So far, as to this day, who would you guys think would be the best president for the republicans and the best one for the democrats.


Here at the University of Texas at Austin, it seems as though we've got our eyes on focused these two presidents: Barak Obama for the democrats and Ron Paul for the republicans.
As for the Democrats, I believe Obama to be my best one. Number one reason is because he is a minority; as a minory he will be a great role model for many Americans, particularly the African Americans. But also, I much prefer him over Clinton. Today on CNN I was watching only a few minutes of some Democratic debate thing where all the nominees from the democratic party were on stage having a debate hosted by Wolf something (the newsreporter from CNN). It just happened that when I tuned in, they were talking about Clinton's policies about medicaid or something and Clinton would go on rambling about how her plan would be the greatest. Then Obama and John Edwards came in and criticized some of her points, saying that she wasn't very direct and that her plan did not cover everyone. Again I only watched a few minutes of this but it seemed as though she was having a tough time backing her stances up. She seems to lose her cool really easily; having a president that loses his or her cool easily is definately not gonna help America, especially when we have to consider the situation we are in, like with Iraq and stuff.

Unfortunately I do not know much about the republicans. Hold on, correction. I know nothing about the republicans so I believe I cannot say anything about them yet.

Utter bullshit, I will consider neither gender nor color in my decision, and you are foolish to do so.Can't disagree there. There ARE more than 2 Democrat candidates you know, what do you think about Kuscinich and Gravel? They are essentually the Ron Pauls of their party right now. That said, I will not vote for any Democrat, nor any Republican, they are hypocrites and/or brainwashed.

Mirrors anyone?


I'm probibly going to vote for Ron Paul, cause I've heard good things about him.

I would vote for him if he wasn't so socially conservative.

I do not know much about kuscinich or gravel yet, I plan on paying more attention to their policies now. It's just that there's been so much hype and talk about Obama and Clinton that right now if it ultimately came down to these two, then it's gonna be Obama.

Meh I'm not American so I don't care who it is (unless its george bush who screwed us too) but on the news I like that Obama guy. Not because he is coloured but the way he expresses himself.

Let me correct myself; it's not because Obama is black that I like him, as in my reason isn't "Oh, black is such a cool color! Therefore obama should win." It's because he can be a great role model to many americans (the color aspect happens to be an indirect influence to why I think he would be a great role model). Policies are very important, but one also has to be a good representative of the American people. On the otherhand, George W. Bush is a terrible role model. Yes we all know his policies are bad as well, but George W. Bush does a bad job in being a role model to the American people. Particularly, a role model of the Conservative Christian Faith. It's because of him that so many people hate (conservative) christianity. He tainted the image of conservative christianity. Not to say that he's a bad christian or anything; just that he wasn't careful in maintaining a good image of christianity.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 19 2007, 8:45 pm by MillenniumArmy.

Ron Paul seems to be the best choice, he has libertarian beliefs but is running as a republican so he can actually have a shot at winning. I really don't care who wins as long as it's not Hilary, not because I am sexist but she is a spiteful person who has done some shady things in her past, plus if she wins it will give women the ability to be complete assholes and they will end every argument with "oh yeah well a woman runs the country!" and I am not willing to put up with that

LOL TEH BLAK DOOD

Good point.

It really doesn't matter, if he were president he would return power to the states to determine policies on moral issues. He is a great option, he only runs as a republican because the two party system in the U.S. got our politics in a rut. Think of him as a libertarian.

Obama isn't very great. I'm not voting for him, but I will either be voting against Hillary in the primaries, voting for Ron Paul for republican primary, or voting for an independent or green party candidate. I have to look up more about the independents this time around. Too bad Nader isn't doing it, if the American public weren't so mislead, they would understand what kind of man he is, though he is a little pompous.

At the moment, Ron Paul looks like a great candidate. He is a real republican, believing that power should return to states. He wants out of war. And is all about small business.

Heres a good explanation on wikipedia, "Philosophically, Paul has been called conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian.[2] He advocates non-interventionist foreign policy, having voted against the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He favors withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations (UN); supports free trade, rejecting NAFTA as "managed trade"; and opposes amnesty and birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control. Paul is strongly pro-life, advocates overturning Roe v. Wade, and affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion.[3]"
I highlighted what I thought could be very important ideas he supports to better America's future.

The republican party has preached morals too long. They've made the federal power nearly absolute and turned taxes into something big businesses enjoy. Ron Paul is a great man to fight the arrogant and narrow minded views of this current republican party.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he is far to socially conservative to fit that profile(regardless of his past affiliation). His positions on immigration, abortion(stem cell research), and the separation of church and state, are all authoritarian. You do not seem familiar with what the roe vs wade decision entailed, a woman was prosecuted in her home state for having an abortion performed out of state. That is not to mention his comments on economic policy are full of problems. Right now we need to balance the budget, and start paying down the national debt, cutting spending is not enough, we have to raise taxes to accomplish it. He may talk like a libertarian on economic issues, but he does not recognize the fact that a regulation free economy will never work, as long as corporations participate in it. Capitalism only works when competition is maximized. When you have a huge bank of capital(owned by an entity that never dies), you can simply buy your markets(run a region at a loss, long enough to run the small players out of business).

Another problem is that the position of the president of the united states, does not have the power to write laws, and the only reason people are voting for him, is because of his positions on issues that fundamentally disagree with the standard positions of both the Democrats and Republicans. I will vote for him in the primary, but It is going to take a lot of convincing to get me to vote for ANYONE in the general election(though I do hope the houses of congress are split, or are opposite party of the president).

Abortion is a touchy subject, yes abortions are ugly, but outlawing them does not significantly reduce the number of abortions. It does however make the procedure far more dangerous. The best way to stop abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, most effectively via education about contraceptives.

Again, he wishes to return power to the states for them to decide upon those policies.
I never said he was a libertarian. He will not make any law against or for abortion. And yes, I know Roe v. Wade, I also know that he wishes to overturn it in order to bring the decision to states.

The main reason I like Ron Paul is because of this power return to the states. It is now overdue since Bush.. Plus we get better chances at passing things like renovated drug legislation, same-sex marriages, abortions, etc.
I hate the situation I am in for this election. I can't find anyone good to vote for.

I do not like his economic policy either.

State power sounds good, but ultimately it is just a talking point. Even if he gets elected president, he will only have enough power to act as a check against the interests of congress; I seriously doubt he can sway congress the way the bush administration has, even if he could, the platform he is running on would kill the vast majority of his power.

In the context you were speaking, close enough.

I agree with you.

I don't
Even when considering it is beneficial? Are you only not considering because of principal?

What matters are perspectives on policy, skin color has absolutely nothing to do with making good decisions.

Well most people like to point out that the president doesn't have too much law-making power, and is really just the person we look up to. The point of making that man a respectable black person is that the potential delinquants will have a positive role-model.