it makes so much more sense than continuing to rely on a destructive fuel source that makes us rely on the Middle East...

[MrWebb78]

Both are politicians rep of dem there is no difference.

I second that.

[Beast]

Well I was watching the Democratic debate last night and I tell you Hillary scares the heck out of me. Instead of saying "Raise Taxes", she is using stuff like "Raising Profits?"

She is very scary. Don't worry, because she won't win.

[d'Anconia]

Yeah in general we have big government Dems vs big government Reps. Only difference is what they want to expand the size of the government for: Dems = social programs and Reps = Military ("defense" although we're usually on the offense...).

Somehow small-government types are nowhere to be seen except for Dr. Paul who, by the way, I have already pledged money to and have been trying to help his campaign in other ways. With the exception of Gingrich it seems to me that most of the Reps don't know what the **** they are talking about but just want to seem like "strong" (instead of intelligent) leaders.

Yes we lost 3k people in 9/11 but that doesn't mean we should be living in fear, letting our soldiers get killed, and running up a multi-hundred-billion-dollar bill. Anyway Dems had a debate yesterday which was mildly entertaining now we have Dr. Paul on the Daily Show tonight, the Rep debate tomorrow, and Dr. Paul again on Colbert Report on the 13th.

And you can thank the plethora of Ron Paul internet supporters for getting him on those shows, next up is Larry King Live.

[dscarth]

Our country runs like a car, you dont drive forward by putting it in R.

[tangerine dream]

Change is good. Unfortunately both parties are married to lobbyists and big business so party ideals get thrown out window for the $$$.

[VikingWarlord]

I'm a libertarian. Ron Paul is the only one that comes close to matching my views. I hope everyone here that is remotely libertarian goes out and votes for him in the primaries.

I agree with this. Problem is that since he's not extreme in any of his views, he'll alienate the Bible thumpers and other assorted nutjobs that have a history of actually voting. I'd be shocked if he came anywhere close to getting a nomination.

[ArchAngel777]

I don't really get involved in politics. Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others... I think both parties are a joke... I think both are corrupted biggots.

[KingJustin]

I agree with this. Problem is that since he's not extreme in any of his views, he'll alienate the Bible thumpers and other assorted nutjobs that have a history of actually voting. I'd be shocked if he came anywhere close to getting a nomination.

I think he'll do surprisingly well. I hope you and other libertarians won't count him out and abstain from voting in the primaries. He is winning nearly every single internet/phone poll, including those that track IP/phone numbers so that you can only vote once. Simply put, Ron Paul supporters are very activist. Even if he doesn't have quite as many as Ghouliani, a much higher percentage of his voters will get out and vote.

I think the fact that he isn't a bible thumper/authoritarian idiot is actually a good thing. When you have 9 candidates that all hold the same views, and Ron Paul holds different views, then it's really to his benefit. Those 9 will split the votes of those in support of an authoritarian idiot, while Ron Paul will get all the votes from the small government, true conservatives. (Obviously oversimplified)

[VikingWarlord]

I think he'll do surprisingly well. I hope you and other libertarians won't count him out and abstain from voting in the primaries. He is winning nearly every single internet/phone poll, including those that track IP/phone numbers so that you can only vote once. Simply put, Ron Paul supporters are very activist. Even if he doesn't have quite as many as Ghouliani, a much higher percentage of his voters will get out and vote.

I think the fact that he isn't a bible thumper/authoritarian idiot is actually a good thing. When you have 9 candidates that all hold the same views, and Ron Paul holds different views, then it's really to his benefit. Those 9 will split the votes of those in support of an authoritarian idiot, while Ron Paul will get all the votes from the small government, true conservatives. (Obviously oversimplified)

In the world of politics, it generally seems like being different is more a liability than an asset. I'd like to think your assessment is right, but I have a bad feeling about it. That said, from the (admittedly small amount of) research I've done, Ron Paul is the one that I can identify with most of all the candidates now.

I'm of the mind that it's hard to trust anyone that actually wants to be the president.

[Majestic]

I took one of those "interest tests" about a month ago that measures/compares/classifies/labels/whatever your political beliefs, and Ron Paul came in at the top of my results. Really interesting.

[d'Anconia]

Sure it's a bit interesting. As far as I'm concerned it means you're a rational-thinking person Majestic.

I'm sick of people saying that Ron Paul doesn't have a chance and that they will not vote for him as a result of that. EVERY candidate starts off with incredibly low percentages, they have to start somewhere. Even 3 or so years ago when I voted for the first time I decided that I would never compromise my integrity and vote for "the lesser of two evils", if you think voting 3rd party is a waste then don't forget in your own state you're still only one of millions casting a vote. I think the bipartisan system is pretty screwed up but it seems to be a trend in any major democracy.

Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, just vote 3rd party if you really have to during the election. Votes for the 3rd party carry more symbolic meaning than any other votes and at least the 2 major parties have realized this and at least freaked out before over their votes being "stolen".

On another note what I find a little funny/sad is that a lot of people who are anarcho-capitalists (although naturally not the largest demographic ever) won't even acknowledge the 'officiality' of the democratic system and instead just abstain from voting from all elections as a form of protest. Of course this doesn't help Ron Paul's campaign...

Let me just say this, "I didn't vote for him because he didn't have a chance" is a completely unsustainable meme/idea/mentality so why buy into it yourself? Who dictates who has a chance and who doesn't? The reason we're this bipartisan mess in the first place is because of that single line. If you want to sleep well at night then just vote for the candidate who has the best integrity and represents rational though and (hopefully) your positions.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for what's for dinner...

[Songsangnim]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2848857.shtml


According to this article the last two polls show Clinton and Rudy to be leading the race both by considerable margins over their challengers.


Then again there's still a ways to go....

[Neil]

Ron Paul lacks the charisma and speaking skills to effectively communicate his ideas.

I would rather have a Republican president because they are slightly less socialist and they appoint judges that have more respect for private property rights.

[d'Anconia]

I'll agree he has to work on his public speaking skills but in the end I don't vote based on "charisma". He's a kind guy and non-abrasive and when you couple that with his policies he gets my vote.

These days it seems like "charisma" = "he/she who can bull**** the best".

[Roark]

hillary's latest rants are scary, she's a socialist

in the end, i'd choose rep over dem any day

of course, i'd love to see paul or another strong candidate run w/ the LP, but i don't think it will happen

[sharkall2003]

I used to be a religious junkie and then I realized that there is a separation of Church and State. Now I look at all the political views, not just one; abortion. I'll be looking closely into the candidates and their views, but I am very very very hesitant to vote for someone who wants to develop more social programs and cut our military. I refuse to vote for someone that does that.

[zen]

[QUOTE=BilltheButcher;1699366
...as a business owner why should I bust my butt to try and improve my financial situation and create jobs for people if she is just going to penalize me with more and more taxes and penalties for trying to be financially successful. [/QUOTE]

Too punative for me.
I started a business, made a net profit the first year (which I understand is rare for business startups), got my ass taxed off, and realized there was no reason to do all that fukking work to end up with virtually nothing.

Hillary and the commie dems in disguise just want to make it worse.
I'd rather be a working man. Atleast our socialist government (and it IS already socialist) sux our collective schlongs by promising us everything if we just don't rise up beyond middle class. It pays to lose.

[bics56]

Either way I lose...I am not rich and I am not poor...I don't get too involved in politics since everything is soooo shady and crooked.

[sharkall2003]

To answer your question: Any candidate who wants to spend money on useless programs that support the weak and poor I am not for. I'm also not for any candidate that wants to take away my rights via lobbyists. I'm looking into Ron Paul to see what his views are.

[BilltheButcher]

Here are my concerns top to bottom and I'd be interested to see what others are concerned about:

- Raising Taxes and tax breaks for companies.
- Terrorism and War on Terror and protecting the USA. Is the war the right thing, can anyone ever clean up that part of the world? What are they goals and plans with the troops over there.
- Protecting the borders and illegal aliens and their plan.
- Alternative energy plans and what direction to go forth in the future.
- getting rid of no child left behind
- Lowering gas prices (i don't drive anywhere so its not a big issue for me - however I am seeing that food is getting more and more expensive and I love me some steak.

[zen]

This country doesn't need to become full blown libertarian (even I can admit that as a libertarian), but we do need a wave of libertarianism to counter the tax and spend policies of BOTH parties.... just to swing the pendulum a bit. Dems want to tax everyone to death for social programs and stagnate everything. Republicans want to start wars with everyone and lower taxes so we can't pay for it.