Forums → WEPR → Presidential Candidates

as a republican I feel there's no way John will win so I'm for obama he's the most conservative of them.

john Mccain may have his moments. but you have to remember that obama is relatively new. he may look professional and he has some good ideas but he has no experience. in my opinion i don't think he's ready to be president.

I would have like McCain in 2000. Darn you Karl Rove and your dirty politics! But honestly, I disagree with too many of his policies, especially economically and foreign policy wise. He's not a great debater, not good at stump speeches, his fundraising is meh, and he has a temper to boot.

Hillary will not get the democratic nomination. Which is good, because I disagree with her economics, her health care, and her ethics.

Obama is excellent at fund raising and speeches, but not really a great debater either. I like his foreign policy, and his health care plan isn't so bad. I'm not a huge fan of his economics, but I think it's the best out of the three. I think he has enough experience to do a good job. Heck, look at Lincoln.

you have a point, several actually. i don't like any of the candidates really. but i disagree with clinton and obamas policies. some of their ideas will only cause more problems for this country. mccain may not be good either but in my opinion he is the best out of the three, and thats not sayin' much...

TenaciousC, I share your pain about voting for the least of three evils instead of candidate you believe in.

Out of curiousity, what do you like/dislike about the candidates' policies?

well for starters hillary wants to pull out and obama shares that idea. i disagree, the war in iraq is instrumental in the war on terror. if we pull out now without finishing the iraqi's get back on their feet all the soldiers death will be in vain.

on the enviorment he wants to tax companies for their carbon emissions. this is a problem because companies are already spending millions in order to try and change to alternative energy and make cleaner less pollution causing products this will just put a higher price on products and put a bigger strain on the economy and the companies that make the products.

there are some others that i disagree with but won't get into right now. those are the two big ones so far.

TenaciousC,

Well, I disagree with you about Iraq. Of course, I don't think we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. However, one of the primary reasons middle eastern terrorist attack the United States is because we meddle in their affairs. By continuing to do so, we create more people that want to be terrorists. By pulling out, we give the Iraqis less reason to hate us. Also, the government in Iraq seems to be relying on the US for too much. At some point, we have to say "Look guys, you're on your own". I personally think that time was a long time ago. Continuing to stay there only wastes more lives, not to mention money.

I believe Obama has proposed a cap and trade system for carbon emissions, not taxation. If you have a cite otherwise though, I'll accept that. I don't believe that companies are actually putting more than a token effort into cleaner technologies. Just today Shell announced they were pulling out of alternative fuels. They make too much off of oil to want to switch things up. I also have a feeling that they wouldn't work towards greener technology if there wasn't regulation forcing them to. Cap and trade/taxation on pollution gives a company economic incentive to produce green technology; they don't really have much incentive to do that now.

Personally, I have to disagree with the continuation of the Bush tax cuts that McCain supports. Trickle-down economics doesn't work; if you want to improve the economy you have to build the base, not make the rich richer. I like how Obama is proposing to lower taxes on those making less than $100k/year, while restoring the less burdensome taxes on those making more than $1million/year.

i see what you trying to say with the carbon emissions. but i still disagree with Iraq. we weren't meddling in any middle eastern affairs during 9/11. the reason were still there is to restore order, they are in the middle of a civil war. plus Iraqis don't hate us. its the terrorist groups in Iraq that hate us. we can't just leave them there. the country is still in ruins they need to rebuild. pulling out and leaving them on their own is a great way to wreak the oil industry. do you know how much oil is in iraq? think of what that would do to global economics for oil... it would destroy our economy as well, gas would go up to 5-6$!! i think we should go with what senator Huckabee said: we need to pull out sooner or later but we need the neighboring countries to be ready to care for them. we can't just drop everything and leave.

Actually, we've been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for decades; 9/11 was just one of many incidents between the US and the Middle East. It's not the first attack; the Iran-Contra scandal in the late 70s was caused when we tried to overthrow the democratically elected leaders of Iran and the people of Iran had a Revolution.

Then there was the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in the late 80s. The US Marines. In Beirut, Lebanon. Sounds like we were meddling there too.

The 80s also saw the sales of military hardware to both Iraq and Iran to try and prolong the Iran-Iraq war. This is were the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein come from. We also supplied Osama bin Laden (!) with military hardware to fight the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan in the 80s. Of course, that was because we would rather the Afghanis and the Soviets spent their time killing each other off.

Then there was this thing called the Gulf War.

The US military maintained bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, and continued doing reconnaissance flights over Iraq for the entire decade of the 90s, including sorties that destroyed Iraqi buildings.

Clinton also launched cruise missile strikes on the Sudan and Afghanistan in his second term. I'll allow that Sudan isn't quite the middle east, but it has a large Arab population.

And then there's the US support of Israel. Israel kills far more Palestinians each year than the other way around. Israel has fought wars of conquest against all of their neighbors. The Arab population really really doesn't like Israel for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, and they don't take kindly to the US supporting their enemies.

As for Civil Wars, I seem to recall that us Americans had one of those without foreign involvement, and while it wasn't pretty, we turned out OK. I think if we had depended on other nations for military support we would not be the superpower we are today. The Iraqis need to learn to stand by themselves, and our presence is not helping them do that.

Speaking of oil... Oil production in Iraq was great before the invasion. Prices sharply increased after the invasion. Even now Halliburton is negotiating for exclusive right to Iraqi oil, which is not going to be good for either country.

Gas prices don't bother me so much, and I drive a pickup truck 26 miles to work each way. I remember going to England in 2001, where gas was 2.50. 2.50 pounds, when the exchange rate was about 1.5 dollars to the pound. Per liter. England seems to be doing better with the economy these days than we are, so maybe gas prices aren't as big a deal as people say they are. I remember people saying "I'm going to stop driving when gas hits $2 a gallon!". Well, it's $4 a gallon, and you're still driving that SUV 100 yards to the store instead of walking.

BTW, Huckabee was a governor (of Arkansas) not a senator.

I'm not so sure the surrounding countries have an obligation to take care of Iraq; Iraq sure didn't feel that way in the 80s and 90s.

Just to interject on the gas prices here: I've always regarded the gas prices as less of an "economic indicator" and more of a "whining point": people are collectively going to whine about it but will subtlely change their behavior to preserve their wallet, which is the way it should be...even if it's still outrageous in a mathematical sense.

The candidates all need to have just a huge deathmatch to be president. The whole gladiator thing. Nicknames: hillary kil-a-ton, the makaniack, Bear obama.

Definetly McCain because Hilary and Obama's plans for the nation scare me to no end... So I take the one who won't destroy us all!

@Leon592: Considering that McCain has turned into Dubya II over the last year, and the country has been going down the toilet with Bush in charge, I'd say you've got it backwards there.

Mmm, Id love to see some of Hilary and Obama's plans that will destroy us all, please. I think most of their ideas are wonderful and would really turn America around, especially our international persona. I'm hoping for Obama...

I hate politics..it just pollutes the world...we should all just have on dictator..heheh,jk.