Having a difficult time figuring out who to support?

[Drew]

This may help :)
(http://www.2decide.com/table.htm)

[suckafish]

it's funny how some of these people support the death penalty but they don't support abortion, or vice versa.


"let's kill the babies but oh no not the convicts!"

[Kaos]

thats a really good site, kinda nice how it shows with X and checkmarks, exactly how fucking evil each is...


Seeing stuff like that all nice and tabled out, just Pisses me off, how can any decent human being stand there, and say on one hand, yes, i support this, and then a few options later, say i DONT support this when in essence, they are one and the same.


and its good to see, that Guiliani, Romney, Hunter, and Tancredo all support TORTURE in anyway....


Dear god help us in the next election, because we know the US governement wont....

[Hyver]

it's funny how some of these people support the death penalty but they don't support abortion, or vice versa.


"let's kill the babies but oh no not the convicts!"

Unless of course they feel that at some point the fetus is better considered a mass of human flesh rather than a person. Support of abortion rights while opposing the death penalty is much easier to do than supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion rights.

Either way though, I think that either of those positions (pro-abortion anti-death/pro-death anti-abortion) is justifiable.

[dilvie]

Those charts are really stupid ways to look at the issues. You're simply not getting enough depth to have any clue about the candidate's driving philosophies. Some candidates are driven by money and popular opinion, but others, like Ron Paul, are driven by a set of ideals that you really need to wrap your head around to understand their positions.

For example, I hate the idea of abortions (really, the partial birth abortion procedure makes my stomach turn), but abortion prohibition has been tried before, and led to a lot of women attempting their own abortions with things like coat hangers -- which makes me even more sick to my stomach.

I'm a pragmatist -- more interested in solving problems than using the law to make a moral stand on the issues. There are programs which are much more effective at controlling abortion rates than prohibition ever was. Education and prevention wins there, hands down. Long live Planned Parenthood!

A chart like that would make it look like I'm a supporter of the right to murder unborn children. In reality, I want to see it happen less, and I don't believe that a law prohibiting it is an effective plan to do that.

- Eric

[mandimonium]

it's funny how some of these people support the death penalty but they don't support abortion, or vice versa.


"let's kill the babies but oh no not the convicts!"

Abortion and death penalty can be viewed very differently. Many see abortion not as terminating a life, but as preventing one while they see the death penalty as a way of killing to show that killing is wrong.

At least that is where I stand.

[NuQ]

Criminals can choose to risk their fate, being born into this world implies the choice to become a criminal. Being born at all is a choice of your parents. Take that, causality! I think what we need is not restriction by others but self-restraint. Think of the effects of conceiving another child and if you could raise him/her properly to do no harm. if you couldnt do it, dont. Abortion and crime as birds killed with one stone? probably not... But there is something to be said about our choices in this life. If we're incapable of governing ourselves what point is there in having "democracy"?

Try not to be distracted by peripheral issues. This could very well be one of the most important elections in our nation's history.

[Lindsay]

I still don't know who to root for :( The ones I thought were decent are for/against issues that i am against/for.
I guess it just needs to get narrowed down some more...

[Opaz]

What is the "internet neutrality" thing on there?

[Drew]

What is the \"internet neutrality\" thing on there?

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[Lindsay]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/
oh yeah, i'm totally against that

[Amber]

None of these people agree with my values 100%

[Lindsay]

ron paul is lookin better and better

[T.Beck]

darn right he is. Ron Paul is the man

[ambeestar]

and its good to see, that Guiliani, Romney, Hunter, and Tancredo all support TORTURE in anyway....


heh that's what i was thinking. i think the only person who could make me leave the country if they were voted president would be guiliani. fuck that.

[Third_Eye]

According to the chart, my views are most closely aligned with Kucinich. I like him, but don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination. Maybe an Obama/Kucinich ticket FTW


However, if Nader runs he has my vote automatically. That is my guy

[Akc814ilv]

According to the chart, my views are most closely aligned with Kucinich. I like him, but don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination. Maybe an Obama/Kucinich ticket FTW


However, if Nader runs he has my vote automatically. That is my guy


This reply is like a week late, but I just wanted to comment on one thing...

Voting for Nader actually helps the Republican candidate for President. Im neither Republican or Democrat so im not saying whether that is a good or bad thing. But when you vote for Nader you essentially are giving your vote to a guy who will get one percent of the vote and that 1 percent is generally being taken away from the Democrat candidate.

Alot of political pundits believe that it may have cost Al Gore the 2000 election.


(yes I know Gore won the popular vote and that he may have very well be screwed by the Bush admin.....but add Naders votes to Gore's and it would have been a wide enough margin to make it so Bush would have never gotten elected)

[Third_Eye]

This reply is like a week late, but I just wanted to comment on one thing...

Voting for Nader actually helps the Republican candidate for President. Im neither Republican or Democrat so im not saying whether that is a good or bad thing. But when you vote for Nader you essentially are giving your vote to a guy who will get one percent of the vote and that 1 percent is generally being taken away from the Democrat candidate.

Alot of political pundits believe that it may have cost Al Gore the 2000 election.


(yes I know Gore won the popular vote and that he may have very well be screwed by the Bush admin.....but add Naders votes to Gore's and it would have been a wide enough margin to make it so Bush would have never gotten elected)

A couple of things. First off, that premise is not accurate. A lot of people said that the votes that went to Nader would have went to the leading Democrat had Nader not run. This has been proven to be false, as most Nader voters would not have voted democrat. Nader and his team put a lot of work into proving this theory wrong. They found out that many Nader supporters would not have voted at all, and of the ones who woul have voted for someone else, more of them would have voted Republican over Democrat or voted for a smaller party. Nader didn't cost anybody the election, and the thought that he shouldn't run just because it takes votes away from somebody is stupid. Everybody takes votes away from somebody, its an election.

Secondly, fuck the democrats. They are almost as bad as the Republicans. None of the candidates on either side impress me at all. It generally comes down to "the lesser of two evils" and I refuse to vote for anyone that I do not actually support. I vote for who I believe in, I do not feel obliged in any way to help the Democrats win. Nader is the best man for the job in my opinion, he gets my vote. Simple as that

Maybe if more people paid attention to the smaller candidates, the ones who actually have ideas and think outside of the box, we could get rid of this rancid two party system.

[T.Beck]

third eye, though I disagree with you olitically I entirely agree with you about voting for who you believe in and not giving in to the lesser of two evils. Which is why my vote goes to Ron Paul, and though its a long shot I really think he has a chance at the nomination. Just curious, in the last election did you ay any attention to David Cobb, the Green Party canidate? I liked him better than Nader, he and Micheal Badnarick the Libertarian kinda teamed up in a fight against the Republicrat mainstream. They debated each other every time Kerry and Bush debated, it was interesting, Cobb was a way smart guy, though I disagreed with his economic policy he was right on with the War, Patriot Act, etc.

[Third_Eye]

third eye, though I disagree with you olitically I entirely agree with you about voting for who you believe in and not giving in to the lesser of two evils. Which is why my vote goes to Ron Paul, and though its a long shot I really think he has a chance at the nomination. Just curious, in the last election did you ay any attention to David Cobb, the Green Party canidate? I liked him better than Nader, he and Micheal Badnarick the Libertarian kinda teamed up in a fight against the Republicrat mainstream. They debated each other every time Kerry and Bush debated, it was interesting, Cobb was a way smart guy, though I disagreed with his economic policy he was right on with the War, Patriot Act, etc.

I didn't pay as much attention to them as I probably should have, but I was certainly aware. I think those kinds of things need to be more readily accessible to the general public, and should receive just as much face time as the Reps and Dems. Sadly, the money just isn't there and third party candidates will not be included in any of the mainstream debates

[Akc814ilv]

A couple of things. First off, that premise is not accurate. A lot of people said that the votes that went to Nader would have went to the leading Democrat had Nader not run. This has been proven to be false, as most Nader voters would not have voted democrat. Nader and his team put a lot of work into proving this theory wrong. They found out that many Nader supporters would not have voted at all, and of the ones who woul have voted for someone else, more of them would have voted Republican over Democrat or voted for a smaller party. Nader didn't cost anybody the election, and the thought that he shouldn't run just because it takes votes away from somebody is stupid. Everybody takes votes away from somebody, its an election.

Secondly, fuck the democrats. They are almost as bad as the Republicans. None of the candidates on either side impress me at all. It generally comes down to "the lesser of two evils" and I refuse to vote for anyone that I do not actually support. I vote for who I believe in, I do not feel obliged in any way to help the Democrats win. Nader is the best man for the job in my opinion, he gets my vote. Simple as that

Maybe if more people paid attention to the smaller candidates, the ones who actually have ideas and think outside of the box, we could get rid of this rancid two party system.


Nader's people may not think that is accurate, however ive seen plenty of other political "pundits" talking about it saying that it did cost them.

Obviously im not as big of an expert as Nader or Al Gore (who said that Nader running hurt him) so I was just talking about the one that I knew about.

Secondly...I agree with you that Democrats are pretty much just as worthless as Republicans. Im a Libertarian, so I dislike BOTH parties and I want a viable 3rd party as much as you do.

Im with T Beck in wanting Ron Paul to win, and during the primary's ill be voting for him. But when it comes time for the presidential elections and its Hillary vs Giuliani (more than likely) am I going to vote for just any old random 3rd party candidate?? Sadly no I wouldnt, unless I felt that a vote for that person could hurt one of the big two, and I just couldnt justify voting for their opponent.

With Hillary and Giuliani its either "do I vote for Beavis, or do I vote for Butthead?" However I cant justify just not voting either. So more than likely ill end up picking whichever one I hate the least.