Americans - who are you voting for?

[comperr]

So who are the Americans voting for

[c24lightning]

I can't vote -- age restriction..

Anyway, as long as Hilary doesn't win, I'm pretty happy...

[Jesus_of_Suburbia]

I can't vote -- age restriction..

Anyway, as long as Hilary doesn't win, I'm pretty happy...

And why is that? What makes Hillary so bad?

I'm going to weigh my options once the dems nom someone and running mates are picked. Hillary or Obama could sway me if they pick a good running mate. McCain could sway me if he picks Mike Huckabee (or another conservative that isn't a total ass).

It's too early for me to make up my mind.

[blackprince491]

as of when i voted it was a perfect
33% not voting
33% McCain
33% Obama
and
0% Hilary

that made me laugh...i gusee hackers dont really like Clinton v2.0

[The Lieutenant]

as of when i voted it was a perfect
33% not voting
33% McCain
33% Obama
and
0% Hilary

that made me laugh...i gusee hackers dont really like Clinton v2.0

Well hacker or not I don't really care about liberal or conservative, I just want a president who will do a good job. I would elaborate but that belongs in other topics. Hilary is not someone I would expect to be a good president.

[blackprince491]

Im not quite as unbiased as not caring liberal or conservative but i do think obama will do the things that need to be done... dare i say it we might be able to start trusting the government again

[Inferno96]

I wish the candidates had some understanding of economics.

I will probably end up voting for McCain, I hear Obama talk a lot about change and hope, but I rarely hear him talk about his ideas or more importantly, why his ideas are good ideas. I definetly think Obama is heading in the wrong directon in his economic ideas, but McCain really isn't much better--it seems like he thinks the things he does simply because of his party afflilation when it comes to economic issues.

[Sonic7145]

For someone who claims to worry about the economy, you'd make a huge mistake by choosing to continue to spend $4 billion in Iraq each week for 100 more years.
AKA, voting for McCain.

Personally, I'll be voting for Obama. Sure taxes will go up more for the wealthy and businesses, and people might get free health care (OH NO!) but it's high time this country started serving the majority of the people that live here -- not the top 5%.

[Inferno96]

I am not phased by your hyperbole, Iraq is something we are already in--I think it's best that we leave it in a sustainable state. What McCain is going to do is ask his generals how long they think they should stay in Iraq, which is a smart idea. You know, actually asking the only people who know what's going on what to do? We are already in Iraq, that is a fact, we have to go from there and take the most progressive steps towards a stabilized future--a more economically efficient Iraq which is not ruled by a tyrant will benefit all countries that do buisiness with it.

And just so we're clear--businesses are what employ people, the middle class and the lower class. Those rich buisinesses are the ones who have shown a penchant for success, they are the ones that are most likely to spend that money wisely and invest it back in their buisiness, to hire workers, to buy other peoples products. You see the small picture, the truth is that when a big shipping company is buying the software you wrote or when a restraunt chain is buying the tomatoes you grow, everyone profits. If there is anyone we want to provide an incentive to expand and grow--it is sucessful businesses. Also, who do you define as "rich"? Obama would slap an increase to the capital gains tax on anyone who makes over $250,000.

Finally, the country isn't SERVING the rich, the top 5% pay about 60% of federal income taxes, the top 5% are those that make over 145K annually. Is it fair that a lot of people who had great ideas and ended up making a lot of money have to give 35% of it away while others who were not as successful only give 25%? Don't tell me about this country catering towards the rich--the rich pay MORE than their share, who are you to say it is fair to take away more of their money simply because they are successful?

The main hard point is that profitable businesses create profit for others. The other just as important social point is this: Is it fair to take away money from the rich and spend it on some pork barrel the latest senator introduced to get re-elected, and maybe spend a little bit of it to improve the welfare of some people whom may be very unfortunate, or may be just plain irresponsible?

I do not understand either of the parties--one is for certain social freedoms, but does not believe that we should have the freedom to spend our money on whatever we want. The other believes we should have the freedom to spend our money on whatever we want, but does not believe in those same social freedoms.

[Rijnzael]

I agree with the poster above me. Leaving Iraq the second we get a new president would be just as much of a human rights violation as our invasion of the country. Though Iraq is clearly siphoning off needed money from other aspects of our national expenditures, Iraq would likely become more of a cesspool of militant activities than it already is, and the lives of Iraqi citizens would be at stake just as much or more than they were during Saddam's power. Until the country is clearly stable (who honestly knows what that means), I don't think it would be wise to get out.

Even if that's the case, I'm voting Obama. I can only hope he's wise enough to see what would happen on an abrupt exit from Iraq. I'm sick of warrant-less wiretapping and the NSA having high-speed links into major points of presence throughout the country. My taxes may go up, but many of the encroachments on our freedoms in the United States will hopefully return to normalcy.