Kucinich for President 2008 (NVR)
I didn't want to co-opt the thread on Kucinich's food poisoning. So I've started a new one because I think everyone should look at his position on the issues:
Particularly read the paper he submitted to Congress in 2002 stating the reasons why the U.S. should *not* go to war in Iraq. He said everythng that's been brought out since the war turned "sour" on us way before it happened. If more than 125 Democrats had taken it seriously and voted against the war from the get-go, we wouldn't be in the horrible mess we're in now. Even my hawkish, veteran of 20 years in the U.S. Army, DH is saying now that it's all been a big mistake: http://kucinich.us/files/pdfs/Oct2002Analysis.pdf
His work on repealing the so-called Patriot Act is also a good read:
http://kucinich.us/issues/patriot_act.php
Also if you have time, read up on the health care bill he's co-sponsoring with John Conyers:
http://kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php
Don't just support him because he's vegan, support him because so far he seems to be the best candidate, IMHO. 8)
The only candidate I can really get behind so far is Ron Paul. He is against the patriot act and wants minimal government involvement. He believes many issues should be resolved by state
Yeah, never mind the fact that he's cozy with miltia-minded groups and has a racist past. Other than that, he's cool.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/04/taking-a-closer-look-at-ron-paul/
The only candidate I can really get behind so far is Ron Paul. He is against the patriot act and wants minimal government involvement. He believes many issues should be resolved by state
Yeah, never mind the fact that he's cozy with miltia-minded groups and has a racist past. Other than that, he's cool.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/04/taking-a-closer-look-at-ron-paul/
Don't forget one of his biggest supporters was Pat Robertson!!!
Ya, he's cool if you want to be forced to give birth in a world that looks like Mars ruled by evangelicals.
instead of trying to vote in an awesome guy for now (kucinich), im going to look at the long term aspects of things for later: more options!!!
If everyone voted for the person who they thought would win, and not for who they thought would be the best, then there would never, ever be a third party.
I think in tight races it's okay to vote for the front runner. Imagine if more people in Ohio voted for who they thought would win, then we might not have Bush for a second term. I live in California, which is a Democrat given, so I feel more free to vote for whomever I feel best represents my viewpoint. Sometimes your greatest interest is keeping someone out of office.
Now I'm registered as NO PARTY AFFILIATION. I love it. The wording on my voter card is cool... I can't remember what it says I think it's "Non-Affiliated" or something.
Me too! :)
I think playing into the mentality of "certain people dont have a chance" is what keeps the current BS system in place
mind control on the masses, so everyone believes a certain way
It's not that people don't have a chance, it's that there are clearly front runners. If I lived in Ohio in 2004 my conscience would be most geared protecting the country from another four years of Bush. I would not be voting for a candidate, but against a candidate. The way to vote against a candidate is to vote for his rival. Voting against him isn't throwing away a vote; but it would have resulted in saving a lot of lives.
It's not mind control... it's math and compromise.
In the primaries, I believe one should vote with their heart. This is where you stake your flag and say, "This is what I believe and this is the person I believe in!"
However, when the actual election comes, then you have to do what made this nation great: compromise. Just because politicians won't nowadays, doesn't mean you can't lead by example. When it comes to the election, you look who has the popular support, who has the mathematical chance of succeeding and decide from there. You decide based on where you staked your flag and who is closest to it.
Who am I voting for int the primaries? (Assuming their hats are is still in the ring) Either Kucinich or Bill Richardson.
After that, it's whatever candidate comes closest to their platforms. That might mean a serious concession (especially if Clinton gets the nomination), but it may also mean 4 less years of fear mongering and a slow in the creep towards corporate fascism.
and_it_spoke - May I add getting into it with Iran? If we do that it will be a whole new ball game. Bush has targeted weaker countries so far. The conservatives have no realistic idea of what will happen if we preemptively attack a country that can back up its indignation.
I think it's okay to vote for whomever if your state is so heavily conservative or liberal that all of the votes on "other other side" don't match the votes for the front runner. Then your vote adds to the numbers of people who don't vote for either leading candidate and it sends a message that we're dissatisfied with the system. However, if I lived in one of those key swing states, I would be playing and_it_spoke's nuimber game.
You're right "and it spoke", Richardson is pretty good too. He's more of a politician than Kucinich (in the negative sense of that) and not as progressive in general, but he does know how to get things done. He's been very positive, concretely not just in words, for LGBT people in New Mexico (despite the recent flap). Like he made New Mexico the fourth in the country to pass a transgender anti-discrimination law (there are eight so far) along with sexual orientation discrimination, and hate crimes laws for both, and he also twice blocked a state DOMA bill from seeing the light of day, and gave gay and lesbian state employees domestic partner benefits by executive order. Before 2003, none of this stuff had happened and the state was about to get very nasty toward queer people. He turned everything around. Plus he voted against don't ask don't tell when he was in congress in the early 90's, when doing that wasn't popular at all. So on this particular thing, at least, he's pretty good. Kucinich might still be better! But Richardson's second. (Gavel is okay with LGBT stuff, but his support for highly regressive taxation is crazy IMO.)
I totally agree with and_it_spoke and HH, there is a case where one needs math and compromise and yep, if I lived in a swing state I'd have to vote based on that fact.
Voting as a CA resident, I have more of a chance to be ideological.
My husband votes in FL and does not. I could change my residency to FL, where I somehow feel my vote is worth more. But for some reason I just can't do it. :(
I guess, when the revolution comes I want to be affliated with CA. ;)
Hey, do any of you live in states with closed primaries???
We should remember that all states primaries are not run the same way.
CA is open, but was only made open recently I believe.
and_it_spoke - May I add getting into it with Iran? If we do that it will be a whole new ball game. Bush has targeted weaker countries so far. The conservatives have no realistic idea of what will happen if we preemptively attack a country that can back up its indignation.
I think it's okay to vote for whomever if your state is so heavily conservative or liberal that all of the votes on "other other side" don't match the votes for the front runner. Then your vote adds to the numbers of people who don't vote for either leading candidate and it sends a message that we're dissatisfied with the system. However, if I lived in one of those key swing states, I would be playing and_it_spoke's nuimber game.
We also have left Saudi Arabia alone when most of the 9/11 terrorists including Bin Laden came from there. Almost all of the terrorist funding came from Saudi Arabia. I don't remember her name but one of the Princesses in the Saudi royal family was found to have given Al Qada lots and lots of $$. I also believe that Bin Laden is not in Pakistan or Afghanistan but back home in Saudi Arabia and probably has lunch quite often with his mother! The Saudis have made some token gestures towards punishing internal terrorists and there have been some attacks there in Saudi Arabia but it's all smoke screen.
And there's what we're doing in South America that doesn't really get proper attention.
I don't watch TV. How do you say his name? can someone spell it out phonetically for me? Is it Koo si nich? or Koo ki nich?
Koosinitch
kew SIN itch (I think)
koo SIN itch
Fixed! :)
The only candidate I can really get behind so far is Ron Paul. He is against the patriot act and wants minimal government involvement. He believes many issues should be resolved by state
I just saw a YouTube clip on Ron Paul. He visited Google headquarters. If you follow him, you may know the answer to this. He was saying government needs to stay out of business. Do you think its his position that things like the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act are government interference getting in the way of financial progress? It wasn't a long enough clip to figure it out.
Bumping this thread again since I missed it before... nobody brought up my favorite thing about Kucinich. He launched the first bill to call for GM food to be labelled- the "Engineered Food Right to Know Act." This will never happen with the biotech Monsanto drones in power.
The only candidate I can really get behind so far is Ron Paul. He is against the patriot act and wants minimal government involvement. He believes many issues should be resolved by state
I just saw a YouTube clip on Ron Paul. He visited Google headquarters. If you follow him, you may know the answer to this. He was saying government needs to stay out of business. Do you think its his position that things like the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act are government interference getting in the way of financial progress? It wasn't a long enough clip to figure it out.
I specifically remember he is. He would also eliminate the EPA and other gov agencies.
Anybody who says they are against government interference/for minimal gov is calling for the elimination of everything, except the military and police. Let the market decide, gov needs to stay out of business, and the elimination of the IRS among others are positions of those who would repeal the ESA and other environmental laws.
Thanks, SB. I'm definitely not in the Ron Paul camp then.
I think OSHA keeping greedy corporations from undercutting safety is a good thing. I think industries polluting groundwater (i.e., drinking water) is a bad thing. I think allowing developers free reign doesn't serve our nation. I believe the working class still deserves representation.
Another white, just-out-of-middle-age, straight man, and roman catholic to boot! How original. He may be all for animal rights, etc., but what about women's rights?? His record on Choice is rather pitiful, and he seems to have only recently "changed his mind" (!) on the issue... !
More of the same.
Yawn...
Pages