Jump to content

2008 Presidential Elections


Bigs

Which canidate do you like at the moment?  

238 members have voted

  1. 1. Which canidate do you like at the moment?

    • Joe Biden (Democrat)
      2
    • Hillary Clinton (Democrat)
      22
    • Christopher Dodd (Democrat)
      1
    • John Edwards (Democrat)
      5
    • Mike Gravel (Democrat)
      3
    • Dennis Kucinich (Democrat)
      5
    • Barack Obama (Democrat)
      79
    • Bill Richardson (Democrat)
      2
    • Sam Brownback (Republican)
      1
    • Jim Gilmore (Republican)
      0
    • Rudy Giuliani (Republican)
      9
    • Mike Huckabee (Republican)
      4
    • Duncan Hunter (Republican)
      0
    • John McCain (Republican)
      6
    • Ron Paul (Republican)
      47
    • Mitt Romney (Republican)
      1
    • Tom Tancredo (Republican)
      0
    • Fred Thompson (Republican)
      1
    • Tommy Thompson (Republican)
      1
    • Other (Please Specify)
      6


Recommended Posts

Although the elections are still over a year away, I would like to see how GTAFers are feeling about it right now. I hope that's alright with the staff...

 

For more info on the canidates and their platforms, you can check here.

 

Also, I want this to be a "Who do you want" not a "Who do you think" poll. I put this in the debates forum for a reason, please support why you like whichever canidate you do with valid reasons.

 

Anyway, though I won't be old enough to vote in the elections (Only a few days off, I turn 18 on Nov.21 of 08), I'm pulling for Dennis Kucinich. His politics aside, he seems like a genuine guy, less corrupt than most of the politicians running. But when I look at his campaign site, it seems that I agree with him on a lot of the hot issues into today's world. He would actually get us out of Iraq, unlike a lot of the waffling democrats running. He's also concerned about climate change and would try to help with those efforts. Health care, repealing the 'Patriot Act', pro-choice. I agree with him on most of the issues, and I like him because he makes it clear what he supports, which gives him no chance to win really, because voters seem to like canidates that beat around the bush and never give a straight answer.

 

By the way, what's with all the buzz about Ron Paul on the internet? He wants to destroy the federal government, is that really so appealing? monocle.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For right now, my choice is Dennis Kucinich. I like his stands on certain issues. He's as liberal as it gets, so that's my kind of guy.

 

Edit - Try out this site (It seems not too bad for seeing how the candidates stand on issues) - SpeakOut

Edited by Hope

b& for posting naughty pictures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for Rudy Giuliani on this one. Even though I don't know how American politics work, he looked pretty good as mayor of NYC (and probably did a better job handling 9/11 than Bush). USA needs a Presidents whos trustworthy and thats what Giuliani is, so that alone, he'd get my vote if I lived there.

 

A daft question, is Bush still be able to win another term? Or is this his last?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HawaiianHardHitter
A daft question, is Bush still be able to win another term? Or is this his last?

This is his last. The maximum is two terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although, it is not a law. Bush could theoretically push for a third term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cypress Hill

I didn't know Kucinich was so popular. I live in his district, and he's probably one of my least favorite candidates. Aside from the fact that he played a big role in riuning Cleveland as its mayor, he also seems to do anything to on television. Some of my dad's friend went to high school with him and say he's pretty egotistical. Even compared with the typical politician.

 

 

Although, it is not a law. Bush could theoretically push for a third term.

I'm pretty sure they made a law against third terms after Franklin Roosevelt.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, i dont care as long as bush never returns to the white house.

 

Hilary Clinton will ban videogames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cleveland's always been sh*t. wink.gif

 

I've never met him personally, but viewing videos of him on YouTube and other places on the web, he doesn't seem egotistical, in fact he seems pretty humble.

 

I'm not sure about laws against third terms, but I'm sure if Bush had more than an 11% approval rate (or whatever it is now), he wouldn't think twice about bending the rules so that he could run again.

 

C'mon people, I see there are quite a few votes in the poll, but not many people discussing their canidates...are ya'll scared?

 

Cypress Hill, Ron Paul says he wants to get rid of basically all of the federal government's programs, you support this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Kostelecky

I voted Ron Paul, but I doubt he'll make it through the primaries. My realistic hope is for Barack Obama. I really like what I've seen and read about that guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cypress Hill
Cleveland's always been sh*t. wink.gif

 

I've never met him personally, but viewing videos of him on YouTube and other places on the web, he doesn't seem egotistical, in fact he seems pretty humble.

 

I'm not sure about laws against third terms, but I'm sure if Bush had more than an 11% approval rate (or whatever it is now), he wouldn't think twice about bending the rules so that he could run again.

 

C'mon people, I see there are quite a few votes in the poll, but not many people discussing their canidates...are ya'll scared?

 

Cypress Hill, Ron Paul says he wants to get rid of basically all of the federal government's programs, you support this?

Cleveland hasn't always been sh*t. It was a thriving city up to the 1960's. Back then we had almost a million people and a prosperous economy. Now we have less than half a million and a bunch of run down steelmills. While Cleveland started to decline before Dennis became mayor ('77-79), he only made things much worse. His successor, Voinovich (now a senator) was a decent mayor, but by that time the city decaying too quickly and couldn't really be saved.

 

Kucinich may not seem very egotistic, but he never turns down a chance to get on TV. I've seen himgoing on news stations talking about a variety of issues that he has no expertise in and isn't even on any relevant congressional ciommittees. I recently saw him on ESPN talking about steroid regualtion in baseball, even though there was no reason why his input would be relevant. He seems to think his position as congressman makes him an expert at whatever he wants to talk about.

 

As for Ron Paul, I do agree with most of his plans to downsize the government. I am very much opposed to statism and right now the country appears to be moving closer and closer to socialism, with the government gaining more control over its citizens' lives. While many probably see Paul's views as extreme and almost anarchist, keep in mind that we have a very moderate legislature that would only let him get away with so much downsizing. Kucinich on the other hand is nearly socialist. Just look at his policies during his mayorship. He drove up property taxes so high that the city's economy began to crumble, hence the sh*thole that the city is today. If he couldn't handle a city of 700,000 people, what makes you think he could handle a country of 300 million?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kucinich may not seem very egotistic, but he never turns down a chance to get on TV. I've seen himgoing on news stations talking about a variety of issues that he has no expertise in and isn't even on any relevant congressional ciommittees. I recently saw him on ESPN talking about steroid regualtion in baseball, even though there was no reason why his input would be relevant. He seems to think his position as congressman makes him an expert at whatever he wants to talk about.

 

 

Uh, he's running for president and he's not one of the big name canidates. I think it's pretty reasonable that he wants exposure...

 

 

He drove up property taxes so high that the city's economy began to crumble, hence the sh*thole that the city is today.

 

I doubt that is the major reason why. Besides, Cleveland has it's perks.

 

On Dennis' website he talks about taxes and how he would do it if elected, here's a little excerpt:

 

"Clearly, middle class taxpayers pay too much in taxes and are paid too little in the workplace. And the super-rich and corporations pay too little. In fact, the Bush administration has not given tax cuts. They have forced the American people to borrow money for massive tax cuts for those earning, on average, $1.25 million a year.

 

The Center for Tax Justice has shown that the top 1% of taxpayers, those earning on average $1.25 million a year, will individually receive $476,176 in tax cuts between 2001 and 2010, if the tax cuts become permanent. Most shocking is that the top 1% will receive some $641 billion over that time period, while the bottom 80% will receive $636 billion in tax cuts.

 

The administration statements that the poor and middle class received most of the tax cuts is not an issue for debate. It is a lie, no matter how you try to order the evidence. Much of the most direct evidence, by the way, the administration refuses to release. Perhaps they feel the facts would weaken Republican -- not national -- security."

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guybrush Threepwood
Two votes for Clinton bored.gif .....Own up people!

I almost voted Clinton, but then I figured 'what would be more fun to see in the white house?', and I chose the black man.

Goon_Sig.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cypress Hill

 

Kucinich may not seem very egotistic, but he never turns down a chance to get on TV. I've seen himgoing on news stations talking about a variety of issues that he has no expertise in and isn't even on any relevant congressional ciommittees. I recently saw him on ESPN talking about steroid regualtion in baseball, even though there was no reason why his input would be relevant. He seems to think his position as congressman makes him an expert at whatever he wants to talk about.

 

 

Uh, he's running for president and he's not one of the big name canidates. I think it's pretty reasonable that he wants exposure...

 

He’s been doing it for years, though, even before he ran for president in ’04.

 

 

He drove up property taxes so high that the city's economy began to crumble, hence the sh*thole that the city is today.

I doubt that is the major reason why

High property taxes aren’t the only reason why the city is declining, but they’ve played a big role in damaging its economy. And is not the only thing Kucinich did to screw over the city.

 

 

"Clearly, middle class taxpayers pay too much in taxes and are paid too little in the workplace. And the super-rich and corporations pay too little. In fact, the Bush administration has not given tax cuts. They have forced the American people to borrow money for massive tax cuts for those earning, on average, $1.25 million a year.

I’m not sure what Kucinich is talking about. I’m in the middle class, and I live in a middle class suburb. Virtually everyone I know is middle class, and none of the middle class people I know have had an especially financially rough time during the Bush admin. In fact, things haven’t really changed for the middle class in the past six years. The democrats’ claim that Bush is ruining the middle class is a myth. Everything has pretty much stayed the same.

 

I’m not saying agree with the Bush admin, but I have a hard time believing the middle class would be any better off under Kucinich. I don’t think he has ever voted for a tax cut for anyone. He certainly didn’t do anything to help the middle class as mayor. Under his leadership and the succeeding leftist city administrations, Cleveland’s middle class shrunk overwhelmingly, largely because of steep increases in property, income, and commercial taxes. Most of the city’s population decline over the past thirty years has been the result of a middle class exodus to the suburbs.

 

 

Besides, Cleveland has it's perks.

A declining population, crumbling economy, high crime rates, and we haven’t won a major sports championship in over forty years. Not many perks come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two votes for Clinton  bored.gif .....Own up people!

I almost voted Clinton, but then I figured 'what would be more fun to see in the white house?', and I chose the black man.

Me i dont care i dont live in the us of A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted Chris Dodd mainly because of all the fun the Daily Show makes about him. I am not entirely sure what he has for ideas. But I'd probably pick Obama in a real manner. But seriously, they are all to right winged for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Ron Paul is the only logical choice for me. He may be Republican, but he represents the classic Republican ideals, as most of the current GOP has strayed from this thinking and become staunch conservatives. The problem is, many won't see that, they will see another Republican from Texas and say "Aw, HELL no," due to a certain Texas Republican's actions.

 

 

Ron Paul 2008

oldschoolsigs22.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Although, it is not a law. Bush could theoretically push for a third term.

I'm pretty sure they made a law against third terms after Franklin Roosevelt.

It is the 22nd amendment ratified after FDR's death

 

Although I really haven't paid too much attention (I usually wait until after the primaries), I really like the body of work Guliani.

His leadership of NYC during the 9/11 crisis and rebuilding notwithstanding, he had already made a largely positive impact for most in the city.

Through various initiative he transformed NYC from a crumbling cesspot, to a rather lucrative and inviting place.

 

I do however disagree with his stance on the Iraq War, and our need to keep troops there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Kostelecky
Although I really haven't paid too much attention (I usually wait until after the primaries), I really like the body of work Guliani.

His leadership of NYC during the 9/11 crisis and rebuilding notwithstanding, he had already made a largely positive impact for most in the city.

Through various initiative he transformed NYC from a crumbling cesspot, to a rather lucrative and inviting place.

 

I do however disagree with his stance on the Iraq War, and our need to keep troops there.

You may want to read up on what the leaders of the FDNY and NYPD have been saying about Rudy lately. They really don't like him, and they'd know him better than anybody who just saw him on TV.

 

Not to mention that he's exploited 9/11 for his own gain worse than almost anybody (current administration excluded).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just another thug

If Rudy wins, I will definitely leave this country. He is the worse than Bush. I would elaborate but mainstream media is starting to come on to it, you can just watch it there.

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul dosent want to "Destroy the fed"... He wants to get it back to where it is managable. The fact is the more programs you allow the government to manage, the more waste there is. That is a undeiable fact. Yea we need the govt for a few things, highways, a military, and probably a dozen other important things. But the fact is there arent just a dozen ore programs now. The feds have their hands in HUNDREDS of wasteful programs.

 

So please, dont look at it as DESTROYING the govt, look at it as cleaning it up. If things can be handled locally, on a neighborhood, city, and state level, you can avoid much of the waste you see once yo start spannign those programs state to state.

 

 

I consider that true power to the people....Influencing local govt is much asier than influencing the federal government. Once we can get a constitutionalist or TRUE CONSERVATIVE(unlike bush or giuliani), we can start to get back to loval government issues knowing that the feds arent stealing hundreds of billions from us.

 

I consider Giuliani a nightmare, the exact same as Clinton, or Obama. All of them want to dig their hands n DEEPER AND DEEPER, and enhance power of the GOVERNMENT, not power of the people. Just that they all discuise it differently. Clinton and obama do it under the name of SOCIAL HELP FOR THE DOWNTRODDEN, and roody poot does it in the name of SECURITY. Either way they just want to rape us more, and push the constitution further away....

 

 

* For kicks, hose of you who vted for hillary, lookup he views on violent games happy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking hopefully, I would like to see Ron Paul be elected, but who knows how much of his positions will change once he gets into office.

 

I voted for Hilary, because her stance on civil liberties seems to be much more liberal than the rest of the candidates I've read about, that are actually likely to make it to the primaries. That's all just speculation, though, same as Ron Paul, she could just be claiming positions she can't uphold.

 

 

From what I hear about her "banning videogames" she introduced a bill that would limit the sale of sexual video games to minors. Now, how is this banning video-games? Most other forms of adult material require you to be 18 to purchase, R rated movies require you be 17, and music with Parental Advisory required you to be 18. The question is, how often does this really keep people from viewing this material?

 

(Just as a note, I'd rather that we not have these forms of censorship, but I don't see it effecting the video-game market and the like as much as people claim it will.)

 

Perhaps I don't understand her motives, but if the goal is to just require you to be 18, then I think anyone who is actually going to vote ought not care. Though, that's still really based on the, "She's the most likely to win" idea...

 

 

I haven't really examined Obama's political positions ( or many other candidate's ) to say, but I just hope Giuliana doesn't get elected, his foreign policy doesn't look much more favorable than Bush's. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos...Foreign_policy)

Edited by SagaciousKJB

QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randomname01

I pick Barack Obama, because he is an minority. Our nation had gone from being a land of white people to a land of mixed culture and ethnic groups. I believe Obama can show that this nation is accepting to people of all races, not just whites. I know, he's not full black, but still.

Also he's a democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picking someone "because he is a minority" is a terrible basis for a vote. Look at his policies, look at his past, look at his character; but don't look at the color of his skin.

oldschoolsigs22.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randomname01
Picking someone "because he is a minority" is a terrible basis for a vote. Look at his policies, look at his past, look at his character; but don't look at the color of his skin.

Maybe also being democrat also influences me to support him, but I gotta admit, I'm going to do a bit more studying into politics, before I can truely say anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vive La France

Yes! Obama is at the top. Go Barrack!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is only winning because a bunch of cheeze knobs from out of usa voted for him. Those who picked Obama, or Clinton have no damn idea what is in the Constitution.... Yall are living with nationalized healthcare, probably 65% tax on your income, and you cant own firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

NO OFFENSE to all americans on this topic, but it really disturbs me how the media have insisted like mad about the "importance" that Barack Obama would be the first african-american president in USA.

 

He's not really black for starters confused.gif

 

and i don't know what difference would it make, i think that some values in USA or something are really twisted, just a year ago in my country we realized that we have the first "black" president (No, Hugo Chavez is not so black), and we did not give a sh*t before the elections or even after.

 

It was just an opinion of what i've seen, no pun intended.

 

Back on topic, i gave null vote, but Giuliani did a good job with NY and in the 9/11 aftermath, i have a brother livin in USA who has told me a lot of good stuff about Giuliani, and he lives in Orlando confused.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.