How Do You Decide Which Candidate...

[Duke]

Originally Posted by NoTargeT

I'd go crazy there probably

...at least you'd finally have something concrete to point to

[Vautrin]

Originally Posted by Meanon

I always vote - for the party that most closely matches my political views and has a chance of winning.

Depending on the constituency you live in, that may simply mean you don't have a choice (traditional Labour or Tory constituency). Or have 2 alternatives at best.

[CCC]

Originally Posted by Luba

you will vote for? Do you listen to the Debates? Do you research online? Do you put a lot of effort in finding out what the Candidate is about?

Since the media, print or television, does a rather poor job of showcasing candidates, especially candidates they deem lower-tiered or third party candidates, I find the internet to be quite a valuable source.

The debates are a way to see the candidates under fire. When I saw my first primary debate, that confirmed for me the candidate I was leaning towards. It's good to see if a candidate's platform can be articulated and in a convincing matter.

That's not to say debates are perfect. Often they can be superficial, repetitive, and reliant on short, undetailed answers. The talking heads look for the "soundbites" where I'd prefer the "meat and potatoes." The debates also, sadly, cater to the two-party mentality, short-changing the electorate of all the available choices.

[John]

I generally vote for the person who most closely represents my values and beliefs. I do not expect any one candidate to meet all of my expectations exactly.

I do not discuss how I come to that conclusion and I do not like to discuss my countries politics with those from out side the country. This is because the various media sources around the world color the political news, and all news really, to present the picture they want people to subscribe to.

This position of mine I'm sure will come as a surprise to some of you members who know me from other boards. However, I think this is the best policy for me to adopt on this particular board.

Thank you and good day.

[Fayebelle]

So instead of taking an opportunity to educate other cultures as to how you view your country- you are going to leave them to the hands of the biased media?


BOO John!!!




I agree with the Triple C on this one. I do not think I "throw away" my vote by choosing a candidate outside of my party or from a party that is not favored to win. I think I throw away my vote if I support a Candidate that does not support my beliefs.

[CCC]

Originally Posted by Fayebelle

I agree with the Triple C on this one.

Yay me.

I do not think I "throw away" my vote by choosing a candidate outside of my party or from a party that is not favored to win. I think I throw away my vote if I support a Candidate that does not support my beliefs.

Exactly.

I'm going to post here what I posted on another forum recently...

• Political outcomes are then determined by manipulation rather than deliberation. People don't make choices. They are herded toward predetermined results. Obviously in this situation, they no longer govern themselves. They are governed by whomever engineers this manipulation. (excerpt from 2-party system: No choice but evil, by Alan Keyes)

Bottom-line, this is what is happening to the electorate today and has been happening for some time now (maybe from the beginning). Election after election, the problem is only getting worse. We are so manipulated by polling and talking head pundits that we are manipulated away from our first choices and into the choices the manipulators desire. That's how we ended up with a McCain (not to mention how ridiculous the primary process is that allows outside influences via "open primaries"), and how we're now supposed to believe we have no choice but to choose between two unacceptable candidates.

It's no wonder government is so corrupted now. Voting for the lowest-common denominator does nothing to correct flaws of self-government; it only perpetuates its corruption, and thus, our civil rights and liberties, not only to us, but to our posterity.

[John]

Originally Posted by Fayebelle

So instead of taking an opportunity to educate other cultures as to how you view your country- you are going to leave them to the hands of the biased media?


BOO John!!!

Thank you for your support and understanding.

[Fayebelle]

You should be a politician with an attitude like that

[boedicca]

Originally Posted by Luba

you will vote for?

McCain

Do you listen to the Debates? Do you research online? Do you put a lot of effort in finding out what the Candidate is about?

Yes, yes, and yes.

This election comes down to national security and economic health for my decision making process - and McCain is better suited on both fronts.

At bottom, Obama had 143 days of Federal experience prior to declaring his candidacy. IOW, he is sorely inexperienced. I don't trust him to wield executive power. The sum of his economic and tax proposals will tank the economy; the average tax burden will increase by 30%, with many at 60%. He's an economic illiterate if he thinks his platform will create jobs - and a tyrant if he knows the cost to the economy and is willing to have the rest of us pay it to support his political ambition.

Regarding national security, we only need to compare the reactionf of McCain and Obama to Russia's invasion of Georgia to see who is better suited. McCain forcefully spoke out against the invasion; Obama waffled and tried to make them both at fault.

The world will be better off if we just leave Obama alone to eat his waffles and arugula.

[Vautrin]

Well, there is this small issue of the US budget deficit. If it increases even more with another set of tax cuts, the US dollar becomes increasingly worthless. If you thought gas prices were bad now, just wait until the dollar collapses...

Regarding national security, we only need to compare the reactionf of McCain and Obama to Russia's invasion of Georgia to see who is better suited. McCain forcefully spoke out against the invasion; Obama waffled and tried to make them both at fault.

Russian invasion?? After Georgia invaded South Ossetia and killed about 1500 civilians?? Of course, that is the decent thing to do.
Me thinks it is just as bad as the Kosovo war.

The US and EU said: if a minority wants independence in the area where they form the majority that is fine. Russia objected. Now in Georgia, another minority wants independence. And now the US is objecting, but they have set the precedent. Can't have your cake and eat it too, McCain.

[Mondo]

Originally Posted by boedicca

Regarding national security, we only need to compare the reactionf of McCain and Obama to Russia's invasion of Georgia to see who is better suited. McCain forcefully spoke out against the invasion; Obama waffled and tried to make them both at fault.

They are both at fault which makes me prefer Obama, it shows he does know his history whereas McCain clearly doesn't know anything about that region of the world. McCain went for the safety approach and said the same as the current administration but I've not seen him say anything about his understanding of that delicate region.

McCain has some positive sides too him, its not all bad and I think he'll have a more secular approach to politics than Bush (which is good...Bush's funding of religious bodies is completely against your secular constituion) but on an international level the USA needs Obama.

[F&L]

We aren't voting for president of the world, so the international level doesn't apply. McCain has spent more time in Georgia than Obama ever will. Obama is non committal on too many issues. I won't vote for either of them, but McCain has significantly more experience than Obama.