Undecided about the 2008 presidential election?

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Not cool Bill.

The thread had been alright until you injected your opinion. Now what are those that disagree with you supposed to do, respond and start a political discussion? You know how quickly that could (and usually does) break down.

There are many forums where that type of thing would be appropriate. This is not one of them.

Maybe my initial reaction was too harsh, it's just that I'm shocked that my previous post was deemed offensive by someone so quickly. What offended you? My brief statement of support for Obama (most likely) or the last 3 paragraphs and significantly more time spent talking about the importance of educating the electorate and encouraging them to make their own decisions? It's not like we live in a country ruled by Philosopher Kings.

By the way, I'm not the only person to briefly advocate for a particular candidate. Read the last bit of post #3 in this thread.

[Ryan Dognaux]

I gave a blip of my opinion. My thought process basically matches yours Bill.

I don't see why civil political debate shouldn't be allowed. It's in the chit-chat section, no one is blowing up over what anyone has said (yet). I think Bill's reaction was more to the statement neither candidate is worthy and that we should just flip a coin.

Research the candidates' views and policies and then vote for the candidate that you think can make the greatest positive impact over the next four years. If you refuse to vote then please also refuse from complaining over the next four years about the state of the nation.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

What offended you? My brief statement of support for Obama (most likely) or the last 3 paragraphs and significantly more time spent talking about the importance of educating the electorate and encouraging them to make their own decisions? It's not like we live in a country ruled by Philosopher Kings.

By the way, I'm not the only person to briefly advocate for a particular candidate.

You're not the only one, but you are the only one to give a reasoning. Not to mention the harshest one on the thread. I can't say that you don't raise some good points, particularly in the last paragraph and the half-paragraph just before it, but the rest seems to be calculated to stir heated debate, or worse, a flame war.

Your last 1.5-3 paragraphs are fine; it's the one or two before that that will offend people. Or rather, offend some and be applauded by others. To be frank, the third paragraph sounds like you're slinging some mud, intentionally or not.

I say, Consider very carefully the candidates, their positions, and what they say/do. Maybe the parties, though the party can easily rebel against their candidate after he is in office. Then make your own informed choice.

[Joe G.]

Civil discussion, and sharing of opinions is fine. Attacking the opinions of others is not. If the thread dips into that, it should be closed. If not, then what's wrong with a little healthy debate?

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by gblake

If studying platfoms comes first then I have a 2-part recommendation for what comes zero-th (because I distrust platforms and the processes that create them, and I believe actions speak louder than words).

0.a) Notice what powers are granted to the president/executive by the constitution (and give a little weight to the "bully pulpit" influence presidents exert over other parts of the government), and then ignore any claims candidates make about how they will accomplish objectives that simply are not within their power.

0.b) Look at the candidates' parties' platforms from several recent campaigns, and count how many of their planks actualy were accomplished and yielded the intended or promised net results.

Then carry out some of the other suggestions found in this thread.

Me - I personally like this approach to politics - "Any man who is under 30 and is not a Liberal has no heart; and any man who is over 30 and not a Conservative has no brains."

Quite obviously, healthy bodies need both hearts and brains.

Blake

i have to say... taht acutally makes some seince

Im a Volunteer and a proud donating supporter of Barack Obama, seince i really can't put it in my signiture

-Public Service Announcement-
Weather you live in a battleground state like me (Florida), or live in the most one sided city in America, you should get out and VOTE. what Elgin said is right. I supported Kerry in 2004, but couldn't vote. so i really can't complain about the last four years, I have to bite my tongue and take it like a man, now im able to stand up and support who i want to with a check mark on November 4th and im doing everything i can to elect my candidate president.

I even made a thread during the primary season asking, "which candidate would be best for FIRST", there is a little thing called "search" where you can look it up

Don't just get to know the candidates. if the belief for your candidate is as strong as the belief is that i have for my candidate. then please GET INVOLVED. donate, volunteer, or do something to help them out. (not overstating your opinions on CD or flaming others in other threads).

Both candidates have tried to run respectable campaigns against one another, now it's our jobs, who support these candidates to do the same, RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE'S VIEW'S.

that's all i have to say

(oh, and happy birthday to me!)

P.S.: if anyone has any questions about politics, please PM me or see my facebook profile, im going to eventually switch my major from electrical to Political Science with all this mess that's going on.)

EDIT: Bill, i don't think your statements are partisan at all,

[IKE]

Cool Link from the Washington Post
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...enate/members/

This is a link to the senate members, but you can also check out house of rep. too.

This link has their voting record and compares them to their party and the opposition part stance. It also has tools like best attendance, worst attendance, % with party, % against party....

Be aware that for the guys running for the last year or so, they have missed a lot of votes due to campaigning.

I would recommend reading through some of the bills that they vote on. It may help explain some of the (Changes in position). The votes are often lots of things lumped together sometimes related, sometimes not. Often they have to choose to vote for a couple things they want (like more funding for FIRST) vs. things they don't want in the same bill (Underwater bridges from LA to Hawaii). I hope hawaii has a good since of humor .

Consider it the Congress Scouting System. Who did what they said they would and who didn't.

Since 3 of the 4 persons on the 2 main tickets are senators, you can actually get some data on what they really voted for (or against).

[Qbranch]

I think I'll just state my political orientation I came up with for my facebook here...

"It's easy being green with these candidates. GO NADER!"

-q

[Protronie]

Originally Posted by Qbranch

I think I'll just state my political orientation I came up with for my facebook here...

"It's easy being green with these candidates. GO NADER!"

-q

I wish there was a third party that actually had a choice of winning.
I also wish they had a better candidate. We need a third choice, the two we have are so much alike these days there is no real choice for change.
Last third party candidate I voted for was that Ross Perot... you know how that turned out.

Since my earlier post I've learned more of this Sandra Palin... I'm very impress. Alaska is very lucky to have such a good governor and I'm leaning towards voting for McCain in the hopes that someday she may take over from him.

-p

[gblake]

Lewis Black suggests we re-elect Ronald Reagan - Along with the obvious humor, I think that I recognize a certain sort of wisdom in that suggestion...