[Smurf87]

Hello all!!!

So this will be the first presidential election I will be able to participate in and I was wondering some things:

How would you describe the beliefs of your party (i.e. Dem/Rep)?
and
If you are leaning to either Senator Obama or Senator McCain, could you describe why?

It has been hard trying to decipher some of the things the candidates say they stand for, what they plan to do, and how it might actually effect the average Joe American.

Thanks ahead for anyone who participates!

Very Respectfully,
Scott

[nun2sharp]

There isnt a dimes worth of difference between the two, if there was you wouldnt be asking. Study thr Independent tickets such as the Constitution Party , Libertarian, etc. They actually stand for something other than money and power. Just my 2 pence worth.

[Philadelph]

I believe there is plenty of difference between the two. First off I believe that an independent vote is one that is thrown away. Here is a quote regarding independent parties: "they do not have ballot status in enough states in 2008 to win the presidency." Why bother? Instead make an educated decision based on your own situation and make a difference. I do not consider myself part of either party so I am technically independent. I don't follow the beliefs of either party and think it is rather a moot point considering that each candidate has their own set of them.

With all of that being said I am voting Obama. Personally I have a lot of concerns that he addresses in a much better way (IMO) than McCain such as changing the terrible healthcare situation in America, foreign policy, taxes (especially increasing taxes only for those who make $250k per year and up- they can afford it), etc. McCain seems to me to be very underhanded both in his lies during the two debates thus far and his "smear" campaign towards Obama. (You will hear completely different opinions than this one especially here at SRP where it seems to me that most people are Republican or just plain old conservative) It seems that at this point McCain is doing anything he can to paint Obama in a bad picture. He has changed policies and made some poor choices such as choosing Palin as a VP. She is completely incompetant IMO as she has demonstrated herself in her debate and previous interviews. It isn't about whether or not she has "character" or that she will "grow into the position"... anyone could. Anyway, McCain is trying to appeal more to the heartland type of person who has big religious beliefs and still supports this ridiculous "war". I don't buy into any of that. People say Obama doesn't have the experience to be president and I completely disagree. He seems like a refreshing candidate to take over next term and try to turn this country around.

I am a 25 yr. old white male living on the east coast to give you some scope here. I know people may come in here and try to disprove my thoughts but I am only stating what I believe and they can feel free to do the same. I hope you make a good decision here, it's an important one.

[denmason]

Well, aside from the salt & pepper....... their both lairs, both have sworn allegiance to Israel above the USA, both accepted large sums of money to help pass the bailout plan....... geez, I could go on and on.
Look to the other parties as nun2sharp said. It's your best bet. It will always be a two party system if WE don't try to change it. Why cast a vote for the lesser of two evils? You still end up with evil.

[WireBeard]

Firstly, congratulations on your first election and on having enough on the ball to realize how important it is, regardless of how you vote.

What each party stands for depends on where you stand.

Here are Wiki links that gives a nice history of both:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

I have yet to firmly make up my mind....I have to choose one of them (since it does not good voting for the dead)...I have not ruled out an Independent, merely as a vote of protest.

I do not identify exclusively with one party...it depends on the issue.

[denmason]

When you vote for a lesser of two evils, you compromise your own integrity and lose your ability to criticize politicians who sell out their constituents and their own principles. All of us should vote for a Third Party candidate and make a strong case that we must have complete reform of the two-party dictatorship leading America to disaster. There are two candidates acceptable to large segments of liberals and conservatives: Ralph Nader on the more liberal side and Chuck Baldwin on the conservative side. Or one can even write in a more outspoken candidate against the existing system like John de Nugent. The point is to not let America’s corrupt elite in finance and media manipulate you into voting against your own conscience!
The Democratic Party can never be reformed until it learns that it cannot ignore the wishes of its rank and file. Democrats who are anti-war and anti-Globalist are blackmailed to support Obama with the specter of a Republican President.
The Republican Party likewise can never be reformed as long as its leadership thinks it can go completely against our interests by blackmailing us with the spectre of a Democratic President.
In truth, under both Republicans and Democrats the America we love is going to hell in a hand basket!
We need a clean break. Vote against both McCain and Obama, Vote Third Party! Make a clear statement for the future. Have integrity. Vote your true beliefs, don’t let them blackmail you!

[Hutch]

The only wasted vote is the one not cast.

[WireBeard]

You must vote! If you don't vote, you can't complain....and then what would we post here?

[Bruno]

I am not allowed to vote of course But I'd vote Obama. Hardly a surprise.

I have the impression of him as an intelligent man who knows his stuff.
McCain looks to me as someone who doesn't. All this talk about war and patriotism.... they are only used to silence opposition and distract from the real issues. The US has bigger and more pressing problems than that.

I also have the impression that McCain and his merry men seem to put a lot more effort in their dirt campaign. The last thing I heard was that Obama had ties to some US based terrorist organization when he was eight?

It almost seems as if their main campaign priority is to fling dirt at Obama.

[iron maiden]

Didn't South Park come up with the idea for our choices a while back?

Who to vote for?
...a giant douche?
...or a giant turd?


Either way, we're not left with much of a choice....and 3rd party is unfortunately too far diluted to make a difference....remember Ross Perot. Only this time, there's Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, etc......more choices to further spread the dissenters vote to make sure one of the 2 main candidates gets it.

...overall, I might just abstain. McCain isn't worth a damn, and Obama might as well be openly communist.

At this point I don't know what to do. I don't want to compromise my integrity like Denmason says and help one of the main players get it by default by voting for the lesser of two evils, but I really don't think voting for a 3rd party candidate is even feasible. It is a shame there isn't just one of them whom we could all go for. I think that might surprise everybody if somebody like Chuck Baldwin actually won.

[gugi]

Originally Posted by iron maiden

but I really don't think voting for a 3rd party candidate is even feasible. It is a shame there isn't just one of them whom we could all go for. I think that might surprise everybody if somebody like Chuck Baldwin actually won.

Isn't competition good? It's true that the two big parties have sort of a monopoly position, but if people like a 3rd party product better, last time I checked US is still a democracy. Of course, the 3rd parties have to first demonstrate that they are worth 2c. In any case the political machine works because voters let it work.

I don't vote, but if I did at this point I'd vote Obama. McCain is not the person I'd like in control of US foreign policy - he has consistently been too rash to unnecessarily make a call, which can be justified only if it's at least the right one, and I disagree with most of them. When it comes to the nuclear knob, I'd take a less experienced but thoughtful and cool headed person to an angry old man who despite all his experience hasn't learned to control himself.

[denmason]

Originally Posted by gugi

last time I checked US is still a democracy.

Last time I checked it was still a Republic... even though the media keeps telling us it's a democracy. Very different animals.

[gugi]

Originally Posted by denmason

Last time I checked it was still a Republic... even though the media keeps telling us it's a democracy. Very different animals.

Here we go again... Dennis, check your dictionaries, a current one, old ones. If you insist they are different I would ask that you provide definitions and a source for them. We need to be able to communicate and to do so effectively we must understand the meaning of the words we use.
I am not a native English speaker, so I like to use words with their widely accepted meaning and not the one that a small community may like.
My understanding is that USA is a republic AND a representative democracy. It is not a monarchy, it is not a theocracy, and it is not a dictatorship.
My question to you is the same - what is USA. For extra credit, what about Great Britain?

[maplemaker]

Originally Posted by iron maiden

Didn't South Park come up with the idea for our choices a while back?

Who to vote for?
...a giant douche?
...or a giant turd?


Either way, we're not left with much of a choice....and 3rd party is unfortunately too far diluted to make a difference....remember Ross Perot. Only this time, there's Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, etc......more choices to further spread the dissenters vote to make sure one of the 2 main candidates gets it.

...overall, I might just abstain. McCain isn't worth a damn, and Obama might as well be openly communist.

At this point I don't know what to do. I don't want to compromise my integrity like Denmason says and help one of the main players get it by default by voting for the lesser of two evils, but I really don't think voting for a 3rd party candidate is even feasible. It is a shame there isn't just one of them whom we could all go for. I think that might surprise everybody if somebody like Chuck Baldwin actually won.

Turd sandwich was the second choice.

[maplemaker]

I am of the opinion that the Republican party, when in power, drives the bus to hell at a stately 55 miles per hour. The Democrats, in power, mash the accelerator. That's how I see the "two" choices. There are fundamental differences in the foreign policy and taxes between the evil of two lessers we have as main choices, but ultimately both will take us to the same end unless we come back to a somewhat isolationist and firmly constitutional way of running this country. (i.e., there's nowhere in the Constitution that says the president is the leader of the free world, or has any obligation to go to any other country and tell them what they need to do.) Sadly, a return to what the nation should be will not be caused by voting for just the president, no matter which you vote for this time. There are three branches, and all three need a good housecleaning.

[gssixgun]

I keep things very simple I don't vote the candidate they are all just politicians....

Pick out your trigger (pun intended) issues, what are the top three things that you care about, and cast your vote on that...

For me there is obviously one issue that stands to the forefront on every election (GsSIXGUN)..... I will never vote for anybody, that stands against my 2nd amendment rights, period end of story....

[denmason]

Originally Posted by gugi

Here we go again... Dennis, check your dictionaries, a current one, old ones. If you insist they are different I would ask that you provide definitions and a source for them. We need to be able to communicate and to do so effectively we must understand the meaning of the words we use.
I am not a native English speaker, so I like to use words with their widely accepted meaning and not the one that a small community may like.
My understanding is that USA is a republic AND a representative democracy. It is not a monarchy, it is not a theocracy, and it is not a dictatorship.
My question to you is the same - what is USA. For extra credit, what about Great Britain?

Once again, and I hope this won't be taken as "off topic", but.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, indivisible, with justice and liberty for all.

The children don't say this Pledge of Allegiance in school anymore because it directly contradicts the government propaganda in an irrefutable fashion.
Furthermore, the Constitution itself guarantees a "republican form of government", at Article 4 Section 4, it states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"

America is a Republic, a constitutional Republic of a democratic (one man - one vote) nature. However, we are not a democracy where the majority rules. That is government propaganda designed to condition you to accept their injustice and believe that there is nothing that you can do about it. The difference between a Democracy and a Republic is that in a Republic there are certain things that can never be done no matter how many people want to do it ! The rights of no individual or group can ever be removed or diminished (because that group may be currently unpopular (for whatever reason)), regardless of how many people vote to do so. In a Republic, even if the vote is 250 million to 1, that one cannot be thrown into slavery. In a pure democracy 51% of the men can vote the other 49% back into slavery if they wish. Or, they can vote to steal your property (sound familiar), but not in a Republic (if the Constitution or the law forbids it, which ours DOES). Our founding fathers hated democracy, recognizing that it is nothing more than social slavery to the poular hysteria of the masses (sound familiar). They wanted a representative (democratic) system, but not a pure democracy, and they did not establish a democracy in the Constitution, they established a Republic, a Constitutional Republic.


Democracy:A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."
A democracyis majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

1. an executive and
2. a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
3. a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
4. certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
A republicis a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals. These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority.