Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Jul 21, 2007.
Link to a nice site outlining the candidates and how they feel about the major issues.
Well, that's handy, Thanx OG
Kucinich needs to win.
I wish that were possible.
I'm a huge fan of Mike Gravel. Too bad he has no shot at winning (no one even knows who he is )
With the exception of NCLB, Kucinich is dead on for me. I didn't know that Clinton and Edwards both (still) support the Patriot Act, not to mention the death penalty. Thanks for the chart, obrygiant.
Both are less liberal than they are given credit for.
Interesting, assuming it's accurate (and I'm not suggesting that it isn't). Republicans Brownback, Cox (who?) and Paul are against both abortion rights and the death penalty -- sort of a rare combination. Too bad none of them are really viable candidates at this point.
The chart has been updated, check original link.
We'll see who's a viable candidate in the primaries.
Ron Paul isn't against abortion as in, banning it when he gets in office; he thinks it should be up to each state to allow or deny abortion, and to select which kinds of abortions are legalized. State to state regulation is his thing. Which is why it always appears he's against something- he is against FEDERAL regulation of almost everything.
We should almost run the candidates just based on the "Immigration- path for illegals to become citizens" column, because the illegals are eating away at our economy and taking benefits from people who's families have actually paid in to our system. People in England should know what I mean. If you need assistance or welfare you get sent to wait while the illegal immigrants get a free flat and a monthly check for nothing. And it's eating up the British economy too.
But there are so many issues that are truly important that get buried under the BS. Personally, I think we're screwed if we the people don't stand up to the elitist psychopaths that have run amok in our name.
We need to shut them down and take away their influence by ending the federal reserve and taking back our money first- which is our wealth, without which we will be subject to foreign corporations when they come to collect on our nation debt.
If the US Treasury can print a dollar bond, it can print a dollar bill.
Candidates like Gravel and Kucinich know that they have a slim to no chance at winning, so they aren't afraid to tell it like it is. Their ideas are radical to most, but their different approach to things are exactly what this country needs.
After seeing Sicko, I just want a candidate who support Universal Healthcare
If anyone but Ron Paul gets elected to President, I'm going to start seriously considering moving out of this country. He seems like the only one who has read the Constitution.
Ron Paul is an AWFUL candidate.
He's against everything; yes, I know he is "against the federal government" doing things, but that's just the same as being against it. Those of us in red states would be ****ed BAD if someone like Ron Paul was elected. You'd see segregation/racism coming back in the deep south, you'd see almost every single red state become Jesusland, and those of us unfortunate enough to be born in one would have no choice other than packing up and moving, which isn't realistic for a lot of families.
Not to mention Ron Paul has the support of "truthers" (people who believe the government planned 9/11) and skinheads, yet Paul has said nothing to condemn the views of the skinheads. Head on over to stormfront if you don't believe me; they ****ing LOVE Ron Paul. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it?
I usually never read the Daily Kos, but they have a great 4 part article on why Ron Paul is a terrible candidate, with links to the sources/proof.
Oh, and wonga1127; I don't know where you plan on moving, since practically every industrialized country in the world is to the left of the US, and is no where near as extreme far-right as Ron Paul and his views are. Seriously though; where would you move? If you think any of the other candidates are too "liberal" and "big government", it seems like Sudan or the Congo would be your choices. I can't think of anywhere else.
Though a lot of your post is wildly innacurate (like England collapsing under the weight of illegal immigrants ), I take the biggest issue with this statement. If you think Ron Paul will free the US from corporate influence (foreign or domestic), you're WAY off base. Watch the US become even more corporate run than it is now when all federal regulations are removed from business.
It's sort of scary/hilarious to me, because Libertarians (or lassez-faire capitalists) seem to have a memory of about one hour. Remember the Great Depression? Remember Enron? Remember almost every corporate scandal to date? Multiply that by 200. That's what we'll have if a libertarian ever gains power in this country.
Interesting. My closest match is Clinton.
Darn, still Clinton.
Illegals can't collect benefits. Nor is England's economy collapsing because of their illegals. That and everything it5five said.
That article was laced with scathing bias and was about as extreme as it makes Ron Paul out to be. I didn't expect anything less from a leftist site.
And as far as where I'm moving if someone else gets elected, somewhere where they don't have the Patriot Act is enough for me. Amsterdam sounds nice.
If not supporting the Patriot Act is enough, then why support Ron Paul? He isn't the only candidate against the Patriot Act. Gravel and Kucinich are also against it.
Oh, and have fun in the Netherlands; a very "leftist" country. I also have noticed a lot of Ron Paul supporters are against taxes, so you'll find that the Netherlands has tax brackets starting at 32.6%.
If you think the Daily Kos is "leftist", you'll be in for a shock when you find the rest of the industrialized world is "leftist".
I'm not going to argue with you. I'm done.
Thanks for the post, good pre-election chart to look at.
Too bad, the post-election chart will look completely different.
Sad, but true.
WOW. Just wow. A whole lot of speculation with no backing.
You are the FUD master.
You must not have family in England. I do. And for Solvs- They sure as hell collect all kinds of government benefits just like they do here in California.
And where did I mention anything about corporations??????????
Also, if you knew anything about the history of economics you would know that the Federal Reserve is one of the three major causes of the Great Depression and none of the reasons were corporations. They must not teach this side in high school.
Enron happened while Clinton/ Bush was in (D/R) and Davis/ Arnold (D/R), so where does "libertarians" come in as problem causers?????????
I've seen some distortions of what Paul stands for, but this is the most wild-eyed version to date. Incredible!
Kucinich? From what he's said about economic policies, we'd soon be in deep doo-doo. Tariffs and protectionism make for trade wars, and China would flat-out eat our lunch.
Now all I do is check off the boxes that apply to me and let my Mac crunch the numbers and place my vote.
Mine gave me G.W. Bush.
I want a re-vote.
I wonder how their ability to do that could have been prevented? I mean, since they manufacture just about everything now.