Vote for the next President of the United States right here on the Wacco List!
If you don't like any of the choices then you can write in your own candidate or choice.
Have fun!
Printable View
Vote for the next President of the United States right here on the Wacco List!
If you don't like any of the choices then you can write in your own candidate or choice.
Have fun!
US presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, is the leading favorite for the White House in the Wacco community!
I have just one question:
Who the hell is Ron Paul???
Right. The key word is "government". Here's the thing that too many people (especially those holding office or positions within our "government" ) do not understand: the "Government" is supposed to be You, Me, my next door neighbor, the corner grocery store owner and his/her employees, and so on.
The Government= We the People.
But today, We the People do not seem to understand (not so insignificant point) what exactly the authors of OUR Constitution intended. Congress Critters are supposed to be doing the business of We the People, but We the People are supposed to be active participants in our OWN GOVERNANCE. Congress is supposed to represent our interests, and we are supposed to give them their marching orders. But we don't do that, and they go to Washington doing the bidding for the Korporations who chose and paid for them to be there in the first place.
For instance, if We the People should collectively decide that ALL citizens should have unfettered ACCESS to good HealthCare (not just for the wealthy) essentially a Free College Education (no more life long debts vis a vis the "college school loan" racket) that these basic things benefit ALL of us in our communities and society at large (We the People) in order to maintain an educated and healthy society (goes to the core essence of "national security" is a achieved and maintained, as well as genuine Liberty as we would be functioning in a genuine democracy) ...
We the People (you and I, sisters and brothers) are supposed to be the Government. That was the INTENTION (in part) of the Declaration of Independence and the Purpose of the Constitution was to cofidy that intent.
If We the People finally decide (collectively) to actually reclaim our democracy, the Government would then be returned to the people, (we reclaim the notion the 'Government R Us. ) then we will no longer have to go around and around these endless circles wrt to these false dichotemies and we would ALL be Libertarians. But at the moment, Korporations run our government, buy off candidates for Congress, the Supreme Court, Justice Dept. and the Executive branch (as well as other important offices and positions) and they write the laws for their own benefit and screw the people. And we let them. If Libertarians were to call for reclaiming our democracy with the notion that it was intended for We the People to be the Government, instead of that tired and flawed meme that there 'should not be any government' or the government should be "small".. (what does that mean in a nation that is currently populated with over 300 Million people and growing, and We are the Government?) I suspect, that people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would be a serious force to be reckoned with, instead of sneared at and marginalized by the Korporate Fascists who own the Media and the bootlicking spokespeople...
until then, brothers and sisters, we allow fascism to rule the day in this country... but I wonder for how much longer?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by d-cat:
While it is important to examine the views and policy positions of presidential candidates, I find it equally significant to determine who each candidate plans to appoint to cabinet and advisory roles. Power is delegated to these individuals and any number of scandals and embarassments begin at this source. I also like to know just who the major intellectual and financial backers (corporate and individual) are to see in advance who is expecting payback and whether the promises made in the campaign can be expected to be kept.
One of the inherent weaknesses of our system is that each new president has to learn the job from scratch and has a learning curve depending on their abilities and those of their senior advisors. They get briefings on foreign policy and domestic issues but the same mistakes seem to be repeated. This is becoming a real liability in an ever more dangerous world. And I don't think we're ready to go to a parliamentary system.
So I plan to cringe and vote for the lesser evil once again.
I went to site to check out this story and then, at the bottom of article saw that the guy writing it was a creep who had dealings with the Swiftboat jerks. That did it for me...I wouldn't believe a thing he says.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by d-cat:
The problem is the current ( and past, and likely later) crop are all politicians and not leaders. None of them are fit to command a canoe. I also do not recognize the U.S, Government as the legitimate rulers of my people.
I hear ya! I myself don't recognize the US government as a legitimate entity, and I'm a white boy, LOL!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iron Buffalo:
Dixon
I second the motion!
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
I just checked out the DissidentVoice.org website and it's a good source of information.
I would like to strongly recommend another good source:
www.democracynow.org. Among other things, they have a broadcast with Amy Goodman as anchor and you can watch it anytime. They have a new program 5 days a week and up to date with the latest issues. You need Real Player to view it.
Edward
This question led to many posts about Ron Paul, so I have them off into their own thread here:
Ron Paul, Libertarianism and the U.N.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by roble:
Ron Paul is another closet fascist we don't need for president.
Edward
Edward,
Name calling does not advance the discussion.
~ Neshamah
I'll try to be more careful.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Neshamah:
So far, fascist Ron Paul is leading the Wacco poll for US President with an astonishing 6 votes and the Phiant is hot on his heals with 5 votes, which goes to show you how seriously the Wacco community is taking this election (or at least this poll).
Al Gore and Condi Rice are both tied with 3 votes for a distant third place. Hillary, Obama, Kucinich, and all the other contenders have proven to be "chump change" thus far!
Edward
In the Iowa Caucus last Thursday, Barak Obama came out victorious, with distant 2nd and 3rd places for Edwards and Clinton respectively.
I did not see, however, either Ron Paul or The Phiant do very well in Iowa, which are the two most popular candidates in the Wacco community.
Why is this?
Edward
But he beat both McCain and Guliani.
Iowa Caucus Results 2008
Democratic Caucus Results
Independents supported Obama at 41%, Edwards at 23% and Clinton at 17%. With many Independent voters in New Hampshire, things appear great for Obama.
Voters aged 17-29 supported Obama at 57% and they comprised of 22% of the voting bloc. Voters aged 30-44 comprised of another 18% of the voters and supported Obama at 42%.
52% of voters said that a candidate that can bring change is the top candidate quality and Obama cleaned up with those voters getting 51%. Edwards won among voters who cared about electability 36% with Clinton in second at 30, and Obama was far behind with 23%.
Republican Caucus Results
Born-Again or Evangelical Christian Voters decided this election in Huckabee's favor.
Huckabee - 46%
Romney - 19%
Thompson - 11%
Paul - 10%
McCain - 10%
Giuliani - 2%
Women also helped to decide this GOP election, here is how the women votes broke down.
Huckabee - 40%
Romney - 24%
McCain - 13%
Thompson - 10%
Paul - 8%
Independent Voters in the Republican Caucus
Ron Paul - 29%
John McCain - 23%
Mitt Romney - 19%
Mike Huckabee - 17%
Ron Paul was the best at converting the Independent voters and this proves that he will be a formidable threat in New Hampshire.
Ron Paul finished third among the youngest of voters but excelled in the 17-29 age group with 21%.
17% of voters decided as to who they were supporting the day of the caucus. Here is how those voters broke down.
Huckabee - 29%
Thompson - 19%
Romney - 18%
McCain - 17%
Paul - 13%
Giuliani - 2%
https://tinyurl.com/2jebc9
There isn't a single Republican candidate that is worth a darn. But the worst of the lot is Ron Paul, a loser who will get his rear end thrashed before the election is over. Ron Paul was behind several other candidates and it's not going to get much better for him as time goes by.
Edward
You got me, Porky; I am the Phiant. I thought that I could get away with more trolling by changing my handle repeatedly but it didn't work. Put the cuffs on and take me away. You were very astute in observing all of those clues. You would make a good detective.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by porky:
I already voted for Hillary Rodham, absentee ballot.
Edward
Well I have to say I really enjoyed your list of interesting candidates. Who to choose tough. Now a few I think would add some dimension to it are Mykil - can you just imagine, Jeff (Braggi) another interesting choice of course and well that guy Rudy from New York who is really running.
Edward, run out to the mailbox ond retrieve that ill-considered vote before it's too late! Why? The longish quote below explains it better than I could:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
Issue Date: March 3, 2007
Hillary Clinton's Hawkish Record
By STEPHEN ZUNES
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has already assumed front-runner status for the Democratic Party nomination for president despite a foreign policy agenda that closely parallels that of the Bush administration.
Since most of the public criticism of the former first lady has been based
on false and exaggerated charges from the right wing, often with a fair dose of sexism, many Democrats have become defensive and reluctant to criticize her. Some liberals end up believing conservative charges that she is on the left wing of the Democratic Party when in reality her foreign policy positions are far closer to Ronald Reagan than George McGovern.
For example, she opposes the international treaty to ban land mines.
She voted against the Feinstein-Leahy amendment last September restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them
against civilian-populated areas.
She opposes restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses, such as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Israel, Pakistan,
Cameroon and Chad, to name only a few.
She insists upon continuing unconditional funding for the Iraq war and has called for dramatic increases in Bush's already bloated military budget.
She has challenged the credibility of Amnesty International and other human rights groups that criticize policies of the United States and its
allies.
Mrs. Clinton has been one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of the
United Nations, even serving as the featured speaker at rallies outside U.N.
headquarters in July 2004 and last summer to denounce the world body.
She voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq despite its being a clear
violation of the U.N. Charter and in July 2004 falsely accused the United
Nations of not taking a stand against terrorism when it has opposed U.S.
policy.
She was one of the most prominent critics ofthe International Court of Justice for its landmark 2004 advisory ruling that the Fourth Geneva
Convention on the Laws of War is legally binding on all signatory nations.
She condemned the United Nations judicial arm for challenging the legality
of Israel's separation barrier in the occupied West Bank and sponsored a
Senate resolution "...urging no further action by the United Nations to delay
or prevent the construction of the security fence."
Mrs. Clinton has shown little regard for the danger from proliferation of
nuclear weapons, not only opposing the enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions challenging Pakistan, Israel and India's nuclear weapons
programs but supporting the delivery of nuclear-capable missiles and jet
fighters to these countries. This past fall she voted to suspend important
restrictions on U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
At the same time, she insists that the prospect of Iran's developing nuclear
weapons "...must be unacceptable to the entire world", since challenging the nuclear monopoly of the United States and its allies in the region would
somehow "...shake the foundation of global security to
its very core."
Last year, she accused the Bush administration of not taking the threat of a
nuclear Iran seriously enough, criticized the administration for allowing
European nations to take the lead in pursuing a diplomatic solution and
insisted that the United States should make it clear that military options
were still being actively considered.
Meanwhile, she insists that the United States should maintain the right to
use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.
Mrs. Clinton was an outspoken supporter of Israel's massive military assault on the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip last summer, which took the lives of over 1,000 civilians. She justified it by claiming it would "...send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the
Syrians [and] to the Iranians" because they opposed the United States and
Israel's commitment to "life and freedom."
There are questions regarding her integrity. Long after credible,
well-documented published reports by American and Israeli newspapers and research institutes had refuted it, Sen. Clinton continued to cite a
right-wing group's 1999 report claiming the Palestinian Authority was
publishing anti-Semitic textbooks. Like President Bush, she is more prone to believe ideologically driven propaganda than independent investigative
reporting or scholarly research.
Similarly, ignoring substantial evidence that Iraq had already rid itself of
its chemical and biological weapons and no longer had a nuclear program,
Mrs. Clinton justified her calls for a U.S. invasion of Iraq on the grounds
that "...if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons." Even after it was discovered that Iraq no longer
had "weapons of mass destruction", Mrs. Clinton acknowledged last year that she would have voted to authorize the invasion anyway.
Should Hillary Clinton become the Democratic presidential nominee, we can
expect to find little difference between her and her Republican rival. Except for long shots Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Sen. Mike Gravel, none of the Democratic candidates have taken consistent positions supporting peace, human rights and international law. But with the possible exception of Sen. Joe Biden, Mrs. Clinton is the most hawkish Democrat in the presidential race.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics at the
University of San Francisco
Look who's backing Hillary! The owner of Fox News! Go figure.
Here's his donation to her:
https://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26020631605
And that's in addition to his fundraising for her:
https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006...n1816866.shtml
And you wanna know something else about Hillary?
https://www.judicialwatch.org/judici...liticians-2007
This year please, please temper your idealism or cynicism with realism and vote to actually make a difference by supporting an electable candidate, not help a more undesirable candidate by wasting your precious vote. Please read The Press Democrat's well-written editorial endorsing Barack Obama below and visit www.barackobama.com to see his positions on the issues:
For Obama
In a well-qualified field, his vision of future offers best hope
All three Democratic presidential front-runners are intelligent and thoughtful.
All speak to strong party desires to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, reform health care and address environmental problems.
But Democrats voting in California's Feb. 5 primary don't have three votes to cast -- they have one.
It was a tough choice, but we recommend that Sen. Barack Obama receive that vote.
It may be trite to use words that have been bandied about during this campaign, but a vote for Obama is a vote for change.
On the night of his victory in Iowa, the Illinois senator told Americans, "This was the moment when we finally beat back the policies of fear and doubts and cynicism, the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up."
For Americans parched from years of divisiveness, Obama's vision of a country united around a common purpose is like a cool drink of water.
The other candidates have much to offer, too. The centerpiece of former Sen. John Edwards' campaign is a proposal to end what he calls the "two Americas" -- citizens divided by income disparity and job and educational opportunities. The son of a millworker, Edwards speaks from the heart when he talks about the problems of rural America and the difficulties of getting by on a minimum wage job.
As the first serious female presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Clinton is an inspiration to millions of women struggling to take that next step on the ladder to success. She promises a return to the progressive policies that boosted the middle class and provided low-income families with new opportunities.
But as commentator Andrew Sullivan writes in the Dec. 10 issue of The Atlantic, both Edwards and Clinton are burdened by their birth dates. As baby boomers, they both represent the battles over the last war -- Vietnam -- and all the baggage that went with it.
As boomers, their ability to heal the post-1960s division of the country is limited: Edwards gained political prominence as the 2004 running mate of John Kerry, whose candidacy centered on his history as a Vietnam veteran who eventually opposed the war.
Clinton may always be defined by her activist years at Wellesley. More critically, Clinton is burdened with the vestiges of her husband's mistakes -- and of the hatred that the couple engenders among many Republicans.
And then there is the dynasty problem: If Clinton is elected, at the end of her four-year term, the country will have been ruled by two families for 24 years.
Obama is technically a boomer, too, but by the time he came of age, the '60s were over. His battles aren't about the past -- they are about the nation's future.
Obama provides Democrats the best hope of giving the nation change and a new start. He speaks with eloquence and passion, qualities that are sorely lacking among the nation's leaders. He also speaks to moderate America. He built a reputation in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate for working in a bipartisan fashion to build consensus and resolve issues. He also has a cross-party appeal that, fair or not, Hillary Clinton lacks.
Finally, we also believe, contrary to the opinion of some, that Obama can win this nomination. Some believe America is not ready for a black man to be president. We believe the greatest risk is letting -- either through fear or prejudice -- that opinion prevail.
We don't endorse Obama for the Democratic nomination because he is African American. We don't endorse him because he is a man. He receives our endorsement because we believe he is the best candidate for the nomination.
In his Iowa speech, Obama promised, "I'll be a president who . . . restores our moral standing, who understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century."
Of the Democrats, Obama is best positioned to keep that promise. The Press Democrat recommends Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic primary Feb. 5.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Ron Paul is an electable candidate. Don't believe corporate media when they tell you he isn't. He's breaking fundraising records, and came in second in the last two primaries beating so-called "frontrunners".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by craig mason:
A Ron Paul surge in Nevada
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...paul-surg.html
Ron Paul 2nd in Louisiana
https://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=54146
And look at the amazing crowds he draws:
Philadelphia Nov 10, 2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM-2Ypm-KeQ
Santa Monica Dec 16, 2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNP1-bokv2g
Mountain View 07/14/07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFwP0Q8WQFU
Ron Paul also wins the majority of Straw Polls:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
But unless it's to try to smear him or to say he doesn't have a chance, corporate media won't report on this popular anti-war candidate. He is a threat to their owners as well as the military industrial complex. But you can find out all about him here:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
The Difference: Barack Obama & Ron Paul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8
.
About a year ago, when I knew this would be the most wide open election in fifty years, I was very excited about the prospect of finding a candidate I could enthusiastically support. When the media revealed the available candidates, I was profoundly disappointed. Rather than sit out the primaries altogether, I registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul, the only candidate who will at least shake things up enough to give the country a new start.
If I was able to vote in the Democratic Primary, I would vote for Barack Obama. What he lacks in experience he makes up in education and intellect. Fair or not, he is also far less divisive than Hillary Clinton.
Speaking of unfair, Ron Paul has been treated most unfairly by the media, and although he has tempered the bellicose rhetoric of the Republican debates, and may garner enough delegates to have an impact, his chances of winning the Presidency disappeared when he failed to even place third in New Hampshire. The sad reality of our primary process is that failing to place first (second is not enough) in any early state ends a presidential bid long before most voters have a chance to say anything. I'm still voting for him February 5, and I hope for something unprecedented, but history is against it. He has said he will not run as a third party candidate, and even if he did, a third party success would be even more unprecedented.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama is not only the best candidate still in the race, he is also the most electable.
~ Neshamah
Have you seen this video footage yet, made by Bev Harris of Hacking Democracy fame who followed the ballots around in NH?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Neshamah:
The 'Shame of Custody' - NH Primary Election (6 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM
Here's her documentary Hacking Democracy:
https://video.google.com/videoplay?d...76866669054201
Remember the words of Samuel Adams, Neshamah :):
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Orchard Dweller,
There is something vitally important about Ron Paul that you fail to address: Ron Paul is an anti-abortionist s.o.b!
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
In addition to New Hampshire, it looks like there was monkey business going on in Louisiana too, where they still haven't released the official numbers from the Jan 22nd caucus. It appears that Ron Paul actually took first.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
“The initial failure of the Louisiana GOP to properly determine who was and wasn’t eligible to vote threw this entire process into disarray,” said Ron Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “However, voter eligibility was just one of many irregularities with the caucus process. We are filing this contest to ensure that we can challenge the results if it appears that delegates were improperly selected.”
The Louisiana State GOP changed the rules at the eleventh hour to allow other candidates to file more delegates, even though there were plenty of delegates to compose full slates in each congressional district. At the time of the original January 10 deadline, Ron Paul had the largest number of delegates pledged to him. The party then changed the rules to give other candidates until January 12 to file more delegates.
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-re...-louisiana-gop
It really appears that Dr. Paul is doing much better in the primaries than the GOP are willing to admit!
Hey, Orchy, I bet Ron Paul would become president if there was no monkey business whatsoever going on. Paul would be elected by landslides greater than those of FDR's. FDR was popular because he rescued this country from the economic mess created by policies just like the ones that Paul stands for.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
"I am voting for Hillary Clinton to be the FIRST woman to be elected President of the United States. I am excited and empowered by the prospect. I find most of the criticisms of her pretty lame (just like the above by STEPHEN ZUNES) . Whoever gets the job will face a huge mess, both domestically and globally. What we need is to at least get on the right track. We need to win. I will support whoever gets the nomination, but I won't miss my chance to vote for a woman for president.Quote:
As the first serious female presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Clinton is an inspiration to millions of women struggling to take that next step on the ladder to success. She promises a return to the progressive policies that boosted the middle class and provided low-income families with new opportunities.
But as commentator Andrew Sullivan writes in the Dec. 10 issue of The Atlantic, both Edwards and Clinton are burdened by their birth dates. As baby boomers, they both represent the battles over the last war -- Vietnam -- and all the baggage that went with it.
As boomers, their ability to heal the post-1960s division of the country is limited: Edwards gained political prominence as the 2004 running mate of John Kerry, whose candidacy centered on his history as a Vietnam veteran who eventually opposed the war.
Clinton may always be defined by her activist years at Wellesley. More critically, Clinton is burdened with the vestiges of her husband's mistakes -- and of the hatred that the couple engenders among many Republicans.
And then there is the dynasty problem: If Clinton is elected, at the end of her four-year term, the country will have been ruled by two families for 24 years.
FYI: When a given poster calls Ron Paul a fascist, those who have done their homework about Ron might conclude that the said poster is an opinionated jackass. Once one gets the reputation as nothing more than "opinionated", their ability to communicate anything with anyone drops to around zero. Taking an OJ seriously requires one to be very principled, to the point of abandoning reason itself in ones effort to even consider the OJ's opinion of the day.
Ron Paul is leading the Wacco Poll because Ron Paul represents what the majority of the Waccos on this board want in a president. Simple as that, bra. :wink:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
I'm always amazed that otherwise intelligent people will vote for someone simply based on gender or race. Yes, it's exciting that a black racist and a female criminal are running for office, but we musn't miss the fact that neither are principled people, and so neither are viable candidates for president. Before you point to Bush or Clinton, I admit they were mistakes as well. But those mistakes don't justify making the same mistake of electing a white/black/yellow/red man or woman to the office of president.
I pray that America comes down off the high that "voting for a woman" gives them and that America will insist that one of the parties put up a principled man or woman as a candidate, or that we'll elect one ourselves (Ron Paul).
:thumbsup:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by santarosie:
And Barrack Hussein Obama is a racist, and Hellary Clinton is a criminal. Let's think...I don't get your thinking: "I'd rather elect a racist or a criminal than someone who doesn't support killing babies before they're born".
I don't understand that kind of thinking, sir.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
WOW, an OB/GYN that is against abortion! Imagine that!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
And you are right, I am a Sorry Old Boy. :2cents:
Here I thought it stood for "Sensitive Old Boy"! LOL :2cents:
Don
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Lenny: