Advertisement

Previous   Next

Do you already know which presidential candidate you want to vote for?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on December 28, 2007

Browse the archives

Photo of Daniel DePardo

“Yes. Assuming they win the primary, I know who it will be.”

Photo of Amelia Stern

“No. I haven’t given it much thought. There are so many right now.”

Photo of Sarah Williams

“Yes: Huckabee. He just seems like a righteous man.”

Photo of Michael Bollig

“I have no idea. Nobody has really grabbed me yet. I’m waiting to see who the definite front-runners are.”

Comments

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 3 months ago

And, people, JOHN EDWARDS????!!!!! ogodhepus waddanass

0

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 3 months ago

Antney, just curious, can you remember Obama's stand on ANY issue? He doesn't have any. When forced to come up with one he falters and stammers.

His moments of being a rock star will come crashing down around his ears if we are ever unfortunate enough to elect him president.

0

antney 6 years, 3 months ago

Obama! All the way.

Obama is the best candidate who will finally unite this country.
All this partican bickering is brining us all down and gets nothing accomplished.

Lets pick a candidate who will unite us!

Barrack the Vote!

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 3 months ago

"When Kucinich wins a poll, you don't hear about it." Would you be so good as to post links to a couple of independent polls that Kucinich won?

0

blackwalnut 6 years, 3 months ago

Kucinich.

I will not let the MSM and the corporations decide who I should vote for. They decided who the nominees would be more than a year ago. I'm still voting my conscience.

When Kucinich wins a poll, you don't hear about it. The media did their best to blacklist him. They only mention him when they have found a way to put a negative spin on something.

0

Crossfire 6 years, 3 months ago

Achmed The Dead... ...as good as any of the other puppets running. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 3 months ago

Mkh, it's about time the networks started doing some filtering.

0

dichloromethane 6 years, 3 months ago

Brett Favre would make an awesome President. He is a proven leader.

hillary is a moron and is really freakin UGLY.

0

Mkh 6 years, 3 months ago

Death to Trolls!

"Fox, meanwhile, has invited five GOP candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for its mobile studio in New Hampshire on Sunday. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee received invites, leaving Paul of Texas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California on the sidelines." edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.ap/index.html

0

Mkh 6 years, 3 months ago

For Snap (the Troll):

"ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox's case infuriating supporters of Republican Ron Paul. The roster of participants for ABC's back-to-back, prime-time Republican and Democratic debates Saturday in New Hampshire will be determined after results of Thursday's Iowa caucus become clear.

Fox, meanwhile, has invited five GOP candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for its mobile studio in New Hampshire on Sunday. Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson received invites, leaving Paul and Duncan Hunter on the sidelines." www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/20...>

"Contrary to earlier reports, the Fox News Channel is hosting a Republican presidential candidate forum in New Hampshire, and, so far, Rep. Ron Paul has not been invited.

WND previously reported the event was canceled three weeks ago, but New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen confirmed today the forum is scheduled for Jan. 6.

The New Hampshire GOP is co-sponsoring the event, to be held at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H., just two days before the crucial primary.

Candidates who have received invitations are former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson."

"Cullen said the New Hampshire Republican Party is negotiating with Fox News to have as many candidates as possible participate in the event.

"Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary," Cullen said in a statement today. "The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast."

Cullen said the New Hampshire Republican Party is calling "upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events."

Paul said Saturday that Fox News is "scared of me."

They "don't want my message to get out, but it will," he told the Boston Globe's Primary Source blog. "They are propagandists for this war, and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative." www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.as...>

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 3 months ago

moo (Anonymous) says:

"The electoral college has LONG outlived its usefulness."

Right, let's return to a pure form of democracy, otherwise known as tyranny by majority.

There is a reason for the electoral college, the same reason we have two houses in the legislature. Look at it this way: Kansas has only 47% of the population of Missouri, but 55% as many electoral votes.

0

EXks 6 years, 3 months ago

Amazing isn't it, ANOTHER election year and we have another bunch of LOOSERS. They're all pimps!

0

ksdivakat 6 years, 3 months ago

ok I asked this on another thread and didnt get a good answer, can anyone tell me what a "pinko" is and what is a "centrist?" And while the topic is who are we voting for I also need some clarification, as this will be the first presidential election ive voted in.....I always thought that the republicans were so the rich could get richer and the dems were for the poor people?? Now i should have been voting all along and paying attention, but the first president i can remember is old man Bush and honestly I didnt pay attention or think that my vote counted. Now i know that realyl my vote doesnt count but I am trying to educate myself so if anyone could tell me what those 2 words mean id appreciate it!

0

moo 6 years, 3 months ago

The electoral college has LONG outlived its usefulness.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

Unfortunately, you won't likely be able to cast a vote for Kucinich. He isn't likely to make it onto the national ballot, and Kansas doesn't have a voice in the primary stage.

0

coneflower 6 years, 3 months ago

moo: Your comments support my contention that the electoral college has outlived its usefulness in this country.

0

moo 6 years, 3 months ago

Oh don't get me wrong, I'll vote for whichever candidate I like dislike the least in November. It's just going to feel like a pretty empty statement to me, unfortunately.

0

coneflower 6 years, 3 months ago

moo: We're all bitter. But a vote is still a statement. I intend to cast mine - for Kucinich.

These are strange times. We have a Democratic Congresswoman. Who knows what could happen.

0

moo 6 years, 3 months ago

There is pretty much no point in picking a candidate now because we live in Kansas. Even if we have a presidential primary (which has only happened twice, in 1980 and 1992) I seriously doubt it will have any effect on who is nominated by either party.

There is pretty much no point in picking a candidate ever because we live in Kansas. Thanks to the electoral college and the fact that Kansas always goes Republican, a vote any other way might as well not even count.

Abolish the electoral college, it is outdated and undemocratic.

And yes, before anyone responds, I am feeling very bitter at the moment.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

I'm with you, EmJones. I respect the fact that Ron Paul isn't in the pocket of some special interest group and that he would take the role of representing the PEOPLE seriously, but he has some wacky ideas about domestic policy.

I would think people of all political affiliations would have reservations about his desire to abolish the Fed. The Fed plays a pretty significant role in keeping inflation manageable, and as a result, keeping the risk of a recession (which would be the inevitable result after a prolonged period of unchecked inflation) low.

0

Eileen Emmi Jones 6 years, 3 months ago

Mkh:

I never said Kucinich and Edwards are identical.

Both would be good for America. That said, Kucinich is my hands-down first choice.

Ron Paul has some excellent ideas, and with a Democratic Congress he would be able to destroy the bad parts of government that the neocons have handed to the corporate robbers. But after that, he'd destroy the libraries and schools too, and the field would be open for other robber barons to take over.

I'd take Ron Paul if he ran with Kucinich as a mitigating factor. Only then.

0

blackwalnut 6 years, 3 months ago

Mkh:

The MSM blacklists Ron Paul just as they do Dennis Kucinich.

Corporations despise these two because these two cannot be bought.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

"The ACLU says it's unfair to minorities and low-income voters. Yep, that sounds like the Republican base"


You misunderstand. I'm not arguing who are or aren't part of the Republican or Democrat bases.

778 said that the fact that Republicans vehemently push for voter ID cards proves that Democrats are the beneficiaries of any voter fraud that results from a lack of ID cards. His conclusion assumes that 1) a lack of voter ID cards creates voter fraud, and that 2) the fact that Republicans promote ID cards proves that Democrats benefit from said voter fraud.

Now it may be the case that not requiring a voter ID card creates voter fraud. I have yet to see evidence of this, but it may occur. It also may be the case that Democrats benefit more than Republicans from this kind of fraud, if it exists. Again, there is no evidence outside of inductive logic like 778's.

All I was saying was that the actions of Rs and Ds proves nothing about the existence of or beneficiaries of voter fraud resulting from failing to require ID cards.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 3 months ago

So did you go storming off to the barricades, Mkh?

0

Mkh 6 years, 3 months ago

This is probably the first time the AP has gotten a story wrong I'm sure Snap.

Keep trolling along....

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 3 months ago

RuPaul!

BTW, Mkh, did you get caught up this weekend in all the hooping & hollering about Fox not inviting Ron Paul to a debate on Jan 6? Turns out there was no such debate scheduled.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/18145

"I fear this might make us look bad if we don't make sure we KNOW what we're talking about."

0

Mkh 6 years, 3 months ago

Snap you are such a troll.

0

overplayedhistory 6 years, 3 months ago

I want Ron Paul and Kucinich on the same ticket. Then the meek really will inherit the Earth. That and they are the only two who speak from the gut. I am still waiting for a late entry that know one ever saw coming. If Bill and Warren were not trying to conquer the worlds 20 most deadly disease s that are results of poverty. They could buy us a real third party option.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 3 months ago

camper, google "ron paul" + "don black".

0

devieh 6 years, 3 months ago

nope just typical neolib/neocon fare

0

Mkh 6 years, 3 months ago

"Get over it & vote for Hillary!"

Is this a joke?

0

more_cowbell 6 years, 3 months ago

Hmmm... Christopher Walken... sophisticated, knows how to drink champagne with the diplomats, yet creepy enough to scare the dickens out of Iran...

...needs some work with the cue cards/Teleprompter, but other than that, I think he's ready to roll!

0

camper 6 years, 3 months ago

I'm not sure I like any of the candidates. But Ron Paul seems to make the most sense of any of them. Don't know much about him though.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 3 months ago

"I was saying that the Republicans and Democrats voting behavior regarding a single bill doesn't say anything about who benefits more from voter ID fraud. The only thing that the Republicans vehemence proves is that they believe that requiring voter ID cards will benefit them more than it does Democrats."

Hmmm.

The ACLU says it's unfair to minorities and low-income voters. Yep, that sounds like the Republican base.

Or how about this:

"The appeals court upheld the law, even though it acknowledged it would deter some people from voting, and that those deterred are more likely to vote for Democratic rather than Republican candidates." (In regards to the Indiana law http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1941087120070925?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)

Or maybe this:

"His colleague on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Bill Clinton appointee Terence T. Evans, was equally frank in dissent. "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic," Evans wrote."

(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/25/politics/washingtonpost/main3646005.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3646005)

Seems like it's the liberal-Democrat, not Republican, vehemence that suggests it will hurt Democrats more to require IDs. It's okay, logicsound, you were wrong about it being a poll tax, too, and about proponents of photo-ID laws also proposing no-cost IDs. Why shouldn't you be wrong about this, too?

0

Kathy Gragg 6 years, 3 months ago

Whatever do you mean lawrencereader? I haven't been on for more than two hours in the last three days. Get over it & vote for Hillary!

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 3 months ago

Whoopie, the Tri-lateral commission has been invoked! Can the owls and the grove be far behind? I don't think so.

0

Lawrencereader 6 years, 3 months ago

Enforcer, is this all you do all day? Sit around and make comments? Don't you have a life? You would think with all the "counseling" of Lawrence teens that you claim you do, you wouldn't have time to be on here constantly.

0

Kathy Gragg 6 years, 3 months ago

I'm going to vote for Hillary so Bill has another oppertunity to get a blow job in the oval office, maybe this time he can have sex too:)

0

devieh 6 years, 3 months ago

i didn't email them i called everyone of them left a message for mr oreilly as well as the rest of them.

ask yourself, why is fox news censoring the GOP candidate with the most money raised this quarter?

they are scared. ron paul's message is freedom.

END THE WAR IN IRAQ INVEST IN OUR COUNTRY ABANDON THE FEDERAL RESERVE SAY NO TO AMNESTY SAY NO TO ILLEGAL INCOME TAXES RESTORE OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE RIGHT OF HABEAS CORPUS

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - -- Mahatma Gandhi

0

Mkh 6 years, 3 months ago

Fox News has officially excluded Ron Paul from their GOP New Hampshire Primary Debate scheduled two days before the primary!!!

They are very very scared over there at Fox that Paul is going to run the table with the rag doll Republican field and then destroy Fox's annointed candiate, Hillary Clinton.

Fox News is taking a huge gamble here, I mean seriously, do they think Americans are actually That Dumb? I know that most of society 'ain't two brite'...but come on, they are not brain dead rodents.

Ron Paul not only set the all time record for one day campaign donations but has raised more than any other GOP candidate this quarter (almost 20 Million!). Plus he not only wins every Fox News Debate poll, but every other one as well. Not to mention the most straw poll victories of any candidate. Fox News does stupid things every day, maybe hour...but this is terribly blatant, even for them.

I've already emailed every person at Fox News I could find to share my dissapointment in their attempt to corrupt the American election process.

"Fair and Balanced"

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

"You say voter fraud is perpetrated by both parties, yet the fact that only one party is actively trying to curtail it suggests that it inordinately favors the other party."

"You need to change your name. If A then B does NOT prove if not A then not B. I did not say the republicans never attempt any voter fraud, only that such fraud favors the other party more so. You made a logical fallacy there; tsk, tsk, you need to study!"


I didn't commit any logical fallicy. The only mistake I made was attributing to you the opinion that Republicans don't commit voter fraud.

As for logic, I'm not even sure a simple "If A then B" is an accurate description of the argument you made.

Your argument has multiple (and questionable) ifs. The first is whether or not voter ID fraud indeed favors one party or the other. The second is whether or not a party would actively oppose any measure that would deprive them of this advantage. So here goes:

A: Parties actively work to curtail voter fraud unless it benefits their party B: Parties actively oppose efforts to curtail voter fraud if it benefits their party C: Requiring photo IDs will effectively reduce voter fraud

D: Democrats benefit more from voter ID fraud than do Republicans.

In other words, your argument is more of a if A and B and C, then D. So you should have said: "If A, B, C, then D does not prove if not A, B, C, then not D". To which I would say that wasn't my original argument. I wasn't saying that Democrats don't benefit more from voter fraud than do Republicans because I don't know. I was saying that the Republicans and Democrats voting behavior regarding a single bill doesn't say anything about who benefits more from voter ID fraud. The only thing that the Republicans vehemence proves is that they believe that requiring voter ID cards will benefit them more than it does Democrats.

0

devieh 6 years, 3 months ago

reticent, try to stop thinking for a second you are the only one who knows how to read. I am always reading- currently i'm finishing molly ivins and lou dubose's "bill of wrongs."

as mkh puts it there are two choices. the CFR/Tri-lateral choice or the american choice. vote kucinich or paul 2008. please choose america, unless you want your children to pledge allegiance to the north american union.

http://www.google.com/search?q=north+american+union&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

0

Mkh 6 years, 3 months ago

I know Reticent...I've read it, along with his other book on Globalization, "Lexus and the OliveTree". I was trying to humorous, apparently it failed.

EmJones...you do realize that Edwards is a Globalist and thus in opposite ideology of your first choice Kucinich? Obviously you are free to support Edwards if you want, but I just want you to be aware of exactly what you are supporting.

Hillary isn't a neocon?

0

Eileen Emmi Jones 6 years, 3 months ago

I am a Kucinich supporter, but Edwards is a good second choice. Hillary is my last choice on the left.

Anyone but another neocon.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 3 months ago

Mkh, It's the title of a book exploring the process of globalization...

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 3 months ago

devieh, Try reading books every so often. Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat" would be a good start.

0

Mkh 6 years, 3 months ago

"The world is flat isn't it?"

Why, is that something you are worried about? It would probably be a good idea to stay out of boats just in case Reticent. Perhaps you should post a blog exploring the question.

Now back to the topic at hand. I'll say it again, there are two categories of candidates in the race, and it has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats. Globalist vs. non-Globalist. Over the last half century the Globalists have been kicking some serious arse. Now the non-Globalists have a legitimate chance to stop that. Pick a side.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 3 months ago

Google "ron paul" "don black". Fascinating stuff.

0

devieh 6 years, 3 months ago

reticent irrevenerent your not ignorant are you?

0

Mkh 6 years, 3 months ago

There are only two real candidates for the People in this race. Ron Paul on the right, and Dennis Kucinich on the left. Everyone else is a Council on Foreign Relations member, or even worse, Trilateral Com. and/or Bilderberg Group. Which in simple terms means they are hard core Globalists.

If you don't believe in the Globalist agenda of the Elite Centeral Bankers and their puppets, then the choice is a dual between Paul and Kucinich. If you are a Globalist however...you have many more to choose from.

Ron Paul 2008!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSX_tgxOtyg http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

0

Ceallach 6 years, 3 months ago

Well, I took mancityfooty's quiz and now I am almost totally confused. The candidates I thought I liked are not the ones the quiz says I should like. The only candidate I already knew about was Hillary, seems she and I only agree on the death penalty, certainly not enough to warrant one's vote.

0

hottruckinmama 6 years, 3 months ago

I'm sick and tired of the whole dang circus already and just might not vote for any of them.

0

blackwalnut 6 years, 3 months ago

What has the world come to, when people suggest the candidate whose overriding principal is to support the Constitution, who carries a copy around in his pocket, is too far to the left?

Since when is the Constitution respected only by the left?

Kucinich. Those who say he has no chance have been taught that by the MSM, and learned well.

0

Corey Williams 6 years, 3 months ago

Try this:

http://www.wqad.com/global/link.asp?L=259460

I got Edwards at 55, with the only disagreement being on a line item veto. It basically just told me what I already know, but it's a good way to make sure.

0

prospector 6 years, 3 months ago

R_I, let me check my calendar, Feb 5th, ah yes, I am caucusing at the brewery.

I heard they are a lot like Fight Club.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 3 months ago

Why are the Kansas Democratic Party Caucus locations secret? Is it a Rave thingy?

0

kansas778 6 years, 3 months ago

LS04: I'm amused by the fact that you would call me naive while simultaneously assuming that the Republican's "actively trying to curtail [voter fraud]" proves that they don't ever attempt fraud


You need to change your name. If A then B does NOT prove if not A then not B. I did not say the republicans never attempt any voter fraud, only that such fraud favors the other party more so. You made a logical fallacy there; tsk, tsk, you need to study!

0

ohjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

sgt - That's too bad. I think Cleveland got the ball rolling with the redevelopment of the Flats as an entertainment destination and then built the new baseball park. Things just started going from there. I'm not in Cleveland as much as I used to be (which wasn't a whole lot to begin with). I'm another 60 miles or so south of where I grew up. So, we're about 160 miles from Cleveland. I'd like to make it up to the Great Lakes Science Center and Rock and Roll HOF sometime, though.

0

kansas778 6 years, 3 months ago

Staff--that's nice, and you can also find pro-life democrats and pro-choice republicans, but your assertion that "an aweful lot" don't agree is pointless. 98% of each party's representatives in Congress do agree, and until you provide a substantially differing result my claim stands. You are ignoring the evidence that the vast majority of elected republicans and democrats (you know, the ones who count) fall on opposite sides of this issue. What do I say now about your beliefs? Wow, one democrat thinks differently on one issue from the vast majority of democrats in the House. That proves a whole lot to absolutely no one.

0

sgtwolverine 6 years, 3 months ago

ohjay, there actually are some positive things happening in Detroit. The Foxtown area (Comerica Park, Ford Field, Fox Theatre) draws people, they're finally developing parks along the river (instead of that horrendous idea of putting the casinos on the river), last year's grand prix on Belle Isle brought in some money for improvements to that park, and there are some sparks in downtown (Greektown is worth visiting, Campus Martius [the new Compuware headquarters] area is nice, and the outdoor skating rink has been popular). These improvements are great, and they've actually served to bring me to the city a couple times (Belle Isle over the summer, and Greektown just a couple weeks ago). But I'm still deeply skeptical about the people in charge of the city. I'm just not sure they're any different than the leaders that began and continued Detroit's decline. Some of the city council has been around for years -- bad years -- and the mayor seems to have a knack for scandal. I like the recent improvements and believe me, I really hope they continue, but I really have no faith in the city leadership' ability to sustain good things.

0

ohjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

Michael White did a good job of continuing what Voinovich started, though. He ended up being the longest serving mayor of Cleveland. Unfortunately, there was some controversy around the end of his run. I've heard he's a pretty nice guy, though. He ended up buying some land a couple miles from my sister and brother-in-law (about 100 miles south of Cleveland). My brother-in-law had an opportunity to help him out with a small task once and said he was very nice and down to earth.

0

ohjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

sgt - George Voinovich pretty much started the turn-around in Cleveland. He went on to be governor and is now one of our US Senators. I thought Detroit was starting to turn things around lately (especially around the new Tiger Stadium), have things stalled out somewhat?

0

sgtwolverine 6 years, 3 months ago

ohjay, who actually did fix Cleveland? It used to be completely unappealing, but now it's a place worth visiting. That's a major resume booster.

Oh, and I'm not saying that person should run for president. I'd rather have that person come up to Detroit. It would be nice to have a nice big city in Michigan.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 3 months ago

Ceallach (Anonymous) says:

"Nope, just the one who will not get my vote. I cannot, in good conscience,be part of putting Bill Clinton back in the White House."

I wonder if he could pass the security background check to be allowed in there, after having to surrender his law license for lying to the court.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"Read more carefully-the principle of requiring a photo ID isn't necessarily a tax. It's only a tax if the only way to obtain a photo ID is to pay for one.

"You are correct that a photo ID is necessary to "board an airplane, enter a bar, use a credit card, buy alcohol and cigarettes, cash a check, and re-enter our country after traveling abroad", but there is no fundamental right to do any of those things like there is a fundamental right to vote. Additionally, there is no U.S. law that prohibits taxing those items, there is a law that prohibits a 'voting tax'.

"I don't "want" to call it a tax, it simply is one."

Actually, the right to travel is a fundamental right. And requiring an ID which everyone should have anyway for their normal daily activities (a citizen could not even get into a federal courthouse to witness how the court rules on the issue without having a photo ID) is not a tax, no matter how fast you're trying to spin it; if the ID was a separate one which was required for and could only be used for voting, that might be the case. Like most public places, I don't think you'd be allowed into a polling station without a shirt or shoes, and they cost money. Doesn't that make requiring clothing to vote a poll tax? If voting was "free," then we'd have to provide free bus rides on election day, and make it as mandatory paid holiday. Be serious, logicsound.

"First, I have heard all sorts of rabble rousing about needing photo IDs to vote, but I can't remember seeing one of the photo requirement supporters suggest free IDs."

Missouri, as part of the voter-ID act they passed last year, began giving out free non-driver's IDs and even mobile units to bring them to people who couldn't get to a licensing office, but since the ACLU stuck it's nose in and had the law struck down anyway, IDs cost $11 dollars again, for everyone.

0

ohjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

"blackwalnut (Anonymous) says:

Kucinich could fix the mess Bush & Co. made of this once-great nation."

I'm not supporting Bush with this comment. I agree that things need fixing, but Kucinich couldn't even fix Cleveland...

0

lmpaul 6 years, 3 months ago

According to the cartoon Maxine: "Voting is like trying to pick your favorite misquito from the swarm." I agree and my least favorite is Hilary.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

"I don't care what affiliation you claim, in Congress this is clearly a democrat vs republican issue, just look at the vote on the above bill (98% of Republicans supporting, 98% of Democrats opposing). You say voter fraud is perpetrated by both parties, yet the fact that only one party is actively trying to curtail it suggests that it inordinately favors the other party. I find it amusing that you are so naive as to think otherwise."


It's obvious you don't care about my affiliation, since you seem intent on beating me over the head with viewpoints and attitudes that I don't hold.

Even if this was a simple R vs. D issue, that has no bearing on my opinion on the matter. One more time, so you can ease your mind: I don't necessarily have a problem with requiring a photo ID as long as the state provides that ID when each voter registers. I am skeptical as for the need for voter IDs, as it seems to be solution looking for a problem (and the solution would end up giving the government more control over the voting process), however, I am not fundamentally opposed to anything about it except for the voting tax aspect of it.

I'm amused by the fact that you would call me naive while simultaneously assuming that the Republican's "actively trying to curtail [voter fraud]" proves that they don't ever attempt fraud. Have you even considered the fact that the Republicans might be engaging in deceit to give the appearance of fighting voter fraud?

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 3 months ago

The question is "Do you already know which presidential candidate you want to vote for?", not "Which presidential candidate do you want to vote for". Appropriate responses; yes, no, maybe, somewhat, I have an inkling, not yet.

Photo ID for voting?... Not. The question was put before to the OTS back on 16 Jan, 2007 http://www2.ljworld.com/onthestreet/2007/jan/16/mos_voting/ logicsound04 and I already solved that problem... Dead issue.

This is my question.... The Kansas GOP Caucus on Feb 9th have their locations listed, how come the Kansas Democratic party on Feb 5th has no locations? Is it a secret? Or is it going to be some kind of "Flash Mob"?

0

staff04 6 years, 3 months ago

You know, KS778, there are an awfully lot of extreme conservatives and libertarians who are opposed to ANY form of forced identification, right? I understand how you might be tempted to select a single vote on one bill 2 years ago to make something a "democrat vs republican issue," but ignoring all those libertarians and other extreme conservatives who are not members of Congress creates a faulty argument.

BTW, as a Democrat, and often liberal leaning, I support requiring ID for every man, woman and child who takes a breath in within the borders of this nation. What say you now?

0

kansas778 6 years, 3 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

First, I have heard all sorts of rabble rousing about needing photo IDs to vote, but I can't remember seeing one of the photo requirement supporters suggest free IDs.


H.R. 4844 [109th]: Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 See section 3:Making Photo Identification Available. Part (B): Identifications provided at no cost to indigent individuals

Your ignorance, either feigned or genuine, is a poor excuse.


I don't care what affiliation you claim, in Congress this is clearly a democrat vs republican issue, just look at the vote on the above bill (98% of Republicans supporting, 98% of Democrats opposing). You say voter fraud is perpetrated by both parties, yet the fact that only one party is actively trying to curtail it suggests that it inordinately favors the other party. I find it amusing that you are so naive as to think otherwise.

0

blackwalnut 6 years, 3 months ago

Kucinich is the righteous one. He cannot be bought. Huckabee is owned by the same neocon interests that own all the Republicans.

Kucinich could fix the mess Bush & Co. made of this once-great nation.

0

Foofabs 6 years, 3 months ago

Ron Paul!!! And staff04 you are not witty you are a grade a moron.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

"What logicsound doesn't want you to know is that there have been attempts to pass voter ID laws that would provide free IDs to those who couldn't afford them, but the democrats have fought to prevent any such laws from being passed on more and more ridiculous grounds. Just be honest and come out and say that you are really fighting for the rights of illegals, felons, and dead people to vote early and often for democrats."


First, I have heard all sorts of rabble rousing about needing photo IDs to vote, but I can't remember seeing one of the photo requirement supporters suggest free IDs.

Second, while I am reluctant to create any new requirement that would give the government more control over who votes and how they do it, I think a reasonable compromise could be reached regarding free photo IDs.

Third, I find it amusing that you think failing to require a photo ID favors any particular political party. Voter fraud can be (and probably is) perpetrated by BOTH parties, so you are ignorant to assume it only happens on one side of the aisle.

Fourth, I am not a Democrat, so Democrats' actions regarding previous voter ID laws that provide the photo ID are irrelevant to me. The fact that they did that (if they actually did) has no bearing on my point of view.

0

dajudge 6 years, 3 months ago

I would vote for Marilyn Vos Savant. Why don't we ever have intelligent people be our president? (Probably because they're smart enough not to run)

0

canyon_wren 6 years, 3 months ago

I just know who I WON'T vote for. How can we choose before we know who the choices will be? I have been sick of it all and disgusted for far too long already. What a sideshow our elections have become! The chance that a truly qualified candidate with INTEGRITY will be nominated by EITHER party is so remote. Our only real "people power" is at the local level.

0

gogoplata 6 years, 3 months ago

sunflower sue likes her politicians bought and paid for. You must be a big fan of the Iraq War.

0

devieh 6 years, 3 months ago

there is no law that requires you to have a valid id to use a cc according to visa's TOS it is illegal to accept a card that says see id and is also illegal to require identification.

0

staff04 6 years, 3 months ago

I want Romney to stand there and be pretty. I want Rudy to keep the memory of those lost on 9/11 alive. I want McCain to kick some ass and just tell people to fork off. I want to see how fat we can get Mike Huckabee in four years. I want Ron Paul so we can be even more embarrassed than we were in high school. I want Obama to make all the speeches. I want Kucinich to search for secret Area 51 records. I want Biden...no, don't want Biden...he's had enough camera time. I want Hillary to continue being cold and regurgitating her husbands ideas. I want Tancredo to go to war with Mexico...all by himself with only a pocket knife. I want Fred Thompson to help end the writers strike so he can get some better material.

0

kansas778 6 years, 3 months ago

What logicsound doesn't want you to know is that there have been attempts to pass voter ID laws that would provide free IDs to those who couldn't afford them, but the democrats have fought to prevent any such laws from being passed on more and more ridiculous grounds. Just be honest and come out and say that you are really fighting for the rights of illegals, felons, and dead people to vote early and often for democrats.

0

prospector 6 years, 3 months ago

Yes, so can we stop with allllllllll the coverage?

STRT obsession with voter fraud: "And there are exactly zero legitimate arguments against requiring photo identification to vote."

Not exactly

  1. logicsound4

  2. How many elections have been decided by fraudulent voters? Where is the problem?

There are zero legitimate or legal arguments requiring photo identification to vote. What you propose is against the law.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

"Requiring valid photo identification to vote in order to reduce voter fraud is not a tax, logicsound. You want to call it a tax.

Americans need valid photo ID to board an airplane, enter a bar, use a credit card, buy alcohol and cigarettes, cash a check, re-enter our country after traveling abroad, etc. No one is complaining about the "tax" necessary to acquire these rights."


Read more carefully--the principle of requiring a photo ID isn't necessarily a tax. It's only a tax if the only way to obtain a photo ID is to pay for one.

You are correct that a photo ID is necessary to "board an airplane, enter a bar, use a credit card, buy alcohol and cigarettes, cash a check, and re-enter our country after traveling abroad", but there is no fundamental right to do any of those things like there is a fundamental right to vote. Additionally, there is no U.S. law that prohibits taxing those items, there is a law that prohibits a 'voting tax'.

I don't "want" to call it a tax, it simply is one.

0

lawrence_drivers_are_crap 6 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

Requiring valid photo identification to vote in order to reduce voter fraud is not a tax, logicsound. You want to call it a tax.

Americans need valid photo ID to board an airplane, enter a bar, use a credit card, buy alcohol and cigarettes, cash a check, re-enter our country after traveling abroad, etc. No one is complaining about the "tax" necessary to acquire these rights.

0

lawrence_drivers_are_crap 6 years, 3 months ago

adolf goulianni's dad was a CAPO, a mid-level mob boss... Hitlery is a lesbian pagan...NO? Bill had to call the secret service to pull her off of him as she was beating his a** several times...... OSABA is a muslim Romney is mormon....

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT YOU IGNORANT B****TARDS

0

gogoplata 6 years, 3 months ago

Ron Paul - wouldn't it be nice to have a president who was his own man?

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

"And there are exactly zero legitimate arguments against requiring photo identification to vote."


The only way a photo id requirement is legal is if it is free. Last I checked, id cards cost money.

That's a voting tax.

And it's illegal.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

Kookcinich? Isn't he too far to the right for many of the inhabitants of this award-winning website?

Me? The guy who can and will beat the Little Rock Thugs......RG!

0

JJHawq 6 years, 3 months ago

Thanks Bob - That is CLASSIC! I'm shifting my support to Lee Mercer, Jr.

0

Dixie Jones 6 years, 3 months ago

no im not sure who i will vote for, does our votes really even count??? i do know who i WON'T VOTE FOR... its only cause the circus called and they want thier HEAD CLOWN BACK (thank god).... i'm leaning really hard toward voting for MARION LYNN.......

0

BABBOY 6 years, 3 months ago

Kucinich. My guy has no chance.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 3 months ago

"Why is it that people have such a hard time making an informed and individual decision?" - logicsound04

I propose three ideas that could answer that question.

1.) No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is observed as a phenomenon.

2.) Physical reality is dependent upon conscious observation for physical reality is non-existent prior to the moment of observation, as everything is only a state of probable outcomes until the moment of observation.

3.) All beings are owners of their karma. Whatever volitional actions they do, good or evil, of those they shall become the heir.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

One thing is clear: those who wish to cast a vote in any local, state or federal election must be required to show valid photo identification before entering the voting booth. This is the simplest, most straightforward way to reduce fraud in our elections.

And there are exactly zero legitimate arguments against requiring photo identification to vote.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

Michael Bollig's comments display one of the biggest problems with U.S. presidential elections: he's waiting to see who the frontrunner is before he knows for whom he wants to cast his vote.

Someone should let him in on a secret--WE determine the frontrunners. People should vote based on their opinion of how a person would perform as president, not based on how many other people are voting for them.

Why is it that people have such a hard time making an informed and INDIVIDUAL decision?

0

Ceallach 6 years, 3 months ago

Nope, just the one who will not get my vote. I cannot, in good conscience,be part of putting Bill Clinton back in the White House.

0

bobberboy 6 years, 3 months ago

Which ever one supports Social Security by shoring it up in its current state.

0

The_Original_Bob 6 years, 3 months ago

Lee Mercer, Jr. Google him and enjoy the next two hours.

0

preebo 6 years, 3 months ago

My heart says Kucinich, but my mind says Edwards. I even like Biden, but I don't think any of these people will be hanging around when Kansas' primary arrives. I just wish Obama had more substance to his platform. I mean one can hear the word change only so many times before they start asking how and what kind, and when we do we would like an actual answer and not some ambiguous line about the future and bringing people together.

That is not to say that I would not support him or Hillary Clinton if they were to get the nomination. Whom ever it may be I would take either of them on their worst day over any candidate on their best day, save John McCain.

0

americorps 6 years, 3 months ago

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says: RuPaul!


I met her once in San Diego. She was funny, smart and charming. I would enjoy having a 6 foot 4 inch tall drag queen as president, but she is too fabulous to take such a job.

I am currently undecided.

0

thomgreen 6 years, 3 months ago

"None Of The Above". And I'm going to start a national campaign to push this lack of candidate to the forefront.....

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

Edwards or Kucinich. Edwards is taking quite a populist position. I lean towards Kucinich because neither the party,the press nor the special interests seem to want him in office soooo it's about time special interest money is dumped from political campaigns. Kucinich also offers a think outside the box platform which is a welcome change.

The primary caucus approach leaves much to be desired and cost way to much special interest money. What do people in Iowa and New Hampshire know that we don't? What makes this special? There is a lot about the current election system that does not mean much. So who cares what a newspaper thinks about who we should vote for? Why should voters give a damn?

Our choices are being controlled by the special interest political parties,the media and corporate special interest money. How is it all candidates are not allowed to participate in every debate? Why does any candidate stand by this crap? That is why I promote firing 95% of incumbents. Returning the lions share of incumbents over the past 30 years has not made much of anything better.

The news media and corporate america do NOT need to decide who OUR candidates should be for local,state or federal level representation.

The media takes in a ton of cash during our election periods and play a huge role in selecting candidates for all sides of the aisle. Then THEY decide who should participate in televised debates as if no one else matters to the voters. Yes they also seem to decide which issues are important to voters and many times miss the mark. The media has become a large part of the special interest takeover of our process as if they know what is best for all of us. Voters support this takeover by voting for those candidates who also spend the most money and the question is why?

Campaigns go too long,spend way too much money and do not necessarily provide the best available. It is up to us to stop the nonsense at the voting booths on the 2008 ballot. Not voting sends the wrong message and changes nothing.

Lets's demand a new system and vote in Fair Vote America : http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ Demand a change on the 2008 ballot.

The big money candidates are more beholden than ever to corporate special interests due to the very long nature of campaigns. How do they have time to do the job they were elected to do? We need public financing of campaigns. Citizens cannot afford special interest money campaigns for it is the citizens that get left out.

http://www.publicampaign.org/

0

jonas 6 years, 3 months ago

Right now, current strategy suggests a vote for whichever party is opposite that which is in control of Congress.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.