The official 2008 Presidential Election Thread!

[cobybos]

But besides all of that...our only hope is someone who will never get elected and it sucks to know this. So I'm just going to have to grin and bear it. I'm either going to get a loony woman for a pres, a white/black guy that can't decide who he should pander to but is leaning towards blacks (I think--considering he brought in the ever-popular stereo type that black people can dance better than whitey during the last debate/slugfest with Shillary--and of course, I didn't see any black activitist stand up and scream that that was an unfair and outdated stereotype....), a crotchety old Vietnam vet who would, if given a chance, stand at the Mexican border with a arrow sign that says, "COME THIS WAY--WE'LL TAKE CARE OF YOU!!!", a cross dressing adulterous (times how many times???) former mayor of New York City, or a big toothy grin having hair spray using east Coast tax raising hack who scares people to death because---GASP!!!!--he's a Mormon, and of course, we have to know all about his FREAKIN' UNDERWEAR before we find out how he's going to pull this country out of the poophole we're in...

You should run then, make a difference. I don't care what religion you are, I don't want to see your underwear!

[The Aceman]

Ah, see I knew I shouldn't have put a poll, whenever a poll is added to a thread people forget how to use the reply button...

So who did you choose and why?

Sorry, I'd assumed people we're already sick of hearing my rants and raves in other threads, lol.

I support Ron Paul, not only is he a candidate with much more refreshing ideology, but he really is a new hope for America, a country whose government is in complete disarray. While he is running as a republican, his political positions don't follow any party line at all, just his own personal beliefs, beliefs that I believe many Americans share. I know he pretty much hits the nail on the head with every political position that I support, I've never seen a candidate that has seemed so right to me. He wants to cut back the federal spending budget to the 2000 budget, end income tax, and dismantle large parts of the Federal Reserve, a pretty much useless appendage to the government. He also supports hard money, and wants to limit the amount of money printed, something that needs to be done by someone eventually to slow and hopefully someday stop the ridiculous levels of inflation. He also opposes anything that is unconstitutional which makes perfectly good sense. He opposes the Patriot Act, probably the worst piece of legislation the Bush administration thought up. He opposes the federal war on drugs, which is a huge waste of tax payers money, and not only that but many illegal drugs and the information and scare tactics used to "battle" them are un-researched or under-researched, many drugs have been made illegal by the FDA without having to go through any legislation, something that is also completely unconstitutional. He opposes gun control laws, citing the second amendment as proof that it too is unconstitutional. He is strongly "pro-life" however thinks abortion laws should be left at the state level and Roe v. Wade negated. Although I would never support abortion in my personal life. I believe in certain circumstances it should be allowed only in the first trimester, and only situations such as rape that lead to impregnation. So our views slightly differ, here but at least Ron has the open-mindedness to keep it at the state level. He also opposes federal regulation of the death penalty, of education, and of marriage stating that they should all be handled at the state level. He supports allowing workers a way to opt-out of Social Security, which is brilliant since I'm paying into social security now because I have to, and doubt the money will still be around when I need it. Paul also opposes regulating the internet, and who doesn't want to keep the freedom we have online. The government has already passed laws to allow them to track everything you do online, which feels very intrusive to me as I'm sure it does to most others. Also, if internet regulation continues soon we will be getting all of our media and news through the same sources as the TV, Newspapers, etc. I want to keep the internet free and open allowing people to speak what is really on their mind.

[cobybos]

Ah, see I knew I shouldn't have put a poll, whenever a poll is added to a thread people forget how to use the reply button...

So who did you choose and why?

Sorry, I'd assumed people we're already sick of hearing my rants and raves in other threads, lol.

I support Ron Paul, not only is he a candidate with much more refreshing ideology, but he really is a new hope for America, a country whose government is in complete disarray. While he is running as a republican, his political positions don't follow any party line at all, just his own personal beliefs, beliefs that I believe many Americans share. I know he pretty much hits the nail on the head with every political position that I support, I've never seen a candidate that has seemed so right to me. He wants to cut back the federal spending budget to the 2000 budget, end income tax, and dismantle large parts of the Federal Reserve, a pretty much useless appendage to the government. He also supports hard money, and wants to limit the amount of money printed, something that needs to be done by someone eventually to slow and hopefully someday stop the ridiculous levels of inflation. He also opposes anything that is unconstitutional which makes perfectly good sense. He opposes the Patriot Act, probably the worst piece of legislation the Bush administration thought up. He opposes the federal war on drugs, which is a huge waste of tax payers money, and not only that but many illegal drugs and the information and scare tactics used to "battle" them are un-researched or under-researched, many drugs have been made illegal by the FDA without having to go through any legislation, something that is also completely unconstitutional. He opposes gun control laws, citing the second amendment as proof that it too is unconstitutional. He is strongly "pro-life" however thinks abortion laws should be left at the state level and Roe v. Wade negated. Although I would never support abortion in my personal life. I believe in certain circumstances it should be allowed only in the first trimester, and only situations such as rape that lead to impregnation. So our views slightly differ, here but at least Ron has the open-mindedness to keep it at the state level. He also opposes federal regulation of the death penalty, of education, and of marriage stating that they should all be handled at the state level. He supports allowing workers a way to opt-out of Social Security, which is brilliant since I'm paying into social security now because I have to, and doubt the money will still be around when I need it. Paul also opposes regulating the internet, and who doesn't want to keep the freedom we have online. The government has already passed laws to allow them to track everything you do online, which feels very intrusive to me as I'm sure it does to most others. Also, if internet regulation continues soon we will be getting all of our media and news through the same sources as the TV, Newspapers, etc. I want to keep the internet free and open allowing people to speak what is really on their mind.

Wow...definitely not typical republican party position. Fiscally he is conservative while domestic policy runs closer to the left. I don't agree with his stance on gun control but I see why he is gaining ground.

[The Aceman]

Dennis Kucinich has withdrawn from seeking the democratic nomination and has been deleted from the poll. He had 0 votes at the time of deletion.

[fieldshowqueen]

I wonder if New Zealand has marching bands....hmmmmmmmmmm...I know they have Hobbits....

No they do not ... my hubby's cousin (who went to South High School here in SoCal) lives in New Zealand with her hubby and 4 kids. She laments the lack of music arts programs in schools there, which is sort of wacky since she home schools her kids.

[The Aceman]

I wonder if New Zealand has marching bands....hmmmmmmmmmm...I know they have Hobbits....

No they do not ... my hubby's cousin (who went to South High School here in SoCal) lives in New Zealand with her hubby and 4 kids. She laments the lack of music arts programs in schools there, which is sort of wacky since she home schools her kids.

At first I thought you were saying no to the hobbits, but we all know the Shire is located in New Zealand and it's full of hobbits.

[The Aceman]

But besides all of that...our only hope is someone who will never get elected and it sucks to know this.

And who is this? I'm not sure if you're talking about Ron Paul or not, but if you are, keep in mind that people we're calling Reagan unelectable as late as march of that election year.

Speaking of Reagan, Ron Paul led the Texas Delegation to nominate Ronald Reagan for president in 1976.



Shown here left to right: Paul, Jack Fields, and Ronald Reagan aboard Air Force One

Looks like Paul knew what he was doing back then, and still knows what he's doing now.

[The Aceman]

I just learned this: The Libertarian Party has requested Paul to run again as a Libertarian (as he did in 1988) if he does not earn the Republican nomination.

Of course I'd rather see him on the presidential ballot for the GOP, but I'll be happy to have him on the ballot as a Libertarian rather than not on it at all.

[BGRtumpet]

."end income tax, and dismantle large parts of the Federal Reserve, a pretty much useless appendage to the government. He also supports hard money, and wants to limit the amount of money printed, something that needs to be done by someone eventually to slow and hopefully someday stop the ridiculous levels of inflation."



Out of curiosity ACEMAN, have you ever seriously studied econ? If you haven't I suggest you do. As a voter it is your responsibility to educate youself, and it would appear that you haven't.

I do think the anti-federalist (states-rights, 10th amendment, w/e you wanna call it) perspective is an interesting (dunno wheater good or bad...) one.

[The Aceman]

."end income tax, and dismantle large parts of the Federal Reserve, a pretty much useless appendage to the government. He also supports hard money, and wants to limit the amount of money printed, something that needs to be done by someone eventually to slow and hopefully someday stop the ridiculous levels of inflation."



Out of curiosity ACEMAN, have you ever seriously studied econ? If you haven't I suggest you do. As a voter it is your responsibility to educate youself, and it would appear that you haven't.

I do think the anti-federalist (states-rights, 10th amendment, w/e you wanna call it) perspective is an interesting (dunno wheater good or bad...) one.

You don't need to take such a hostile and insulting stand, you act as though I made a personal attack on you. Are you trying to tell me that continued inflation won't eventually cause problems? You realize the Canadian dollar is now worth more than the American dollar because of our failing economy? You realize that the ONLY reason money has ANY value is because the government says it does, this is an absolute recipe for disaster. Ron Paul does not support a return to the "gold standard" but does have a plan in place to stop the bleeding. He would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove the sales tax on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies can compete on a level playing field with Federal Reserve notes. This would give citizens an option to use "sound money" to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money. Or maybe we should just elect another DC bureaucrat who will print off money at will and comprise the worth of American money even more. Either way just asking me if I've studied econ and telling me it's apparent I haven't without giving any reasoning whatsoever just makes you sound ridiculous.

[BGRtumpet]

Sorry If that was a little pointed, but I tend to take politics somewhat personally. your vote effects me after all. Especially since I cant even vote.

At this point money doesnt have value becuase the government says it does, it has value because the world markets say it do. So if you wanted to increase the strength of the dollar attempt to increase America's economic status in relation to the world. There are ways to try and do this.....help education, promote national business etc.
"Sound Money" isn't particularly sound. It is in its value, thats certainly true, but unfortunately it creates a limited money supply. Money creation is a huge stimulus to the economy, limiting it creates a far more volitile enviornment than we currently have (examples of this would be the 1890's or so...certainly the world was diff. then but still a similar concept).

Also you mentioned having Two Currencies. One backed by gold or silver, and one by treasury securities. Well I have to ask how that wouldn't create a hell? Which would the gov used? Wouldn't creating some hard currency immediately destabilize any other currency?

And why eliminate parts of the fed. reserve? Looking back in history the independant treasury wasn't exactly succesful. Whats he going to replace it with? Or is Ron Paul like Andrew Jackson, and destroy the "national bank"?

Edit: hey yeah I forgot to mention, but I'm not sure I understand how Ron Paul plans on doing away with the income tax. Are we going back to the Mckinely tariff rates? Arguably that would help revitalize industry in the U.S., unfortunately then other countries would respond with their own protectionism, and I'm not sure tariff wars are good for anyone. Particularity if china decides to participate. For the life of me I can't see where the moneys gunna from, even if you do massive cutting.


Once again, sorry for the fugliness.
My temper got the better of me

As to getting fugly, I apoligize once again.

[fieldshowqueen]

."end income tax, and dismantle large parts of the Federal Reserve, a pretty much useless appendage to the government. He also supports hard money, and wants to limit the amount of money printed, something that needs to be done by someone eventually to slow and hopefully someday stop the ridiculous levels of inflation."

Out of curiosity ACEMAN, have you ever seriously studied econ? If you haven't I suggest you do. As a voter it is your responsibility to educate youself, and it would appear that you haven't.

I do think the anti-federalist (states-rights, 10th amendment, w/e you wanna call it) perspective is an interesting (dunno wheater good or bad...) one.

You don't need to take such a hostile and insulting stand, you act as though I made a personal attack on you. Are you trying to tell me that continued inflation won't eventually cause problems? You realize the Canadian dollar is now worth more than the American dollar because of our failing economy? You realize that the ONLY reason money has ANY value is because the government says it does, this is an absolute recipe for disaster. Ron Paul does not support a return to the "gold standard" but does have a plan in place to stop the bleeding. He would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove the sales tax on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies can compete on a level playing field with Federal Reserve notes. This would give citizens an option to use "sound money" to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money. Or maybe we should just elect another DC bureaucrat who will print off money at will and comprise the worth of American money even more. Either way just asking me if I've studied econ and telling me it's apparent I haven't without giving any reasoning whatsoever just makes you sound ridiculous.

That was a bit pointed, but I am an Econ Major with a Finance and Accounting Double Minor, and BGR has some good points. You really need to take a class in Monetary Policy and Advanced International Economics to understand the complexities of just dumping the Fed Reserve and various other ways to control inflation. In the long run, supply is a straight line and cannot be moved; demand is the only thing that shifts, so "inflation" and "value" are arbitrary ... and don't even get me going on Unions and how they devalue the standard of living and currency values (which was my senior thesis that got me the Wall Street Journal Award in Economics but didn't gain me any friends in Unions). Just because one presidential candidate SAYS "I have the solution" does not mean he actually has the solution when placed against years (decades, centuries, etc.) of proven theory and statistics. Taxes? Yes ... now there is an argument that everyone is avoiding.

And I cannot believe I sat throught 15 years of part-time classes awake enough to be able to remember this and actually understand what it means!

Oh ... and THIS is what I meant by getting "fugly" very quickly.

[The Aceman]

Well one thing is obvious to me, the current system in place isn't working. And Paul is the only candidate even attempting do anything about it. I don't need to be an Econ major to see that, besides it's not my job to know everything there is to know about it, that's why we elect officials. If anyone would like to pick apart every detail of his Economic plans go ahead and read what it's all about and then do so, but doing so just from my generalized wording of his plan isn't really fair. Considering he has written six books on the subject he knows a little something about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... ul#Economy

[The Aceman]

Sorry If that was a little pointed, but I tend to take politics somewhat personally. your vote effects me after all. Especially since I cant even vote.

At this point money doesnt have value becuase the government says it does, it has value because the world markets say it do. So if you wanted to increase the strength of the dollar attempt to increase America's economic status in relation to the world. There are ways to try and do this.....help education, promote national business etc.
"Sound Money" isn't particularly sound. It is in its value, thats certainly true, but unfortunately it creates a limited money supply. Money creation is a huge stimulus to the economy, limiting it creates a far more volitile enviornment than we currently have (examples of this would be the 1890's or so...certainly the world was diff. then but still a similar concept).

Also you mentioned having Two Currencies. One backed by gold or silver, and one by treasury securities. Well I have to ask how that wouldn't create a hell? Which would the gov used? Wouldn't creating some hard currency immediately destabilize any other currency?

And why eliminate parts of the fed. reserve? Looking back in history the independant treasury wasn't exactly succesful. Whats he going to replace it with? Or is Ron Paul like Andrew Jackson, and destroy the "national bank"?

Edit: hey yeah I forgot to mention, but I'm not sure I understand how Ron Paul plans on doing away with the income tax. Are we going back to the Mckinely tariff rates? Arguably that would help revitalize industry in the U.S., unfortunately then other countries would respond with their own protectionism, and I'm not sure tariff wars are good for anyone. Particularity if china decides to participate. For the life of me I can't see where the moneys gunna from, even if you do massive cutting.


Once again, sorry for the fugliness.
My temper got the better of me

As to getting fugly, I apoligize once again.

Don't worry, I've done it before many times. It's all good. As far as getting rid of income tax, he plans on reducing the federal spending limit to the 2000 budget. He prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.

The way I see it, the current system is pretty much double-taxing you're income. You earn a paycheck which is taxed by the State, Federal, Local, etc. taxes, then you go to the store and purchase a product and you are taxed again, that just rubs me the wrong way.

Paul's opposition to the Federal Reserve is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation. In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He believes that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply. He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax" of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.

Anyways my BIGGEST reason for supporting this portion of Paul's views is that every other candidate in the race is just telling us everything we've heard before and nothing has changed or improved, in fact things have only become worse. 10 years ago if you told me the Canadian dollar would be worth more than the U.S. dollar in my lifetime I would've laughed at you until I was blue in the face. I, like many Americans, am sick of paying ridiculous prices and am willing to take a chance on a completely new system if I see some change. Besides, there are plenty of checks and balances on the president to keep most of what he supports from ever happening even if he does get in office, it's just a step in the right direction, or at the very least a different direction.

P.S. I'd rather see someone show emotion over politics than just pretend like none of it matters. Like I said I do it all the time, and it gets me into trouble with certain *cough* administrators of the website, esp. since I'm a mod and supposed to be setting an example. So it would be pretty hypocritical of me not to accept your apology and be understanding.

[horns2thebachs]

I support Ron Paul too. However, as much as I don't want to admit it, he really is unelectable. He is simply too conservative..not to mention he doesn't have the support from his party(see weird looks cast by other candidates at almost every single debate).

The real problem is that even though San Diego is a strong Republican base, California is still going to vote Democratic. That's why I'm going to vote for Obama, and you should too, because every vote for him is one less vote for Hillary!

Don't even get me started on why you should NOT vote for her