AF U.S Presidential Poll!

[drunken monkey]

call them what you want, it's still going to be a tax collection organisation with the same sort of problems as before. The only difference is that a simpler, more transparent taxing system means there should be less of those same problems. It doesn't mean that there won't be any problems.

Question; how are they going to check that
i) you are spending what you say you are spending
ii) you are paying what the stores say you are paying
iii) you are paying a fair amount for the things you are buying?

If anything, this kind of tax produces an environment that are even harder for the government to verify which leads to perhaps, more checks in the system.

[blazee]

Originally Posted by Damien

Also, wasn't Ron Paul the idiot that said he wanted to make a United America? I can see Mexico and Canada beaming with excitement. Why become apart of something when things now work fine and you can use it almost whenever you want.

I'm not aware of anything like that, if he did I'd like to see it. I find it doubtful, though, considering his numerous public stances against such a thing. He even opposes many of the other international organizations. He wants America to be run by Americans, citing that such organizations allow foreign non-elected officials to have a say in the US government.


Article by Ron Paul:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm

"

A North American United Nations?

August 28, 2006

Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.
According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.
Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.
Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:
"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007"
Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?
The website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?
Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.
Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.
This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States."






http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/am...d-sovereignty/

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.
NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.
And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.
Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.
We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.

Originally Posted by Oz

Keep voting Republican because you're scared shitless about the current state and future of the US economy.

Here's an insight to the wise - the current Republican administration is largely responsible for the current US economy crisis.

If I could, my vote would go to Obama.

He is definitely not an average republican, and nothing like the current administration. He's a libertarian and constitutionalist. His goal would be to basically undo everything the current administration has done, as well as everything that has gone against the constitution. It seems that he would be the choice of people in other countries, due to his desire for the US to butt out of other countries' affairs.


Taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul
Foreign policy


Nonintervention

Paul's foreign policy is one of nonintervention,[8][9] which avoids war of aggression and entangling alliances with other nations, in the tradition of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. He is the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have spoken out and voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[10][11] In 2003, he said that war must be fought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as planned. He added that, "The American public deserves clear goals and a winning exit strategy in Iraq." [12]
Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe among others.[13] He denies being an isolationist: he advocates "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations".[14] National Journal rated Paul's overall foreign policies as 20% conservative and 77% liberal in 2006 (28% and 72%, respectively, in 2005).[15]
He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty,[9][16] and supports free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens,[17] and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty.

International organizations

Paul supports ending participation in and funding of organizations he believes override U.S. sovereignty, such as the International Criminal Court, the United Nations, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the WTO, the NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.[18]

Iraq

Paul objected to and voted against the Iraq War Resolution,[10][11] and continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. He believes a just declaration of war after the September 11, 2001 attacks would have been enough against the actual terrorists, Al-Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which has not been linked to the attacks.[19] When America seeks war, Paul believes Congress must fully approve it with a complete declaration of war, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory. However, the original authorization to invade Iraq (Public Law 107-243), passed in late 2002, authorized the president to use military force against Iraq to achieve only the following two specific objectives: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."[20] Accordingly, Paul introduced legislation to add a sunset clause to the original authorization.[21]
During the 2003 invasion, he found himself "annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that he was taught as a Christian. The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”[22] Paul's consistent opposition to the war expanded his conservative and libertarian Republican support base[23] to include liberal Democrats.

Iran

Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle."[24] He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which the Iraq War began, and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran.[citation needed] In the U.S. House of Representatives, only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the U.N. to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter.[25]

Darfur and Sudanese divestment

In a National Public Radio interview, Paul advocated a "moral statement" rather than direct military humanitarian intervention such as in the Darfur conflict or Rwandan Genocide.[citation needed] In his speech before the House on a related bill, H. Con. Res. 467[26], Paul rejected the proposal for "[urging] the Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the UN Security Council fail to act." Paul argued the unrelatedness of the proposal to "the US national interest" or "the Constitutional function of [United States] military forces".[27] The resolution passed unanimously, with Paul among 12 non-voters.[28]
Paul was the only "no" vote on House Resolution 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (passed 418-1-13), which intended to "require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, [and] to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies."[29] Paul cited the past ineffectiveness of sanctions against Cuba and Iraq as evidence against divestment from businesses connected to the Sudanese government.[30] Proponents of Sudanese divestment legislation cite recent advertisement campaigns by the Sudanese government, and the complete withdrawal of large suppliers such as CHC Helicopter Corporation, Rolls Royce, and ABB, as evidence of the effectiveness of Sudanese divestment.[31]

International trade

Paul is a proponent of free trade, and opposes many "free trade agreements" including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),[32] stating that "free-trade agreements are really managed trade".[33] He says they serve special interests and big business, not citizens.[34] He often proposes instead that the U.S. engage in unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at home (similar to Hong Kong's approach), rather than send massive, unaccountable foreign aid.[citation needed][Neutrality disputed — See talk page]
He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional.[32] He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that "fast track" powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTA's on the country's behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTA's.[34]
Paul also has an above 83% pro fair trade voting record in the House of Representatives according to Global Trade Watch.[18]

Borders and immigration

Paul believes that the government, neglecting a Constitutional responsibility to protect its borders, has concentrated instead on unconstitutionally policing foreign countries.[Neutrality disputed — See talk page][35] During the Cold War, he supported Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,[36] intended to replace the "strategic offense" doctrine of mutual assured destruction with strategic defense.
Paul's immigration positions sometimes differ with libertarian think tanks and the official platform of the U.S. Libertarian Party.[37] He believes illegal immigrants take a toll on welfare and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal immigrants, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[17] Paul's Congressional voting record earned a lifetime grade of B and a recent grade of B+ from Americans for Better Immigration.[38]
Paul believes all immigrants should be treated fairly and equally[Neutrality disputed — See talk page], under law, through "coherent immigration policy". He has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal immigrants because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers,[39] and subsidizes more illegal immigration.[citation needed] Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico. He believes it a folly to spend much money policing other countries' borders, such as the Iraq–Syria border, because he thinks the U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.[40]
Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic citizenship.[41] He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship", in order to address welfare issues.[42][Neutrality disputed — See talk page]

Terrorism


Letters of marque and reprisal

Paul, calling the September 11, 2001, attacks an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects, instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[19] Paul reproposed this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.[43] He voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.[44]

Investigation

Paul supports reopening investigation into the attacks to discover why the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not act on 70 internal field tips: "We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention."[45] He also advocates investigating why the various intelligence agencies could not collaborate on information to prevent the attacks while spending $40 billion per year.[45][46] He has called the 9/11 Commission Report a "charade": "Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends."[47]

Rejection of conspiracy theory

Paul does not believe the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were a government conspiracy and has explicitly denied being a 9/11 truther, arguing the issue is not a conspiracy but a failure of bureaucracy.[45][46] He believes the 9/11 Commission Report's main goal was "to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not ... to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war .... Some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done."[45][48] He does not think the government would have staged such an attack.[49] When asked whether "9/11 was orchestrated by the government", Paul emphasized, "Absolutely not."[50]
John Gibson of Fox News confronted Paul about being interviewed by Austin Texas radio talk show host Alex Jones. Gibson asked Paul to "say right here and now that you completely disavow the 9/11 truth movement and the whole idea that the U.S. government was in on the 9/11 attack", which Paul immediately did.[citation needed]

U.S. embargo against Cuba

In 2000, Paul voted to end trade restrictions on Cuba. [51]

[00accord44]

This will be the first presidential election that I will not be prohibited from voting in and I fully intend to vote for Obama. But I do not claim to know all his policies or positions. There's a lot to keep up with and I honestly have not taken the time to research all the candidates as deeply as I should for a position of such importance.

The reason I will vote for Obama is that I believe he has great potential to do good in communities like the one I grew up and live in. Being a black man makes him no more or less deserving of the position, but I think if he gets in office then maybe more black people will pay attention to, and more importantly, trust the office and government supporting it. I think he has the best chance of not only properly identifying with the black community but having the community listen to the message. I know he didn't exactly grow up in the same environment as many poorer black people, but I think he could be the catalyst for change there. I could be wrong, he could turn out to be a complete disaster crushed by the mile high expectations and pronounced lack of governmental pedigree. Maybe the black community will turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to him, labeling him a puppet controlled by the rest of the "white" government. But I don't see how he could screw up much worse that the guy in my avatar.

I guess you could say my reasons for voting are self-serving and that I'm considering the well being of my community over that of the entire country, but thats why we all only get 1 vote.

[blazee]

Originally Posted by 00accord44

This will be the first presidential election that I will not be prohibited from voting in and I fully intend to vote for Obama. But I do not claim to know all his policies or positions. There's a lot to keep up with and I honestly have not taken the time to research all the candidates as deeply as I should for a position of such importance.

The reason I will vote for Obama is that I believe he has great potential to do good in communities like the one I grew up and live in. Being a black man makes him no more or less deserving of the position, but I think if he gets in office then maybe more black people will pay attention to, and more importantly, trust the office and government supporting it. I think he has the best chance of not only properly identifying with the black community but having the community listen to the message. I know he didn't exactly grow up in the same environment as many poorer black people, but I think he could be the catalyst for change there. I could be wrong, he could turn out to be a complete disaster crushed by the mile high expectations and pronounced lack of governmental pedigree. Maybe the black community will turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to him, labeling him a puppet controlled by the rest of the "white" government. But I don't see how he could screw up much worse that the guy in my avatar.

I guess you could say my reasons for voting are self-serving and that I'm considering the well being of my community over that of the entire country, but thats why we all only get 1 vote.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

[00accord44]

Excellent page. Thanks Blazee

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by 00accord44

but thats why we all only get 1 vote.

I see alot of people are counting their chickens before they hatch. Long way to go before November 4.

Actually you could get to vote twice for your candidate. Once in the primaries and once during the actual presidential election on November 4 providing the candidate wins the party's nomination. Don't forget he or any other candidate for that matter has to win his/her party's nomination based on the results of the primaries and caucuses.

As far as the Democratic Party results to date Hillary 2, Obama 1. See link below.

2008 Democratic Primary Results
Click here

opcorn:

[00accord44]

Illinois primary is coming up sometime soon. I got the flyer on the fridge, so I'll be voting for Obama at least once. I'm none too concerned about Hillary. There are many states yet to go.

[BNaylor]

A very important benchmark will be "Super Tuesday" February 5 which not only includes Illinois but 23 other states. It will be interesting to see the results because it may positively indicate or at least place a specific candidate in the lead for their party's nomination.

As far as Hillary I'd be concerned because she could win the Democratic Party nomination.

IMO Obama has an uphill battle especially with gaining the Hispanic vote and people associated with the U.S. Military and Veterans.

[J-Ri]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Question; how are they going to check that
i) you are spending what you say you are spending
ii) you are paying what the stores say you are paying
iii) you are paying a fair amount for the things you are buying?

i) It doesn't matter what you say you are spending. The tax is collected at the point of sale. If you're a few dollars short, and you ask the cashier to remove the current 6% (here, anyway) tax, what do you think they would do? Having a higher percentage tax wouldn't be any different.

ii) How do they do that now? Some sort of already present state organization? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I really don't know, but that would make sense.

iii) Who's doing that now?

About "spend less=less tax"... you're probably partially right. What you have to think about is all the super-rich idiots (IMO) who will spend millions just to have more stuff than the idiot (again, IMO) next door and a 1/2 mile away. At the same time, there is really no more incentive to pinch pennies than with the current tax system. Why would you spend less just because you can avoid taxes that way? Maybe there is something I'm not thinking of, but it seems to me that there would be no reason to save more money than you could reasonably use in your lifetime, plus a safety area incase you live too long. But how is that different than what people do, or at least try to do, now? At any rate, that money will be spent, whether by the earner or by whomever inherits it.

[Mason_R1]

Yeah I'm going RP too. I pretty much think the U.S. needs to work hard on getting back to it's roots. And paying the military more...ha!

[Mason_R1]

If Only you weren't a psycho howard dean...

[G-man422]

^ Have you seen the Chapelle show remix of it? Funniest thing ever.

[jcsaleen]

Originally Posted by G-man422

Just a little input, Clinton (a democrat) is the one who outsourced all of our companies to China, in the long run hurting us. And because there is a republican in office right now, he's getting the blame.

Agree'd clinton set us up for the fall, I wonder how many people think about that instead of the whole presidential scandal

[DinanM3_S2]

Ron Paul is a foreign policy nightmare. He is Herbert Hoover all over again. His policies are essentially isolationist. We need a FDR, not a Hoover.

Does anyone really think that pulling out of NATO and the UN is a good idea? We live in a globalized world. What happens in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world effects us as well. The fact that we are not on the Eurasian continent does not mean that we are isolated from what happens there, or anywhere else. This isn't the 18th century, you can move people and things around the world in a day and information all over the world in an instant. WWII is the perfect example of what happens when the free world thinks that isolation works. We let Hitler take half of Europe before we reacted and it resulted in one of the greatest tragedies in human history and definitely the largest war in human history. We must interact with other countries in more fields then just trade. Alliances and international organizations like the UN are key. We don't need a non-interventionist foreign policy, we just need to be smarter about what we are doing abroad.

Paul seems to forget that Madison and the writers of the constitution intended it to be a living-breathing document that is capable of changing over time to fit the needs and conditions of the time. Jefferson once wrote that he was suprised that the constitution had remained basically the same between 1789 and his presidency. Over our history our politicians have wisely adopted the constitution to do what was needed. Lincoln and FDR, arguably our two greatest presidents, both made the federal government more centralized and focused on the rights of the federal government and the nation as a whole, not the states. When Paul says he wants to "go back to the constitution" he really means that we should go back to how we understood the constitution well over 200 years ago. As Thomas Paine said, it is not right for a generation to impose their will on the following generations. Every generation needs to make up their own minds about government. The Constitution isn't, nor was it ever intended to be, a static, unchanging document.

Besides, you might as well vote for someone who has a chance. Paul's liberatarian message has been heard and rejected by the Republican party.

Personally, I am a John McCain fan. He has by far the most foreign policy experience of anyone in the race, he is the only one that has shown to be capable of working with both parties in congress, he has real military experience, and I agree with much of his foreign and domestic policies.

Need evidence of his foreign policy credentials? Just look at Iraq right now. Notice you don't hear about it very much since it was shown that the surge worked and Rumsfeld was removed? McCain has been a major proponent of needing more soldiers in Iraq since day one and attacked Rumsfeld often about his policies in Iraq. Iraq wasn't wrong, just the stupid way we went about it was. Bush and Rumsfeld were foolish enough to believe that all we needed to do was overthrow Saddam and everything would be alright, even though the military and McCain both tried relentlessly to tell them they were wrong. As far as we can tell, as far as the military is saying, the surge has pretty much worked.

Are you a Republican that actually wants to win this one? McCain is the only Republican candidate that has been shown to beat leading democrats in a national election in any poll. This is because independents and democrats trust him to actually work with him. McCain is a moderate republican when it comes to domestic issues. He is not a social conservative like Mike Huckabee (or George W. Bush to a lesser extent) that so many are afraid of. He has a long track record of working with both sides (remember the filibuster controversy and the gang of 12 a few years ago?).

Finally, I trust him because he is willing to disagree with his party and with public opinion, a rare thing to find in a politician. This is proof enough to me that he genuinely does what he thinks is right and is honest about it. He does what he says he is going to do. He makes intelligent position sticks with his positions instead of changing with the winds of public and political opinions.

[new2mitsu]

Originally Posted by DinanM3_S2

Ron Paul is a foreign policy nightmare. He is Herbert Hoover all over again. His policies are essentially isolationist. We need a FDR, not a Hoover.

Does anyone really think that pulling out of NATO and the UN is a good idea? We live in a globalized world. What happens in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world effects us as well. The fact that we are not on the Eurasian continent does not mean that we are isolated from what happens there, or anywhere else. This isn't the 18th century, you can move people and things around the world in a day and information all over the world in an instant. WWII is the perfect example of what happens when the free world thinks that isolation works. We let Hitler take half of Europe before we reacted and it resulted in one of the greatest tragedies in human history and definitely the largest war in human history. We must interact with other countries in more fields then just trade. Alliances and international organizations like the UN are key. We don't need a non-interventionist foreign policy, we just need to be smarter about what we are doing abroad.

I think you may be mistaken. It was FDR that held an isolationist View. He was in office during Hitlers Rise to power. it was he that chose to do nothing. He was just as much an isolationist as hoover. maybe even more.