*Contest - $25* Who should I vote for, and why?

[jimnyc]

I am placing this latest contest in the current events forum for maximum exposure. Stickied at the top of this forum should get the most attention without it being an "announcement", as I want replies in this thread, and I don't want an ongoing thread in the announcement section.

This is a question open to all members of DP. All entries will be considered. Post will remain open for approximately 2 weeks and will close on January 31st at midnight, EST. Winner will be paid via Paypal.

*There should be no posting in this thread other than a members entry*

Who should I vote for to be the next President of the USA, and why?

What I'm looking for:

Be concise
Be descriptive
Don't be too short! You're trying to convince me!
Use appropriate links when necessary
Use the least amount of rhetoric
Be polite, as if you're speaking to an audience
Use credentials for candidates and experience where necessary
What can the candidate do for the USA?

Don't consider me a Republican. Don't consider me a Democrat. Look at me as someone who is completely undecided and I want to know what my options are. Convince me as to who is the best candidate to be the next leader of the free world, and is capable of handling our unique and complex country. Consider what is troubling America today: war on terror, economy, healthcare, illegal immigration, national security, education, energy...

With this in mind - Who should I vote for to be the next President of the USA, and why?

[jimnyc]

Ok, sorry for the short disappearance of this thread/contest. It has now been reinstated and is an active contest! Please, keep this thread limited to entries only.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. I'm begining to see Romney as the best man for the job now.
2. He's vigorous, intelligent, understanding, patient, decisive, steady, concerned about others, fair, warm, strong, yet not a bully, a winner, respected by everyone.
3. This guys got class, and ( I ) * THE GREAT CWN* sees his standings rising amongst the voters.
4. He' was elected a Governor of a Liberal State, and that favors him as a person who can get the cross over votes.
5. There really isn't anything bad about this man, so lets get him elected!
6. That is all for now, please stay tuned to this bat channel for more updates later.
7. All this and a *Bag~O~Chips* right here on DP.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[avatar4321]

I posted this elsewhere last night, but i figured this sum's up my argument fairly well:

Romney is the best choice now. Look at what we have to choose from. McCain and Giuliani. Huckabee and Thompson wont pick up any more traction. And both have little money. Ron Paul never was going to do well (although he has done quite impressive).

The only thing McCain has for him is that he supported the surge. He has military experience. But he also has several national security weaknesses: Namely McCain-Kennedy. Illegal Immigraiton is a national security interest. We've put up with one Republican President who refused to deal with it. Why on earth should we elect another one? We may not get another chance to. If the Democrats win then we will see Amnesty and the Democrats control government for decades.

And we will still benefit from McCain's military experience as we have in the past as a Senator. Why do we need to elect him President to do what he can already do now when he brings absolutely nothing else to the table? And the republicans will keep the seat in Arizona

Giuliani will turn off social conservatives big time. Nor is he the strongest on immigration (although better than McCain). He is a good leader though and some strength with fiscal policy and foreign policy.

Romney is the only one who has incredible strength with economic policy. Which is what we are going to need if we head into a recession. He is a natural leader with experience negotiating business around the world. So he understands foreign situations. He isn't the strongest on the war, but neither was President Bush. However, Romney is the type to have alot of intelligent advisors, and would likely confer with Senator McCain as well before doing anything. And He won't turn off social conservatives because the man is the only candidate with experiencing fighting against gay marriage.

Also, he puts atleast Michigan and maybe Massachusetts in play. And I think with his stimulus package he can put PA in play too. Particularly if he focuses on the tax cuts for Seniors. PA has alot of senior voters.

Let's face it. Romney is the best choice we have in a quality candidate that can unite the base. He is actually arguing conservative issues. I know some of you doubt his loyalty to those conservative principles. But would you rather have someone you think could govern as a conservative, or someone you know will govern as a liberal. There aren't any other viable choices left.

[pegwinn]

This was crossposted at the blog in my sig. comments over there are welcome since it won't be allowed in this thread. - Phil

This is an open letter to those who identify with Republicans, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, or Libertarians. With the primary in full swing we find ourselves wondering about the credentials of those on the Republican side of the aisle.

Each candidate has been weighed, measured and, if talk radio is to be believed, found wanting. IF you are going to vote, then you better vote for Ron Paul.

Instead of a thirty second sound bite with all the attached mudslinging or chest thumping, I offer the following and only ask that you apply your own good name, and moral courage.

Jeff Foxworthy coined the phase “If you believe”. And then went on to define a group of people. Well, I am not Jeff, and this isn’t comedy. So here goes:

IF you believe that a bloated bureaucracy of a Central Government is the way to go, don’t vote for Ron.

IF you believe that it’s ok to be the world’s policeman, don’t vote for Ron.

IF you believe that the money issued by the Federal Reserve is as “good as gold”, don’t vote for Ron.

IF you believe that the only way to address the poor is through federal welfare legislation, don’t vote for Ron.

IF you believe that we are destined to join a one-world government as a client state, don’t vote for Ron.

IF you believe that the federal government has a responsibility to provide and regulate your health care, don’t vote for Ron.

IF you believe that government spending is just fine, don’t vote for Ron.

IF you believe the federal government is the best judge of your kids’ educational needs, don’t vote for Ron.

IF you believe “Shall not be infringed” means that you have to ask permission to buy and carry a weapon, don’t vote for Ron.

IF you believe that our income tax is fair and balanced, don’t vote for Ron.
Now, with ten reasons not to vote for Ron, are there any practical reasons we should vote for him?
All labeling aside, Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. He actually believes that the Congress can only do those things enumerated in Art 1, Sec 8. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8) He believes that as a matter of personal liberty it is the government who must justify removal of liberties rather than you who must defend the keeping of them.

In each of the ten Foxworthy reasons, they are either here ,or on the way . None of them are truly constitutional. In each case someone has read into the document and twisted it’s plainly stated meaning until they found what they wanted. Then it was created within the smoke filled rooms.

Ron Paul wants to change that. He doesn’t have a magic wand. Not everything he advocates will immediately stand up to the challenges of the real world or a Congress determined to maintain its power. What he wants to do is bring the USA back to a constitutionally correct government.

What would we get from an RP presidency if Congress opposed his Constitutional adjustments? We’d get an electorate that would become very educated in Constitutional matters quick, fast, and in a hurry.

I can picture him in a weekly address telling the people exactly what bills were vetoed and why. He would quote to the people chapter and verse exactly how the bills were not in alignment with our Constitution. Then in the same address, he’d tell the people which bills were passed into law anyway by an override vote.

The Sunday TV shows would begin to feature constitutional scholars who would argue the esoteric nature of any RP decision.

To be truthful, Paul might not be terribly effective within his first term. The paradigm shift would have to start from the ground up with his setting the example. By leading the way and casting a light back upon the Constitution we can hope for a more informed electorate, and, eventually, constitutionally oriented leaders to stand for election.

Today, the immediate issue is whether it is worth your time to vote for Paul. No one wants to walk away from the polls believing their vote to be wasted. Actually it is worse than wasted if your vote helped to elect the worst of the evils presented. That is what happened to those who voted for Ross Perot. The pragmatic question is: Can Ron Paul and the US Constitution be elected in November?

That question is where you must stake your own good word, or integrity. It’s the point where you decide to invest in your own moral courage and do the right thing. In order to get past the pragmatic question, you have to look at where we are and how fast we got here. Following adoption of the Constitution we would, from time to time, veer from the path. But, from about 1934 to now we have totally careened off the road and into the wild .

Now, more than ever, we need a Constitutional check on the federal government. We cannot rely on the federal courts to do this. That’s because every piece of law is assumed to be Constitutional unless it is challenged. And, in order to challenge it, the challenger has to achieve “standing” before the court. This fact was demonstrated when the Supreme Court stated that an individual taxpayer has no standing (http://www.acsblog.org/bill-of-rights-supreme-court-preview-standing-to-sue-and-the-establishment-clause.html)to challenge how the collected taxes were spent.

Ron Paul has about thirty years in government service and a record that none can match from a Constitutional point of view. He routinely returns money to the federal treasury that wasn’t needed during his reelection campaigns. He consistently votes against bills that restrict personal liberties or expands the reach of the government beyond the limits imposed by the constitution.

Many label him as a kook or nutjob because of a few of his supporters or because they truthfully cannot envision a nation actually governed by the letter of our Constitution. They cannot imagine a state such as Kentucky or Mississippi being able to conduct its’ own business without requiring an infusion of cash and conditions from the Federal Government.

They cannot envision a United States that maintains the worlds best military and yet refuses to interfere in another nation’s internal politics. A non-interventionalist USA would still locate, close with, and destroy our true enemies without the need to consider the entanglements of modern diplomacy. If attacked by terrorists, nothing would stop us from responding. We can also defend our friends without creating enemies.

No one doubts that we are moving toward socialism in all but name. No one doubts that the treasury and tax structure is in shambles. No one doubts that this election will pivot us onto a path that it may not be possible to return from.

Each time Ron Paul runs and loses he’s garnered more and more attention. The message is getting out . But, without his example in the white house, the message will be drowned out by the legislation that increases our government’s size and reach. It will be drowned out by the tax increases and by the entitlements programs. It will be drowned out as we lose our status as the most successful free and sovereign nation on the planet. It will be drowned out as the Bill of Rights is watered down. It will be drowned out as the last vestiges of a States unique identity and way of life is snuffed in favor of the strong central government.

Now, I am asking you to commit your own good name, your integrity if you will. I am asking you to reach deep into your store of moral courage. I am asking you to commit your voice and send this letter to your friends and neighbors for discussion. And of course, I am asking you to vote for Ron Paul in your primaries and in the General Election.

Very Respectfully,
PE Gwinn

[82Marine89]

Sorry for the editorial Jim, but Phil's post gave me wood.

:clap::clap::clap:Phil on a great post

[jimnyc]

We have our first 2 time winner! Although short on entries for this contest, Pegwinn's entry was fantastic. He didn't win again for the lack of entries but rather for a well stated, thought provoking post.

Congrats, Pegwinn! Payment sent already via Paypal!

[manu1959]

excelent post....thank you....ron just got another supporter....

[pegwinn]

Thanks for the great compliments and the opportunity to take part. I am simply amazed. I knew what I wanted to say. I just didn't know how to say it short and sweet. So I figured the guys who could get to the point in no time flat were "on the money" so to speak.

Thanks again. I am humbled.

-Phil