Which key issue decides your vote?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
With so much at stake, and so many issues to deal with in this presidential election, I often find when discussing the election with people that they focus on one single issue. The position that one party (or leader) takes on that particular issue often decides who gets their vote. In 2004, the most talked about issue was national security.

In 2008, I don't believe there is one issue that has as much importance put on it as there was in 2004, but I believe many people still find one issue more important to them than any other.

So, I ask you, the voting American public, the following.

- What issue is the most important to you?
- Which parties stance falls in line with your ideals and thinking on said issue?
- Is that issue and a parties stance on it important enough to you to make that the deciding factor on voting day?




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Universal healthcare, because I think it is about damn time that the money wasted on wars could be better spent on those in need of it. This is, it should be available to those struggling, those single moms and dads, those lower paid workers and those students who are living outside of home unable to affort insurance. Well to be frank the middle class and below. I dont believe privatization of the medical industry has helped over the years we'v had it and these 8years it became apparent how urgent it is for those to be provided healthcare.

Withdrawal from the Iraq war, focus back on Afghanistan is what Obama stood for even before he began his presidential campaign. Regardless of whether the Bush administration has now signed a time table, this was never their intention in the first place, they know they full well LIED about the war, McCain continues to cover Bushes ass and yet his hypocritical enough to call himself a maverick.

Only when it became apparent that the american people no longer want to be there, when the can no long silence the Iraqis who want them out, when the truth is beginning to come apparent to the vast majority of americans do they decide to draw up a time table. Obama was against this war and this "nationalist neocon" movement among conservatives, he was only but a few at the time in 2003 to opposed the war, , he never changed his policy and despite rightwingers here claiming otherwise, the man has never changed his policy over it, and for this im verymuch behind him.

Alternative fuels/ the movement away from oil

I support Obama because he is for more government focus on alternative fuels and for cheaper hybrid car production. This administration has been slack over the current oil crises and the only answer the GOP has for the oil crises is to "drill drill drill" ourway out of it. People dont understand that it is not just our dependence on foreign oil, but on oil itself, we are limited and drilling on home ground will solve nothing. Last year the IEA stated that the northern slope had been previously drilled, anwr is just a mere extension for further drilling.

This is just another ploy for McCain and his campaign advisor, Charlie black, a lobbyist for oil over the last ten years, to get their buddies more in their pockets. 10years in my opinion it will take that oil to reach the pumps, the EIA states it will take 20years to do so. This desperation from rightwingers and some democrats is just astounding, playing into the pandering of the politicians. Obama is more focused on getting us off oil permanently, and some here may argue that we cant do this out of thin air but better sooner than later to put focus on this. No im not some environmentalist who thinks drilling in ANWR, an vast empty muddy plain of tundra with little to no greenlife and animals, however I do realist that it is POINTLESS and that the area westward has been previously drilled.

Obama is focused more off drilling, onto alternative fuels, cheaper hybrids. We cannot deny that soon, focus will have to be placed on alternative fuels, cheaper hybrids.

On another note, I think it is time for the GOP to go, McCain is part of the old boys club, Palin agrees on most things with Bush, she knows nothing im my opinion and I find McCains choice insulting on behalf of all the women iv been associated with.I think this new neocon movement within the GOP will drive this nation to a new low, possibly drain its superpower status. I dont believe in these fundalmentalists having such influence in the whitehouse, it is against the constitution and under McCain it will be no different.

McCain is just another Bush and I am pritty darn sure Obama is for change, and I support him verymuch. It will take mccain to be for all the issues above for me to consider him.

I dont support Ron Paul because even though I admire his true conservatism, his policies dont quiet align with mine, and I think some of his beliefs are, well out there. Dont support Bob Barr for the same reason.

I think Nader and his policies are a joke, he may have some support but he'll certainly not get any from me.

There we go.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I WAS a one issue voter and that issue was health care but now " it's the
economy stupid."

As I watch the middle class, my customer base, have less and less disposable income, my small business is in dire straits.

McCain is clueless about how to deal with the financial crisis and his choice of Palin, just shows to me that he cares more about getting elected than the welfare of the country.

I'm not voting for Obama, I'm voting against McCain, who will just be another pimp for the mega corps.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Not too sure this is the exact order of importance in my brain but:

#1 Universal Health Care

#2 Environmental Stewardship: Conservation adn Preservation; Alternative Energy; Alternative Development

#3 War and Peace (less war more peace)

#4 Education: Increasing the quality of public education and making more opportunities for higher education

#5 The economy

#6 Separation of Church and state and separation of corporation and state



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I'm with whaaa. It's the economy. And tied in with that is governmental protection of big corporations and general governmental corruption. I think Obama can do a lot to take a bite out of that and he'll be a LOT better for the economy as a whole.

Trickle-down... doesn't.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
#1 My Guns.

#2 My Property including wages earned.

#3 My life and living it the way I see fit.


The Libertarians or the Constitutionalists are more in line with my issues but they have no shot on the national level without more elected on the local level.

I bite my tongue and believe Palin wont take my guns then I defend my other concerns, property and life, with said guns until liberty returns to America. Knowing that secession is in her heart makes it a little easier too.

You can keep your healthcare, I'm perfectly happy to crawl under a porch and die if it would mean living in liberty, and let the troops of the elite murder and bomb whoever the hell the want as long as it doesnt cost me anything but it does and that pisses me off.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Taxes, taxes, taxes. I will NEVER vote for a candidate that I think is going to raise my taxes. I work hard for every cent I earn and I hate the fact the government sees fit to dip into my pockets and STEAL my money



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
#1 Ending military adventurism --- whether you are naive enough to believe the rationale for the wars or not, the country simply cannot afford them. If we keep bleeding the amount of money we have been into this bottomless pit there won't be any country left for the alleged terrorists to attack.

#2 Full-court-press to develop and exploit alternative fuels --- in the longterm this will shift the economic balance in our favor. It will obviate the need for most of #1 and could very well ease world tensions as we can tell the ME to kiss our red-white-and-blue behinds.

#3 Government/Political accountability --- these clowns can do and say anything they want with impunity. This has got to stop.

#4 Short-term economic stabilization --- While the banks are being bailed-out and people with money are scooping-up assets like kids at an Easter egg hunt the majority of people are being screwed. 1-in-416 homes are at some point of the foreclosure process, 64% of homes are forsale in an attempt to prevent that from happening, people can't get loans to buy homes or cars and their collective wealth (mostly equity in homes) is vanishing. While the 'big' guys get bailed-out the middleclass gets saddled with trillions in future taxes to pay for it. WTF? And if you think the economy is bad now, wait until the holiday shopping season tanks and retailers join the list of faltering and failed companies. Can you say lay-offs?

#5 Responsible tax laws and business regulation --- Tax laws should be structured to promote the creation of domestic jobs. CEO severence and bonus packages should be taxed at a much higher rate. tere should be a toe-curling alternative minimum tax for companies and individuals earning in the top 10% (with tax breaks given to alternative energy and other industries directly tied to benefitting the citizenry)

#6 Political contributions from businesses, SIGs and the like should be made illegal. All political contributions should be made through a system that makes them anonymous.

Yea, I know, fat chance. But you asked.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I made up my mind which candidate I would vote for long ago. Rather, one candidate lost my vote long ago, and the more I read and find out, the more I am convinced I made the right decision.

The issue that I based my vote on was character.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Not the extremist that's fo sho.
I'm voting for the guy that is closer to the middle of the political spectrum, even though he is considered to be quite liberal.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Great question Sensfan.

Energy:

My vote will eventually go to the candidate that provides something other than lip service to a comprehensive energy plan. More than just drilling, more than just a few million here and there for "research".
I'm talking about a Manhattan project, an Apollo man-on-the-moon sized project. Maybe government subsidized, but as privatized as possible.


The side effects of energy independence will be many fold.

Our military runs around the planet protecting other people's "liberty".
I think the only liberation our government/industrial complex cares about is the liberation of Oil, from the ground.
So, right away, our military could start protecting US, instead of pipelines, and drill sites.
Smaller military required. Tax money saved.

The cost of running a household decreases. Heating, cooling, cooking, and driving. Cheaper. Perhaps more people could afford to pay their own medical costs. Afford better, healthier food. And cook it, cheaper!

The cost of doing business. Cheaper. employee wages higher. and again, smaller business might be able to put their people on decent health plans.

Our economy will be based on something other than the petro-dollar, like it is now. You've all seen it. Just the prediction of a Hurricane inching towards our coastlines, gas goes up 20 cents per gallon. A little unrest in the middle east, add another 10 cents. I'm tired of it. Aren't you? We're slaves to it, yet many of us still defend this status quo.

So if we have to drill here, let's do it.
If we have to dig some coal, lets do it.
Punch a few more gas wells, let's do that too.
And while we're at it..Let's spend some real money on real research.

One day, I want to get into my Electric car, charged by my personal solar station. Hop on the 350 MPH bullet mag-lev train brought to you by the local Hydrogen fusion power plant, Have a great meal in Las Vegas, while admiring those amazing new Super-effiecient LED Casino signs.
Then maybe take a nice hot Geothermally supplied shower, and head back home, just in time to pick up my check from the power company, for adding juice back into the grid..


Am I asking too much?

So, key issue:
Energy

Candidate choice:
still undecided.




[edit on 19-9-2008 by spacedoubt]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I agree with "thisguyrighthere". Gun ownership is my only concern. If I'm armed, then I'm free and all else follows. Infact I have been buying lots of semi-automatic rifles just in case Obama is voted in, that and I wanted to get stuff before the dollar tanks and is worthless.


My vote goes to Ron Paul.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by LordBaskettIV]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Energy policy - because it effects just about everything in America. Obama believes in flights of fancy and gambling with "renewable energy" and wants to sink in billions of dollars to researching it while stifling oil production and nuclear plant options. He has no freaking clue about science or how long it could take to find a renewable resource that could replace oil. But right now everything is formatted for oil. He doesn't seem to get it. If you take away oil and say "here's more wind power while we continue researching for the holy grail of renewable energy", you must refit a LOT of machinery formatted to use oil - a cost probably well into the TRILLIONS when all is said and done. So yeah, let's cut our own throats by voting no to oil and gas, no to nuclear, no to clean coal and yes to things we know little about and aren't ready to implement into full scale use without significant cost. Talk about clueless. And that's just ONE of the issues and where he stands.

So my vote will not be for Obama/Biden. It will be for McCain/Palin.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Energy policy - because it effects just about everything in America. Obama believes in flights of fancy and gambling with "renewable energy"


You know what I find that funny.... its almosts as if your so sure we can "drill drill drill' our way out of this problem. How the heck do you think we got into this mess in the first place? OIL, why did we invade Iraq? OIL, what resource is currently being exploited and his holding the world middle and lower class at ransom? OIL

Now you suggest that we just drill for more and more oil as if there will never come a time in which we will have to search for renewable energy? Are you serious?? McCain HAS no solutions to the oil crises other than to drill on Alaskas northern slope, an area that has been drilled previously, and area in which oil will take by the least 10years to reach us, 20years according to the IEA.

en.wikipedia.org...
Our solution to the oil crises, simply make an extension of the current drilling reserve and wait for 10years for 3cents to drop from the fuel pumps. Yes finding alternative sources as the primary focus is a "gamble".

Your saying "we're taking a gamble on renewable energy" when its oil that we are apparently loosing as a resource, yet its no gamble to drill drill drill in an extended area of a previously drilled territory. Most americans have NO idea as to whether there is enough oil in that area, the IEA and some of americas oil men have already stated that it is pointless drilling our way out of an increasingly scarce resource, we all know that it will take 10years for the little bit of oil to reach the pumps and even at that it will be very short and brief, what happens after that huh? what happens after Alaska? we move onto California? Florida? we'll just move along because apparently searching for alternatives now "is a gamble".

What is your definition of a "gamble" sos? Drilling our way out of an increasingly hard to find expensive resource in a small extension of a larger previous drilling field or to find alternatives and make ourselves independent of a single resource all together?


and wants to sink in billions of dollars to researching it while stifling oil production and nuclear plant options.


Either more government focus on alternative energy to get us independent from the global oil addiction or we can continue drilling our way to a dead end. I agree with you on the point of nuclear plants, whatever gets us off oil. McCain seems to put the vast majority of focus on drilling our way out of this mess in an area most fuel analysts have declared pointless to get fuel prices down.


He has no freaking clue about science or how long it could take to find a renewable resource that could replace oil.


Oh I think he has a freaking clue over the current fuel crises, and he like the minority of smart americans can see that ANWR is no more than election year pandering. We all know this is a BS solution to our current fuel crises, we know that alaskas northern slope had been previously drilled as referenced above, we know that it will take 10years by the least for any impact to be made at the pumps, we know it will be temperory relief, we know that oil itself as a resource has allowed the wealthy to exploint the middle class and the government, we have a freaking clue as to the inevitability of looking for alternatives and we know that oil is becoming a scarce resource.

If the rest of america would get a freaking clue as to why not to "give the junkie a quick fix", we'd all be getting ourselves out of the mess with iraq, the middle east as a whole, and Europe would have been tougher on russia if she would get a FREAKING clue on how pointless it is staying on oil.


But right now everything is formatted for oil. He doesn't seem to get it. If you take away oil and say "here's more wind power while we continue researching for the holy grail of renewable energy", you must refit a LOT of machinery formatted to use oil


Yes, however there is no single alternative in focus for fuels. There are a range of alternatives Barack Obama is looking at and he will be investing in the developement and engineering of new alternative fuels, something the government has been slack on all these years. Especially the focus on hybrid cars, cheaper hybrid viechles. John McCain and the rest of the rightwingers seem to have this idea that drilling in a small area just west of a larger drilling area is going to sort out americas fuel woes, and the politicians conveniently leave out the details, as to how long it will take, and how long it will last. Howlong will it take for you all to realize that there needs to be focus on alternatives?


a cost probably well into the TRILLIONS


Wonderful, looks like Bush already wasted a trillion in the worlds second largest oil reserves, gee.... I wonder why he hasnt been that successful. You put up numbers out of your own head yet you neglect the current analysis from various agencies and oilmen as to how pointless it is to drill drill drill you way out of this mess?

Tell me, wheres the evidence as to whether Anwr will sort out americas current energy needs sos?


It will be for McCain/Palin.


McCain, a man who cant figure out howmany houses he has, a man that says our economy is fundelmentally strong when our economy is only getting worse, when the government is having to spend more money that anytime after the depression. A many who cant figure out why we're in Iraq, only that the "surge" is working and a woman who thinks that simple because she lives closer to Russia than most americans, she has foreign experience.

No its fine, I guess its just easy to turn the other way from real solutions.



[edit on 20-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by southern_Guardian
 


You still haven't given any reasons why drilling is a bad thing. You also assume drilling is only in ANWR. We know there's oil there. We know there's oil off our shores. We know there's oil under our very feet, but certain members of Congress are always instrumental in getting in the way of making any progress.

And yes, I believe in drilling for right now. Until there's a viable, cost-efficient alternative that meets America's need and would fill the gap caused by a lack of oil, then drilling for more oil is the only solution we have right now.

Never did I say that we shouldn't invest in alternative energy sources, but we have other sources besides oil that are just as clean right now, like nuclear energy. Europe beats us hands down in producing nuclear energy. We should be using this avenue more and researching new ways to efficiently and more cleanly dispose of nuclear waste AND drilling. The answer lies in a multitude of energy sources. But no, Obama thumbs his nose at that. He wants the fanciful, the undiscovered. He wants what we don't have right now. He wants us to hurry up and discover some new energy form that we don't know about and find a way to harness it and make it compatible with current infrastructure, all within the next 10 years.

Oh, and you failed to mention that Obama wants to tap the National Reserve to lower the gas price. That will knock off a whole, what 3 or 4 cents? He also favors releasing MORE OIL into the economy. He just doesn't want to drill for it and piss off environmentally sensitive voters.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by southern_Guardian
 


You still haven't given any reasons why drilling is a bad thing.


Sure I did, I stated that its a waste of time, I stated that the oil there will not solve the current oil crises, I stated that it will take by the least 10years for that fuel to have any effect on the prices, I stated that this anwr drilling is political pandering. Meanwhile you fellas are making as if Anwr is the soluton to oil dependence, which it is not.

Anwr is short term, you saying here that looking for alternatives is "too unrealistic", we should just drill in Anwr and assume it will solve this crises?


You also assume drilling is only in ANWR. We know there's oil there. We know there's oil off our shores.


Yes the minute you hear that theres oil offshore, you automatically assume this is the solution to the oil crises, yet you fail to understand that simply because theres oil offshore, it aint ganna make a difference in the pump. America consumes 25% of the worlds oil at a daily bases, offshore drilling will only take off 5% of that amount, and yet here you are, tell us that "offshore drilling" is the solution to foreign oil independence? The way america is consuming right now, either we depend on foreign oil or we search for alternatives, because offshore drilling will now get us off foreign fuel. It will also only last a certain period of time buddy.

www.boston.com...

www.americanprogress.org...

-We cant drill our way out of the oil crises,

-There will not be enough oil to meet americas current needs let alone independence from foreign oil,

-Any oil that is produced will take atleast 10years to reach the pumps, and it will be brief.

-The search for alternative fuels is inevitable.


And yes, I believe in drilling for right now.


drilling right now for what? a quick fix in ten years time?


Until there's a viable, cost-efficient alternative that meets America's need and would fill the gap caused by a lack of oil, then drilling for more oil is the only solution we have right now.


Well im sorry buddy, but we really have no choice in the matter, and sooner or later rightwingers will come to this very conclusion. Offshore drilling is not the solution and certainly will not be the solution to foreign oil independence. All the washington insiders know this, their just pandering to you to get your vote, dont be fooled.


Never did I say that we shouldn't invest in alternative energy sources,


No you didnt? Yet your very certain that this is the solution to complete foreign oil independence no? Theres lack of focus in alternative energy, cheaper hybrid car production in this administration and mccain will be no different, until the fuel crises has hit the lowest that is..... there need to me more focus on alternatives and less focus on this quickfix that would do anything within the next tenyears... and in which will be brief.


Oh, and you failed to mention that Obama wants to tap the National Reserve to lower the gas price.


Why are you all of a sudden changing your arguement? You first stated that his focus on alternatives is pointless and his anti offshore drilling stance lost your vote, and now your accusing Obama of being for offshore drilling? This does not sound like a good argument from yourside..

I know his for offshore drilling, him, McCain and Hillary were opposed to it before they were for it. In the end you cannot go against 80% of americans who are ignorant of the "quickfix" does matter howmuch evidence you have backed up. In this financial crises americans will take anything to ease their pain, financially, its a shame many are so willing to give into such pandering.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 



Originally posted by sos37
And yes, I believe in drilling for right now. Until there's a viable, cost-efficient alternative that meets America's need and would fill the gap caused by a lack of oil, then drilling for more oil is the only solution we have right now.

Never did I say that we shouldn't invest in alternative energy sources, but we have other sources besides oil that are just as clean right now, like nuclear energy.


Star for you.
The big misconception being bandied around is that McCain is for drilling only. Nothing could be further from the truth; he is for *all* alternative solutions, even some that Obama shuns. But the world will not be turn-keyed to a new alternative energy source overnight; that is why it is so important to continue to develop our oil and natural gas resources.

And the old chant of "It will take 10 to 20 years" is just plain false. Don't fall for it.





top topics
 
0

log in

join