John Mcain Or Barack Obama ~~ Who will you vote?

In am still undecided but I will vote!

But who will you vote?

Barack Obama (dem)
-lawyer
-Community Organiser
-Minority
-Harvard Law School

John Mcain (Rep)
-Experience in Politics
-Was in the military
-Cheated death many times during the war
-Patriotic

Well that's all I know about them

Who will you vote, and why?

 

Been asked several times.
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=873017

Lets see what this new poll will produce.

 

Ughhh ok. Whatever?

 

okay... can anyone please let me know who you will be voting? Or if your not in USA who you think should win? As those two up there are talking about something else... (??)

 

Why not read on of the many threads already on this topic?

 

Barack Obama

 

Thank you! Apparently you can read my question haha. Great choice I think he will make a great president.

 

I will be voting for McCain because anything is better then Obama. Even a guy who I do not really agree with all the way

 

they might as well have strings on each of these puppets. You people are actually getting worked up over these 2? What a choice looooooooooool.

 

The ability to cheat death has always been a big priority when it comes to picking the next leader of America. We can't have any world leaders that are especially prone to death.

 

Who in their right mind will vote for Republicans after what they did to the world and our country???!!??!?!?!?!?

Peace,

 

Are you saying the Democrats are not at fault as well? Voting for Obama is more of the same. Hope,Change,Hope, more of the same.

 

The more important question is, who wouldn't?

Let's see:

Removed a brutal dictator responsible for over a million deaths through mass graves, acid baths, shredders, murder, rape and things most can't even imagine.

Thwarted nearly 30 terrorist attacks in the US alone by islamists.

Helped thwart other terrorist attacks in other countries.

Stopped movement of funding to terrorist organizations.

Not another terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11 (much to the dismay of some)

Defeated al qaida in Iraq.

Democracy started in country that is now starting to make huge money and a thriving economy.

Defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and restored some women's rights there.

Brought an economy already in recession and devastated by 9/11 back from the grave into a thriving economy. He wasn't responsible for mortagage lenders making bad loans.

Actually did his job...which is to protect America. Much to the dismay of some.

Worked to help disarm North Korea's nuclear arms program.

Disarmed Lybia's nuclear arms program.

Cut taxes twice for the middle class. At the same time, responsible for three consecutive tax hauls due to the thriving economy and jobs created.

Extended unemployment benefits to those affected after 9/11.

Stimulus checks to Americans to help ease the pain of the subprime mortagage crisis.

Sure is a lot to be disappointed in with there, eh?

 

In response to this post...

GTech responded as follows: I have to take issue with some of these comments:

. Yup. That is good.

I find the "tax only talk" politics incredibly misleading. What ultimately ends up being important to consumers is "how much money you have in your pocket" after taxes and expenses. When gas prices soar in the course of one year after slowly going up year after year, and food and other prices go up dramatically in that last year, you have a lot less money in your pocket. In fact those increases are creating an incredible damper on the economy leading to huge increases in travel costs, many job losses in that industry, concomitant job losses around the nation because of reduced spending.

If taxes are high but the economy is booming and you are earning more than before, even after paying more in taxes......you are happy.

People's pockets are taking a hit.

We have lower taxes than in and before 2000. Meanwhile the exporting nations of oil have dramatically dramatically more money. Middle Eastern nations are flooded with money, as is Russia and Venezuela. How is that good for the US.

Suppose the US had added a severe tax on gas years earlier. Suppose it had impacts similar to those caused by the increases in gas now, with less driving, less reliance on huge cars, etc. Suppose that fuel tax had gone back into building and fixing better roads and other infrastructure that would smooth and improve the economy. More money would have gone back into the US rather than flown overseas to wealthy foreign interests. Now oil prices are dramatically higher than they have been, the middle eastern nations are dramatically wealthier as are other fuel producing nations and none of it is helping the US economy.

Its a political game in speaking of "taxes only" Its simplistic and misses addressing the important question for people--Do you have more money in your pockets.

Yeah, I assume they did that. On the more recent debate concerning "stimulous checks" addressed below, extended unemployment benefits were extended also. But the Bush administration actually didn't want that. It arose out of political negotiations. Its not exactly been the first thing the Bush administration is apt to do.

Yup they did.

Sure is a lot to be disappointed in with there, eh?[/QUOTE]


I could go into a lot of attack language on many issues described above and issues not mentioned.......but I won't.

I guess its all in the eyes of the beholder.

 

Just to keep things in perspective:

Where are Barr and Nader?

 

If I could vote, I would vote Obama because He will actually take steps to fix the problems, not leave it to his successor as McCain & GWB have.

 

I keep a bookmark for just such occassions, as a reminder of what was:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=2017595&postcount=252

There were ties to al qaida. These have been documented quite thoroughly in the past:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1398234&postcount=31

I based this on a report from a year or two ago that I had read. It very well could be more now. There's been quite a few in the media over the years. A lot, actually. There might be an official list somewhere, but the ones I can recall off the top of my head are: Fort Dix, Sears Tower, JFK Airport, World Bank, Lackawana six, Richard Reid.

Incorrect. al qaida was in Iraq prior to our invasion. In fact, saddam's men detained several al qaida operatives and after learning they were al qaida, they were let free and given information that Jordan was tracking them.

Yep, same here. We can agree on this one.

I disagree on this one. The taliban always act up during warmer months. It's to be expected. That border is in a very isolated and mountainous region. It may just be that you are not familiar with how massive and rugged that area is. I'm pretty sure terrorists are not concerned with adhering to to restrictions on crossing invisible borders in remote areas.

You might have a point here, except what you are talking about here are all things that have transpired *this* year. We've both been around a long time. I believe we both can agree, that during our lifetime, we have never seen a consistent downward trend in gas prices. Remember the 70s? Gas prices around $.50 cents per gallon?

And through the years, it's always gone up, like everything else. Presidents don't control the cost of gas. We both know that. Most intelligent people do know it. Prices are driving by speculation on supply and demand. These tax cuts, that result in record breaking tax hauls, took place over the past 3-4 years.

The mortgage crisis, which hit this year has hit the economy. You said it was Bush's fault, that he removed regulatory oversights that would have prevented this. I haven't seen anything in reality to base this upon. It could be true, but you are the first person I've encountered to suggest this. So I have to disagree on this one as well, in the absense of any reports that shows Bush did this.

 

You should read up on their stances on some of the issues. They really are quite different and you probably land somewhere on either side of the fence. After really being dissapointed with the nominations this election, McCain has won me over after making efforts to seperate himself on some of the economic stances that Bush has taken, as well as choosing a very good VP that I can identify with on most of her stances.

 

@PHP: Why don't you go over the economic policies wherein McCain is different than Bush. I'd love to hear them.

@GTech: Well we obviously disagree on a lot of stuff. BTW, damn....now I gotta go source stuff that I never saved re; the mortgages.

On economic stuff I come from a long business experience. I've been an employee and a boss. I've been a market broker in commercial real estate and an investor. I've had great financial years and disasters. I have a reasonable amount of college and post college education on economics and business.

I used to strongly like the older line of Republican thinking on economics and business which combined fiscal restraint and adhering to budgets. I also applaud social experiments and efforts to raise the problems of the worst off. I never enjoy paying taxes and have enjoyed the reduction in tax cuts during the 2000's but it hasn't really meant a huge huge gain. The biggest gains came from big big gains from my own productivity or that of businesses where I was employed (and got bonuses) or businesses where I've owned and we are doing well.

When I was doing badly...with negative income--(more money feeding investments that were failing then I was bringing in) I needed help.

Since the Reagon influence of lower taxes have hit I haven't seen any kind of enormous surge due to lower taxes on a nationwide basis. I've seen good times....but I think they are more the result of surging economy due to gains in productivity. That is what hit the US during the 90's.

Currently now I think we are losing our way economically with all the focus on taxes and nothing focused on real productivity from a national perspective. If McCain is addressing this I'd like to see it.

 

My vote is for Barack Obama

No more Bush please also no more WAR