Comments on: Presidential Election Prediction http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/ nonviolence & social change Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:54:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Intolerant of Intolerance | My Peace City http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-1149 Intolerant of Intolerance | My Peace City Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:10:09 +0000 http://www.mypeacecity.com/?p=492#comment-1149 [...] Presedential Election Prediction [...] [...] Presedential Election Prediction [...]

]]> By: Neil http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-499 Neil Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:18:31 +0000 http://www.mypeacecity.com/?p=492#comment-499 I will be voting for Barack Steve Obama. I will be voting for Barack Steve Obama.

]]> By: El Johnny http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-490 El Johnny Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:21:08 +0000 http://www.mypeacecity.com/?p=492#comment-490 You can't ridicule my source without leaving one of your own! Anywho, the question this article posed was who are you going to vote for. Who are you V? You can’t ridicule my source without leaving one of your own!

Anywho, the question this article posed was who are you going to vote for. Who are you V?

]]> By: V http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-489 V Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:00:20 +0000 http://www.mypeacecity.com/?p=492#comment-489 I applaud your efforts to promote "alternative" parties but let's be honest, there are only two parties that make decisions in this country. And a prediction 2 months ahead of time for a crisis this large? To me, that is not much of a prediction, people had seen this coming for years, not months. As for military spending, I am shocked that you would reference a site like this for yoru statistics, that is unbelievable. I would recommend that you attain your stats/references from an actual record, not a left wing propaganda site. Clinton's spending was down $60 + Billion from 92 - 2000....adding inflation, that is a huge decrease over 8 years. I applaud your efforts to promote “alternative” parties but let’s be honest, there are only two parties that make decisions in this country. And a prediction 2 months ahead of time for a crisis this large? To me, that is not much of a prediction, people had seen this coming for years, not months.

As for military spending, I am shocked that you would reference a site like this for yoru statistics, that is unbelievable. I would recommend that you attain your stats/references from an actual record, not a left wing propaganda site. Clinton’s spending was down $60 + Billion from 92 – 2000….adding inflation, that is a huge decrease over 8 years.

]]> By: El Johnny http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-488 El Johnny Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:06:10 +0000 http://www.mypeacecity.com/?p=492#comment-488 First of all, not all Parties are responsible for the financial crisis, The Democrats and Republicans are. The Greens, Libertarians and Independents are not. Ralph Nader even predicted the banking crisis two months before. http://nader.org/index.php?/archives/1427-Letter-to-Senator-Dodd-and-Congressman-Frank.html Secondly, the military budget did go down slightly through Bush I and Clinton's first term; but in Clinton's 2nd term he raised it dramatically back to its record height during the Cold war. "The surplus which was to have been targeted for education, Social Security, Medicare, and for the poor will be used to fight U.S. provoked "terrorism." Would these have benefited the non-elite? http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0118-RobPoor.html First of all, not all Parties are responsible for the financial crisis, The Democrats and Republicans are. The Greens, Libertarians and Independents are not. Ralph Nader even predicted the banking crisis two months before. http://nader.org/index.php?/archives/1427-Letter-to-Senator-Dodd-and-Congressman-Frank.html

Secondly, the military budget did go down slightly through Bush I and Clinton’s first term; but in Clinton’s 2nd term he raised it dramatically back to its record height during the Cold war.

“The surplus which was to have been targeted for education, Social Security, Medicare, and for the poor will be used to fight U.S. provoked “terrorism.”

Would these have benefited the non-elite?

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0118-RobPoor.html

]]> By: V http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-487 V Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:43:37 +0000 http://www.mypeacecity.com/?p=492#comment-487 Try backing up a "FACT" with a legitimate source, these are all opinions. Everyone needs to wake up and realize that ALL PARTIES are responsible for the financial crisis that we are in..its not solely because of "de-regulation" or "threat of tax increases", its a combination of everything. You can make opinions about who will be the next president, and most of these contributors are probably right, but check in 2 years from now and comment on whether Obama is truly looking out for the middle class. Obama's health care plan does not benefit the middle class...if mid-size businesses would step up and provide the health care that is available to their employees already the middle class would be fine. His plan solely supports the lower class. If someone would step in and regulate the funding of the lower class to make sure that people are not taking advantage of the systems that are available, we would be in a much better state all around. Oh and cutting military spending to benefit the "non-elite"...that is laughable....that worked wonders during Clinton's administration. Try backing up a “FACT” with a legitimate source, these are all opinions. Everyone needs to wake up and realize that ALL PARTIES are responsible for the financial crisis that we are in..its not solely because of “de-regulation” or “threat of tax increases”, its a combination of everything.
You can make opinions about who will be the next president, and most of these contributors are probably right, but check in 2 years from now and comment on whether Obama is truly looking out for the middle class. Obama’s health care plan does not benefit the middle class…if mid-size businesses would step up and provide the health care that is available to their employees already the middle class would be fine. His plan solely supports the lower class. If someone would step in and regulate the funding of the lower class to make sure that people are not taking advantage of the systems that are available, we would be in a much better state all around.
Oh and cutting military spending to benefit the “non-elite”…that is laughable….that worked wonders during Clinton’s administration.

]]> By: Mike T http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-485 Mike T Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:06:26 +0000 http://www.mypeacecity.com/?p=492#comment-485 I think their are a number of policies that Obama supports that would reinforce the interests of the ruling elite vesus that the 3rd Party candiates are not for. One is that he is not in favor of universal health care coverage. This policy only benefits those with a lot of money. Nader and Mckinney are for universal health care Another is that he supports our imperialist foreign policy which wastes billions of dollars a year on maintaining hundreds of bases, invading countries, nation building and buying weapons. He has proposed increasing our military budget. This policy props up foreign leaders and forces them to follow are economic model which benefits the elite. Nader, Mckinney and Bob Barr are all for reducing are military budget, all that money could benefit non-elite people. I think their are a number of policies that Obama supports that would reinforce the interests of the ruling elite vesus that the 3rd Party candiates are not for.
One is that he is not in favor of universal health care coverage. This policy only benefits those with a lot of money. Nader and Mckinney are for universal health care
Another is that he supports our imperialist foreign policy which wastes billions of dollars a year on maintaining hundreds of bases, invading countries, nation building and buying weapons. He has proposed increasing our military budget. This policy props up foreign leaders and forces them to follow are economic model which benefits the elite. Nader, Mckinney and Bob Barr are all for reducing are military budget, all that money could benefit non-elite people.

]]> By: BJ S http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-484 BJ S Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:58:36 +0000 http://www.mypeacecity.com/?p=492#comment-484 In response to Frank- I agree... In response to Frank-

I agree…

]]> By: BJ S http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-483 BJ S Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:03:27 +0000 http://www.mypeacecity.com/?p=492#comment-483 I like some of the points... In my opinion neither of these candidates has spoken truthfully about how we got into this financial mess (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) and neither has spoken truthfully about how we will get out of this mess and the sacrifices we all will have to make. John McCain's is lost. He doesn't know who he is and I think he is just ready to lose. In fact, I would argue that no republican can even tell you his plan to change the economy... I think his answer was energy independence?!?!? Obama will get into office and blame his lack of not being productive on "the mess he came into" and blame everything on Bush and republicans. As a person I do believe you need to vote for what is best for you and the goodness of others. As a business owner, Obama's health care initiative is great in theory but practically will not work. Too many business owners (not me) need to see margins or they cut jobs or cut wages. Regardless of any of this, accountability is lost in this system. I am much more likely to vote for someone that gives me the truth and is willing to admit that their party has failed the public just as much as the other. I like some of the points…

In my opinion neither of these candidates has spoken truthfully about how we got into this financial mess (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) and neither has spoken truthfully about how we will get out of this mess and the sacrifices we all will have to make.
John McCain’s is lost. He doesn’t know who he is and I think he is just ready to lose. In fact, I would argue that no republican can even tell you his plan to change the economy… I think his answer was energy independence?!?!?
Obama will get into office and blame his lack of not being productive on “the mess he came into” and blame everything on Bush and republicans.
As a person I do believe you need to vote for what is best for you and the goodness of others. As a business owner, Obama’s health care initiative is great in theory but practically will not work. Too many business owners (not me) need to see margins or they cut jobs or cut wages.
Regardless of any of this, accountability is lost in this system. I am much more likely to vote for someone that gives me the truth and is willing to admit that their party has failed the public just as much as the other.

]]> By: Nick http://www.mypeacecity.com/2008/10/09/presidential-election-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-482 Nick Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:59:09 +0000 http://www.mypeacecity.com/?p=492#comment-482 In response to Todd’s comment: Appointing two conservative justices which must be approved by the current Democratically controlled Senate, having a case appealed to the Supreme Court, the court granting cert, the court disrupting the common law doctrine of stare decisis and overturning Roe v. Wade is not Republicans banning abortion. To be fair, the issue is at best barely even indirectly within the control of any branch other than the judiciary, which is bound by the constitution. The point is that people vote Republican based on the abortion issue without understanding its full legal implications. Many are shocked that after 8 years of Bush, it is still legal. Meanwhile, they are out of a job, house, and their retirement is dwindling. But hey, let's keeping voting for the pro-life candidate because my pastor is illegally telling me that if i don't, i'm going to hell! Regarding banning same-sex marriage, forgive the ambiguity. I am referring to the movement to amend the U.S. Constitution. This article is referring to the two parties in terms of the Presidency. In response to Todd’s comment:

Appointing two conservative justices which must be approved by the current Democratically controlled Senate, having a case appealed to the Supreme Court, the court granting cert, the court disrupting the common law doctrine of stare decisis and overturning Roe v. Wade is not Republicans banning abortion. To be fair, the issue is at best barely even indirectly within the control of any branch other than the judiciary, which is bound by the constitution. The point is that people vote Republican based on the abortion issue without understanding its full legal implications. Many are shocked that after 8 years of Bush, it is still legal. Meanwhile, they are out of a job, house, and their retirement is dwindling. But hey, let’s keeping voting for the pro-life candidate because my pastor is illegally telling me that if i don’t, i’m going to hell!

Regarding banning same-sex marriage, forgive the ambiguity. I am referring to the movement to amend the U.S. Constitution. This article is referring to the two parties in terms of the Presidency.

]]>