It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My Choice for President in 2008

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
As with everybody here, I really wanted to choose a candidate who was both willing and able to do the job. Sure, a lot of candidates have the name recognition or experience in the Senate but only certain candidates have a view from the outside.

I have always thought (haven't been thinking very long now, 16 years this year) that a person from the outside is always better than somebody that has been saturated in that certain position. I have seen it work, both personally and in corporations.

That is exactly what Washington needs. They don't need somebody who has talked the talked but hasn't walked the walk. They need somebody who actually affirms their position in Washington and actually induces their power for the good, rather than the bad.

Mitt Romney is the one to bring that change. I know some have a strong opposition to Romney because of his Mormon faith (although I know the intelligent guys and gals don't let personal attributes alter their vote).

The Constitution (of which I hold dear, as does every other American) states that no person shall be held to his or her religion in any election. Unfortunately, some ignorant people do and it affects many things. And, some may say, we might never elect a woman or an African American, yet this 2008 election is amazing!

We have a really good chance of electing an African American or a Woman to office! That is amazing, but don't though. They are Democrats
No, I joke, go ahead and do. If, you want higher taxes.

Well, after that little sidetrack I want to say Romney has proven himself to be a leader and innovator. He started by being a Corporate head of the largest advertising firm in the nation (Bain), After some time there, Romney then slid into the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah. After saving it from a deficit and creating a surplus he then followed to be Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts serving 4 years until deciding amongst his family to run as a candidate in the 08' election for the next President of the United States of America.

Now, some people say, great! Let me vote for him. Unfortunately some people get turned off by his recent switching of issues that would favor him favorable for the read die hard Reagen conservatives.

As Romney has said. Do you want a president who stays hard headed about an issue to caress his ego ? Romney didn't say that, I'm putting it into my own words. Or do you want a president who sees both sides of an argument and accepts his faults and moves forward knowing he was wrong but changed it not for the sake of changing it, but changed it for the sake of being right.

Now, these are some official endorsements (many of them corporate ones because of Romney's skill in looking at a issue/problem and tackling it head on, making companies very happy in the end and is similar to what could happen if Romney is elected president)

Meg Whitman, president and CEO of eBay Finance co-chair of exploratory committee

Dennis Hastert, former House speaker Member of Romney's exploratory committee

David Neeleman, CEO and chair of Jet Blue Airways

Paul Otellini, CEO and president of Intel

Johnny Miller, golf analyst for NBC Sports

Now, watching the news I've picked up on some closeted Romney supporters. Now, these are unofficial and are just my opinion: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity (from Hannity and Colmes) and Joe Scarborough.

Next post to include issues and videos




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
On the Issues (taken directly from CNN.com/politics

Abortion: Opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. Supported abortion rights as a 1994 Senate candidate

Gun Control: As governor, signed into law a permanent ban on assault weapons. Supported the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. Supported the Brady Bill requiring waiting periods for handgun purchases, but says it is no longer needed due to instantaneous background checks. Joined the NRA as a lifetime member in 2006.

Health Care: Supports covering the uninsured without raising taxes or creating a government-controlled system. Encourages states to develop their own plans to cover the uninsured using market-based approaches. Supports providing greater financial assistance to help uninsured Americans buy private insurance. As governor, signed into law a universal health care plan that requires all residents to have health insurance, with premiums tied to income and subsidies for the poor.

Immigration: Opposes Bush-backed guest worker plan, saying it goes too far in expanding future immigration levels. Calls for a better system for employers to verify legal status of workers. Opposes allowing illegal immigrants to gain legal status apart from existing procedures available to all non-citizens. Opposes in-state tuition breaks for illegal immigrants. As governor, authorized use of state police for immigration enforcement.

Stem Cell: Opposes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. supports a method called "altered nuclear transfer" which does not destroy embryos. Opposes creating new embryos for research purposes. Would allow research on embryos from fertility clinics, but opposes federal funding of such research.

Iraq: Supported Bush veto of Iraq war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008 at the latest. Opposes troop withdrawal. Supported the President's plan for additional troops in Iraq.

Same Sex Marriage: Opposes same-sex marriage. Opposes civil unions, though had supported a Vermont-style civil unions law for Massachusetts.

Social Security: Supports private retirement accounts. Says indexing benefits to prices rather than wages is worth considering for higher income Americans, but that it is "the wrong way to go" for most workers. Will not cut benefits for current seniors. Opposes raising payroll taxes. Has suggested creating an independent panel to formulate a plan to reform Social Security.

Taxes: Supports making Bush tax cuts permanent. Did not support or oppose the Bush tax cuts as governor. Has not endorsed the proposal supporters call the "Fair Tax," which would repeal income taxes and other taxes and abolish the Internal Revenue Service and replace them with a national retail sales tax. Says the economic impact would have to be studied before instituting such a major change to the tax system. Would eliminate estate taxes and taxes on interest dividends and capital gains. Signed a pledge not to raise taxes.

For a further look into Romney's view on the issues visit Romney's website at: www.mittromney.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I support Ron Paul, defender of the constitution.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Very well BN. I value you your opinion, but strongly advise against Ron. Study your candidate! Have a good one



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveAndrew
 


Why would you advise against Ron Paul?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Well, his stance on the issues doesn't appeal to me. But it's good to have variety this go around. Instead of knowing the winner the first 2 or 3 states.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveAndrew
Well, his stance on the issues doesn't appeal to me. But it's good to have variety this go around. Instead of knowing the winner the first 2 or 3 states.


You said you "strongly advise" against Ron Paul but have no reasons to back it up? I am curious why you would not support him. You seem to be a pretty staunch republican which is cool, I use to be as well until I realized that most of the people claiming to be republicans are not. I started opening my eyes to more ideas and realized that Mr. Bush is destroying this country along with most of the republican elected officials who back his every move. Ron Paul is the real republican in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Oh no doubt Bush has done a very very poor job. Look, Ron Paul would be my second choice because all the other guys are really just Dem's or Indep. These are some things I disagree with:

The Iraq War - I disagree with Paul. We should stay in Iraq and finish the job. It wasn't bad enough we went the 1st time and left. We are getting the job done, little by little but we are doing it.

Like Romney says, in school the skinny little guy gets in fights all the time. But, that big bodybuilder never gets in fights. Romney wants the United States to be that big guy.

Ron is (in my opinion) too much of a Federalist. You know it's great to have a Federalist (in some respects Romney is also, such as abortion) but Paul has to have some authority and say what is what. Like same sex, Paul doesn't want to define it but I believe that should be a federal thing.

And last thing, Paul supports the Fair Tax. Which Huckabee does also and I just find it both of these men think they can remove the I.R.S. The I.R.S doesn't need a complete re haul, but some minor tweaks here and there.

Also, Romney should release his plan to fix the economy today or tomorrow.

Edit:

Romney will release it tomorrow.

All in all Romney and Paul agree on a majority of the issues. But, it's these 2 or 3 that keep me from supporting Ron Paul for President. Maybe a Romney/Paul ticket? Probably not, nice to dream though.









[edit on 18-1-2008 by SteveAndrew]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveAndrew


The Iraq War - I disagree with Paul. We should stay in Iraq and finish the job. It wasn't bad enough we went the 1st time and left. We are getting the job done, little by little but we are doing it.

Like same sex, Paul doesn't want to define it but I believe that should be a federal thing.

The I.R.S doesn't need a complete re haul, but some minor tweaks here and there.




You say we should stay in Iraq and finish the job. Im curious as to what job are finishing because I cannot think of anything worth staying there for.

Same sex marriage should not be left up to the Feds. Each individual state should be able to determine what is best for it residents and not be told what to do by people who dont even live in your state.

The IRS does need to be eliminated. A lot of people even say the federal income tax is illegal. The tax system is very complicated and messy and now they run around with guns threatening to lock people up if they dont pay. We need to cut back spending in the US and a good way to start doing this is by eliminating the IRS, federal income tax only accounts for like a third of all federal revenue so it would not be so hard to cut back to the spending. We also need to get out of Iraq where we can save billions if not trillions of dollars and many more programs. It is just very frustrating watching the US piss trillions of dollars away every year to foreign countries when we are in debt that will never get payed off and there are real problems here in America that need fixing.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I wholeheartedly believe we should stay there and finish the job of putting Iraq back on track and putting it in a top notch free nation.

I disagree with you on the abortion part. I think it is too important and should be left to the Federal Government.

I think you mean they should eliminate the I.R.S. I disagree with that. And on the Iraq spending, Romney will do the best job to finance the war correctly. Not just doing a half arse job like Bush.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveAndrew
I wholeheartedly believe we should stay there and finish the job of putting Iraq back on track and putting it in a top notch free nation.

I disagree with you on the abortion part. I think it is too important and should be left to the Federal Government.

I think you mean they should eliminate the I.R.S. I disagree with that. And on the Iraq spending, Romney will do the best job to finance the war correctly. Not just doing a half arse job like Bush.


You did not tell me what we are doing in Iraq though? Why are we there? Bush does not have the authority to authorize war only congress does and it was never authorized.

I never said anything about abortion. But the federal government does not know what is best for the states. The states know what is best for themselves and should be able to make those decisions without the influence of the feds.
Why do you think abortion or same sex marriage is too big of an issue to be left up to the states?? You talk like the Feds are smarter, know more about the issue, and are going to always make the correct decision. The federal government should not be running the show. It should be the individual state.

And I dont think I mean they should eliminate the IRS I know they should. Why not? And how do you propose Romney is going to finance the war? Is he going to fund it himself? Because there is no extra money laying around to be had. The only way would be to raise taxes(but you said he was a true republican so that should not happen) or end the war as Ron Paul would do.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by bakednutz]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I told you BN, we are progressing the country to make it a free and independent nation. There are so many people over there (terrorists and the sort) who will do anything and everything to stop that. We are kind of like the muscle - to move Iraq into a stable nation.

I disagree BN. But, thats not to say the states shouldn't decide some things. Which is what Romney agrees with. But, some issues are too delicate for the states and must be taken up and decided by the Feds.

Believe me, Romney would manipulate the funding so the taxes would not be raised and we would be the leading country in the world. Romney doesn't plan being there 100 years as Paul says. Maybe another 2 or 3 years and Iraq will be on track. Once it is, we will leave. Knowing full well we moved that country from a dictatorship to a democracy.

I have no idea how Romney will accurately fund the war, but, rest assured, he will and it won't launch us into this conundrum. Romney also believes in independence from China, but that's a whole different thread.



[edit on 18-1-2008 by SteveAndrew]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveAndrew
I told you BN, we are progressing the country to make it a free and independent nation. There are so many people over there (terrorists and the sort) who will do anything and everything to stop that. We are kind of like the muscle - to move Iraq into a stable nation.

I disagree BN. But, thats not to say the states shouldn't decide some things. Which is what Romney agrees with. But, some issues are too delicate for the states and must be taken up and decided by the Feds.

Believe me, Romney would manipulate the funding so the taxes would not be raised and we would be the leading country in the world. Romney doesn't plan being there 100 years as Paul says. Maybe another 2 or 3 years and Iraq will be on track. Once it is, we will leave. Knowing full well we moved that country from a dictatorship to a democracy.

I have no idea how Romney will accurately fund the war, but, rest assured, he will and it won't launch us into this conundrum. Romney also believes in independence from China, but that's a whole different thread.



[edit on 18-1-2008 by SteveAndrew]


Im sorry about the first question on why we are in Iraq. What I meant was why are we still there after we found out that the whole reason we went there was a lie? And the war is illegal in the first place.

I would love a full explanation as to why some things are to delicate for the states to decide. That is a load of crap. Like I said the states know what is best for its residents, right? So why should the feds tell them what to do? I am totally confused as to how you can just come to the conclusion that the feds know whats best for the states? Delicate or not the state government is not stupid.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Yes, we went there based on lie. That is a shame, but no reason to fix it. What I'm trying to say is this. We went there on a fake hunch, but there was an underlying reason to stay. To dethrone Saddam and end the terrorist infested country. We did and are slowly progressing towards a democracy. As for the illegal, once we're there, it doesn't make much sense to stop and wait for an ok from Congress. You gotta remember, the U.S was on high alert, and it was a situation (we believed at the time) that it was a shoot first, ask questions later. We thought the worst, nuclear fighting. We weren't about to be owned by Iraq, or any country for that matter.

There is a small distortion BN. I said 'some' issues are too delicate for states. I'm a strong believer in states rights, but on some issues, the states have to be stripped of their decision and must be provided with the 'right' decision. I am pro life, and some states might choose to become pro choice. A choice I and my candidate feel is wrong.


Now, on health care. Romney feels the states should decide upon the plan that is best. Because, one states plan might not fit another's.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveAndrew


There is a small distortion BN. I said 'some' issues are too delicate for states. I'm a strong believer in states rights, but on some issues, the states have to be stripped of their decision and must be provided with the 'right' decision. I am pro life, and some states might choose to become pro choice. A choice I and my candidate feel is wrong.



There is your whole problem, you just stated it. YOU are pro life and YOUR candidate is as well. What about everybody else's opinion on the matter? You and Your candidate do not speak for all 300 million americans on this issue and this is why it should not be left to the federal government, because the state will not get a say in it. What if the majority of a state wants to be pro choice? I dont believe ones beliefs should be forced on people who do not believe in it.

So if someone like yourself is pro life then they will not have an abortion but if they are pro choice, they just might.
I am also pro life but ultimately it is not mine,yours, or your candidates choice if a women wants to have an abortion.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I base my choice of abortion on the Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That part of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life. That is what the Constitution says, and we should follow it.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveAndrew
I base my choice of abortion on the Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That part of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life. That is what the Constitution says, and we should follow it.



Well if that is the case then you are a hypocrite. You said that because the war was a lie and the fact that congress did not authorize it, which makes it illegal, we should not change it? Like I said I am pro life, but there is great debate as to weather or not a fetus is a person.


Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, read it. It states that congress has the power to declare war. Do you still want to follow the constitution?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Should not change what? I'm all for the Congress authorizing wars, but this was extenuating circumstances. It's like when Jefferson bought land off of Napoleon. He did it behind Congress' back, but it worked. And I'm certain we will lead Iraq to a better future. Besides, everybody thought Iraq played a part in 9-11, and that the U.S was in major trouble. The United States had to act fast, for we all thought danger was looming for us. Though we now Iraq had no involvement besides Bush's' unquenchable thirst to invade Iraq for its supposed W.M.D.

On abortion, what else do you call a person? At any given time, a fetus (if that's what people want to call it) is a person. Once the woman knows she is pregnant, she shouldn't murder her child. She should either put it up for adoption or keep it. Simple, every single life is precious. You don't slay something that came because of your idiocy.

Although there are extenuating circumstances such as those outlined by Romney:

Opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by SteveAndrew]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveAndrew
Should not change what? I'm all for the Congress authorizing wars, but this was extenuating circumstances. It's like when Jefferson bought land off of Napoleon. He did it behind Congress' back, but it worked. And I'm certain we will lead Iraq to a better future. Besides, everybody thought that Iraq and its counterparts were behind it, and that the U.S was in major trouble. The United States had to act fast, for we all thought danger was looming for us.

On abortion, what else do you call a person? At any given time, a fetus (if that's what people want to call it) is a person. Once the woman knows she is pregnant, she shouldn't murder her child. She should either put it up for adoption or keep it. Simple, every single life is precious. You don't slay something that came because of your idiocy.

Although there are extenuating circumstances such as those outlined by Romney:

Opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother.


About the change part, you said we should not pull out of Iraq even though it is illegal, based on a lie, and was not authorized by congress as described in the Constitution. You can not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you are and are not going to follow. So you either stick to it, or you dont. Which is it? Iraq was no threat.


You dont have to argue the point of abortion to me, I am pro-life.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I am not picking and choosing what I want to follow. You are not understanding me. Look, let me put it to you this way:

What disturbs? That we are in Iraq? Or that we went to Iraq illegally?

If it disturbs you that we are in Iraq, don't be. We are fighting against the radical jihadists to further democracy not only in Iraq, but in the entire middle east.

Does it disturb you that we are spending billions (trillions?) of dollars of borrowed money to fund it? Don't worry, Romney will help our economy and make our economy and our dollar where it should be; in 1st place.

Romney will do away with China's ownership in the U.S and revitalize the nation.

Now, about going to Iraq illegally. Yes, I will admit. Bush broke the Constitution in 2003. That is unfortunate, but, we know now that it was a lie. But, you can't back out of a situation. That's a thing I learned from my parents. It makes no difference faulty intelligence lead us there, you can't give up.

We are making progress, we brought Saddam Hussein to justice. This is just the beginning.

My mistake, Iraq had no connections with 9/11. It was Usama.

On the abortion, I wasn't arguing it with you. I was just responding to the part that you said about the topic of "Is a fetus a person?" I just responded.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join