If Election Day 2008 was today who would get your vote?
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
Who would you vote for?
There is no way in hell Kucinich will get the Dem nomination. Hilary has that locked up. Everyone loves a Clinton!
I would vote for Nader, or possibly even a socialist candidate. Leonard Peltier may be running again.
For me, it all boils down to the war. If you are for bringing all the troops home immediately, you get my vote. If not, I am not voting for you. No candidate on either side, no way in hell the antiwar republican chuck hagel will be the republican nominee. And no way the dems will ever nominate anyone with a prinicpled stand against the war. All this despite the overwhelming evidence that whoever wins in 2008 MUST gain the antiwar vote. THEY MUST.
Heres to hoping a vote for a third party is unnecessary. But as long as the dems continue, to believe, not that this war is unwinnable, or that this war cant be won and we must pull out, but as long as they lie to themselves and us, that this war is winnable, and if only we elect a dem who will win it for us, its all silly. Its not a idealogical difference between the dems and the republicans over iraq. Its a tactical one. The Dems still think we can win it, win the war.
There is no way in hell Kucinich will get the Dem nomination. Hilary has that locked up. Everyone loves a Clinton!
I would vote for Nader, or possibly even a socialist candidate. Leonard Peltier may be running again.
For me, it all boils down to the war. If you are for bringing all the troops home immediately, you get my vote. If not, I am not voting for you. No candidate on either side, no way in hell the antiwar republican chuck hagel will be the republican nominee. And no way the dems will ever nominate anyone with a prinicpled stand against the war. All this despite the overwhelming evidence that whoever wins in 2008 MUST gain the antiwar vote. THEY MUST.
Heres to hoping a vote for a third party is unnecessary. But as long as the dems continue, to believe, not that this war is unwinnable, or that this war cant be won and we must pull out, but as long as they lie to themselves and us, that this war is winnable, and if only we elect a dem who will win it for us, its all silly. Its not a idealogical difference between the dems and the republicans over iraq. Its a tactical one. The Dems still think we can win it, win the war.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-Bill Hicks
I'm leaning toward Kucinich (thanks abook, for the links....).
No prob, Commy
Kucinich, an actual anti war candidate
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.gravel2008.us
I agree.
Lollapalooza. 8.5.07 West Palm Beach. 6.11.08 Bonnaroo. 6.14.08
Hartford. Mansfield.
www.myspace.com/lkatmeimsandrab
I'll second that.
You're very wrong about Hillary having it locked up, far from it. She's the front runner AT THIS POINT but, that could easily change.
If I had to cast my vote right now it would be Barack Obama.
My preference would be Al Gore. He's a great humanitarian, overall a great human being and deserves the white house.
To all you people who are going to vote for a 3rd party on November 8th, think hard about what you're doing. At a time like we're in, it's more important to cast a vote based on WHAT IS BEST for the country rather than making a political statement. Vote for someone who can win, sacrifice a few personal beliefs for the country.
If none of the Dems are calling for complete withdrawal from Iraq and an end to the war, why should I vote for them in the name of whats best for the country? Whats best for the country is a Nader or a Kucinich, someome who will radically change society. Is Al Gore any different than Bush. Remember Clear Channel, that was Bush. But remember, that Parents counsil on music. Al Gore and his wife believe that marilyn manson, and Rap and other types of music are damaging to youth and need to be censored. he is also pro Nafta and Wto. I know i am not the only person who feels much more in line and much more inspired by those WTO seattle anti-wto riots, than I do about Gores pro-wto stanco.
If Gore is proIraq war and if most of the other dems in 2008 are pro continuing this war, why should they get my vote?
Dems acted like in 2000 that Nader shouldnt run, but that he could run in the future, yet they say that every year.
Its simple:
You are antiwar, and will pull troops out and end the war. I am voting for you. If not kiss that vote goodbye.
And right now, there is a plethera of prowar candidates and very few antiwar cats
I doubt he will get the Democratic nomination, but I really like Mike Gravel. If we end up with Clinton or Obama, then I might feel its best to vote for one of them. I will only feel like voting for a third party or independent candidate if I feel like that person represents a growing movement. That's how I felt about Nader in 2000. But the Green Party movement fell apart. Personally, I feel there should be a more populist approach to reforming government. Political puritanism is dead in the water. There are things that are way more important than gay marriage, for example. Compromise is what's needed to take care of the biggest problems that I think the vast majority of people agree with, like tackling government corruption.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Other than that, Bill Richardson or Barak Obama at this point..
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
And Hillary doesn't have a strong lead anymore, at least that's what I've heard recently on the news. Obama is gaining quite a bit on her, and she's not the clear front-runner anymore.
I like Kucinich too, (I liked him last time he ran), but he can't win unfortunately.
The thought of Clinton winning and having either 24-28 years in a row with either a Clinton or Bush as President doesn't speak well for either party or for our country at all.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I would take that bet, and throw in another $10 if you spell his name right.
Rudy has way too many skeletons in his closet that will come to light during the primary season
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I understand what you're saying, I detest the war as much as the next guy. The facts are both Edwards and Obama have plans for a phased withdrawal. That kind of thing takes time, not even Kucinich could withdraw the troops NOW. It doesn't work that way. Barack Obama was against the war when the original vote was cast (documentation proves it). Al Gore opposed the war from the beginning as well. If you're looking for immediate withdrawal, i'm afraid you're going to be really disappointed. My original point is, the country is so divided, I mean really, what's the point of voting for a candidate that will total 2 or 3%? You call that a movement? These days 2 or 3 points can cost an election, I wish there were more than two parties to realistically choose from but, a 3rd party is light years away from meaning anything. In 2000, Ralph Nadar had some momentum but, it ulimately flopped and now there is NO 3rd party candidate that could even dream of getting the support he Nadar got in 2000. I just believe the country is more important than a political statement at this point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
It's a shame that his campaign is doomed.
He seems to be doing a good job of reminding everyone that he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning...and as right as he is about going back to the gold standard, I think he should stick to talking about issues more people are interested in.
-Bill Hicks