Why people vote for a particular candidate

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

I'm standing behind Clinton because I feel like she is more capable of the current Dem. candidates. Yes, fancy words can inspire, but words are just words when there is no action behind them. And a promise is a comfort to a fool. Even though she is not the most popular person, I still feel like she is more about business. I find her having a very difficult time expressing that effectively due to trying to stay in the game at all. I will admit am also a very big feminist and I am so excited to have a woman! I also don't just her relationship with her husband because I'm not it it and it's not my business.

I wouldn't vote for Barack Obama and I am missing Edwards' angle in the debates. (And if he pops up as so-and-so's VP cand. I will not be very happy).

As far as the black angle for me...no one's really addressing it, so if someone only votes based on color they are just being a not very smart voter. No one's seems to be really addressing the black voters outside of church speeches, salons, or fried chicken parlors I don't feel like it's going to be dealt with much at all unfortunately...

Dealt with in what way specifically?

And have you been paying attention to Tavis Smiley lately?

[shinerbock]

Obviously whether you're taxed sufficiently or not has nothing to do with helping other people. You're free to distribute your own money how you choose to do so.

I'll vote for McCain because he is closer to my views on foreign policy, the war, taxation, and abortion/gay marriage. The overarching emphasis for me is the candidate that will best promote a culture of personal responsibility, and that is McCain, in my opinion (among the major candidates).

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Obviously whether you're taxed sufficiently or not has nothing to do with helping other people. You're free to distribute your own money how you choose to do so.

I'll vote for McCain because he is closer to my views on foreign policy, the war, taxation, and abortion/gay marriage. The overarching emphasis for me is the candidate that will best promote a culture of personal responsibility, and that is McCain, in my opinion (among the major candidates).

My attitude toward "personal responsibility" has changed over time. I used to be opposed to social/human service programs (welfare, job skills upgrade, transportation vouchers, child care subsidies, etc.) because I believed everyone should be responsible for taking the necessary steps to get what they need.

This attitude changed when I began working face to face with the people who are in need of these programs. Every single one of them is in need of some direction and education as to how to set goals for themselves and access the assistance they need to become self-sufficient. It's not an issue of laziness for the vast majority of people. It's an issue of ignorance. Those of us who have the knowledge to give have a responsibility to give it.

Taxes play a huge part in our country's ability to sustain programs necessary to bring people to self-sufficiency. Of course we are personally able to distribute our money as we choose, but how is my little pittance of a donation (I donate regularly to charities) going to make an impact without the donations of millions of other people? It's not.

Unfortunately, our government has the most resources and the greatest ability to collect mass amounts of money to distribute it. I wish it were not so, but because it is, I'd rather the government receive and distribute a small portion of my income across different programs.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Obviously whether you're taxed sufficiently or not has nothing to do with helping other people. You're free to distribute your own money how you choose to do so.

I'll vote for McCain because he is closer to my views on foreign policy, the war, taxation, and abortion/gay marriage. The overarching emphasis for me is the candidate that will best promote a culture of personal responsibility, and that is McCain, in my opinion (among the major candidates).

So you support that we may be in Iraq for God only knows how long and will be sending them more money that takes from programs here in the US needed to help people here....is that correct?


You are also for banning abortions and banning gay marriages also?


just asking...

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

I'm standing behind Clinton because I feel like she is more capable of the current Dem. candidates. Yes, fancy words can inspire, but words are just words when there is no action behind them.

I've asked people to explain where they're getting this idea from. Personally, I think it's strictly coming from the media and from Clinton. What type of action are you looking for exactly? Do you want action as a national official? He's got that as a senator. You only have to do some digging to learn more about what he's done for you. Do you want action in the private sector? Again, there is information out there for your perusal.

While there are downsides to Obama as a president, this is simply not one of them.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

My attitude toward "personal responsibility" has changed over time. I used to be opposed to social/human service programs (welfare, job skills upgrade, transportation vouchers, child care subsidies, etc.) because I believed everyone should be responsible for taking the necessary steps to get what they need.

This attitude changed when I began working face to face with the people who are in need of these programs. Every single one of them is in need of some direction and education as to how to set goals for themselves and access the assistance they need to become self-sufficient. It's not an issue of laziness for the vast majority of people. It's an issue of ignorance. Those of us who have the knowledge to give have a responsibility to give it.

Taxes play a huge part in our country's ability to sustain programs necessary to bring people to self-sufficiency. Of course we are personally able to distribute our money as we choose, but how is my little pittance of a donation (I donate regularly to charities) going to make an impact without the donations of millions of other people? It's not.

Unfortunately, our government has the most resources and the greatest ability to collect mass amounts of money to distribute it. I wish it were not so, but because it is, I'd rather the government receive and distribute a small portion of my income across different programs.

The government is highly ineffective at many things, social welfare programs being among those. They also have standards for such programs that don't satisfy those of the citizens who are forced to contribute.

I'm opposed to governmental redistribution of wealth. I'm for individual redistribution of wealth. I feel individuals are better equipped to discern the needs of the less fortunate.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

So you support that we may be in Iraq for God only knows how long and will be sending them more money that takes from programs here in the US needed to help people here....is that correct?


You are also for banning abortions and banning gay marriages also?


just asking...

I support us accomplishing our mission in Iraq. Whether it is possible, I'm not sure. All I know is that pulling out now would simply engender even more hatred towards the US, and provide an unregulated breeding ground for terrorism. So yes, I support our mission out of concern for future foreign relations and national security.

I'm conflicted about abortion, to a degree. I'm fundamentally opposed to abortion, but I'm not totally sure what I would do if I was the deciding vote. I prefer the "hearts and minds first" method, but I suspect I would vote to ban abortion procedures where the life of the mother was not at stake. I don't have an opinion on rape/incest exceptions, I wouldn't be fundamentally opposed to them.

I'm against gay marriage. I believe two men or two women don't fulfill the requirement for marriage. I'm not against civil unions, but I'm certainly not an advocate for them. I have no problem with gay couples receiving benefits that often accompany traditional marriage. I'm not a single issue voter, but if I were, this certainly wouldn't be it.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Ultimately, yes.

Amendments dont involve the president, you would need it to pass through congree and then be ratified at a special convention by the states.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Amendments dont involve the president, you would need it to pass through congree and then be ratified at a special convention by the states.

As a DC resident, I am well aware of this.

The active support of a sitting president would be invaluable in this process.