How Do You Choose Your Candidate?

Of course all the talking heads have a bias. But what about the bias that YOU have. No this is not a personal attack. I mean YOU as in the person watching, you, me, everyone else. Don't we all enter into this with a bias of some sort. If we are living we have to, not.

I laugh at the he's not, she's not qualified argument. American born citizen, 35 years old or older. If you meet that standard you are qualified.

All of what we have and will hear until November will be half truths and BS from both sides. I do not have time to look at every little detail of the candidates for president. Party line voting is the easy way for me and now I can watch the show for the next couple of months and take it for what it is worth.

As stated earlier, local is different. Usually you hear so and so is running for ____. I then figure "yea, he's a good guy, I'll vote for him" or "I'll never vote for that A-hole." Party affiliation is not very important.

gaw wrote:But what about the bias that YOU have. No this is not a personal attack. I mean YOU as in the person watching, you, me, everyone else. Don't we all enter into this with a bias of some sort. If we are living we have to, not.

Absolutely agreed, but that makes it even more important to get bunch of other views to compare against you own bias.

gaw wrote:I do not have time to look at every little detail of the candidates for president.

A very important point!
I am mostly retired & permanently disabled so I have the time now that most of you don't have to sort through this stuff, (this works out great for my coal stove too, as I am now around to throw a few shovels of fresh coal on the fire every 4 hrs or so. I now only have to shake my stove down once a day!) .....& an admitted BUFF on this crap anyway.
Even pressed for time though, it only takes a little time to flip through a few networks to get a feel for what they are saying.
Again, no one network is truly "Fair & Balanced", IMO.

and don't be afraid to trust your own instincts & judgment! Many people will defer to supposed "experts" because they are cowed by their positions in the media! BS!! Make an Informed choice & then Stick by your own guns!
I'll still put my money on the collective judgment & wisdom of the American voter over any one "Expert"

As far as me having more time than most of you to watch this stuff, all the more reason that you should all just let me do the "legwork" for this forum..........& then vote for the candidate that I tell you to vote for!!

Great point GAW on personal bias. It's like the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Two people (like my wife and myself) can listen to the same speech and come away from it with a totally different perception. (yea, my wife is a lib)
And Devil, I totallyagree about CSPAN. When i'm in my shop, I listen to CSPAN radio. It's alot of mundane things sometimes, Senate hearings, various speeches etc. But its totally raw, unfiltered. You hear it and you draw your own conclustions, not what some talking head says they said. I like it event better on radio, without actually seeing who is saying what. I think that's because it removes some of the personal bias. If i'm watching it and i don't like the appearance of someone, I tend to discount more of what they are saying.
(PS. Don't tell anyone but my lib wife is starting to lean toward McCain based on the qualifications issue alone)

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. As a Constitutionalist I will take a pass on both of the mainstream collectivist and vote Libertarian. I'm well aware that the vote will not matter, but it will not matter anyway as my state is solidly republican and will go to the right no matter how I vote.

To extrapolate. Inflation is a tax used by the republicans, which is mustered by spending money out of thin air, thereby decreasing the value of the dollar you earn. Democrats on the other hand just raise your taxes out in the open. Both systems are a bane to the middle class.

It doesn't matter how many speeches you listen to or how many networks you watch or how many papers you read. It all cones down to integrity. Will the candidates do what they say. Words are so cheap that anyone can spew crap. These candidates will say just about anything to get elected. Palin seemed to stick to her promises as a Mayor and Governor which is something I respect. The only way to judge thsese candidates is to give them lie detector tests. It would be the great equalizer. Mr. MCcain are you running for president because you care about the country? If the lie detector showed deception then he would be dismissed by all as a candidate. Mr. Obama do you really intend to only raise taxes on the ultra wealthy? How cool would it be to see all the candidates before primaries strapped into lie dectector equipment and answering questions.

traderfjp wrote:Palin seemed to stick to her promises as a Mayor and Governor which is something I respect.

Staying with the topic here, some research has shown that Palin actually was for the "Bridge To Nowhere"...before she was against it!
That's why it's so important to check whatever alleged "facts" you hear from a politician or from any one network.
A check of Palin's "Aircraft" sold on Ebay story was equally....shall we say...embellished for her speech purpose.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 0364.story

Lets talk earmarks:

Obama, Biden's Son Linked by Earmarks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 94_pf.html

Biden's Son Employed in Profession Obama Disdains: Lobbying

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080 ... qrvqdtzkv4

Biden's Lobbyist Son & Brother Named In 2 Lawsuits

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/ ... -in-2.html

spc wrote:Lets talk earmarks:

Sorry Stephen.....Not taking the juicy bait!

Topic is about the decision process.....not the decision itself.

But....Nice try!!

traderfjp wrote:Staying with the topic here, some research has shown

Just doing some research.

Unfortunately, the media puts their own spin on news stories or creates a story from an unreliable source. Look at the Enquire. Just because it's in print or on TV doesn't make it so. Now throw in the pressure of a presidential race and with the other side leaking rumors, etc. on the other candidate things become even more muddier. It's hard to know what to believe.

traderfjp wrote:Unfortunately, the media puts their own spin on news stories or creates a story from an unreliable source. Look at the Enquire. Just because it's in print or on TV doesn't make it so. Now throw in the pressure of a presidential race and with the other side leaking rumors, etc. on the other candidate things become even more muddier. It's hard to know what to believe.

Unfortunately, it does take some work to be sure a story is true. Try a couple of different sources, if you have time.

Example: The reason why I stopped watching Fox News as a reliable source is when Operation Iraqi Freedom first started, I would do allot of channel surfing for stories & reports from the "Imbeds." As I was watching Fox News, they excitedly put on a news flashed that an American combat unit had just come across a massive stockpile of WMD's! I jumped up & ran to the TV to switch to CNN to see if they were carrying the same story, which they weren't. I then switched to ABC, NBC, MSNBC & any other network I could think of.......Nothing........Turned out to be total BS! (Fox ran that story for about an hour b4 finally admitting it was erroneous)
The same thing happened, again on Fox, about a week later. Since that day, I stopped watching Fox for anything except to find out the latest White House talking points!

Moral of the story: Always check a few competing sources b4 you believe any news.
I wouldn't trust a story reported by Keith Olberman & backed up only by Katie Couric any more than I would trust a story reported by Sean Hannity & backed up only by Rush Limbaugh.

Find a story reported by Sean Hannity & backed up by Keith Olberman & take that story to the bank!

After recently switching from Obama to Ron Paul, I may have to rethink my choice!
How could anyone vote against such happy people as this?:

I'd love to say that I mull over each candidate's backround qualifications and positions on the issues and then make an early selection but I don't. There are strategic issues that preclude that kind of naive choice. One can throw their vote away by voting for a non-main stream candidate who is clearly not popular. One cannot throw their vote away by choosing the "lesser of two evils" .

Each party creates a set of beliefs called a "platform". That platform is made up of individual beliefs or "planks". One need not adhere to all of the planks to find adherence to the party's platform. One should first choose a party that they agree with, for the most part, on issues of moral importance, then evaluate a candidate as to whether or not they adhere to the party platform in the same way you do, i.e. morally. If you are a republican and the republican candidate's beliefs are mostly democrat, don't vote for him. If you find yourself voting for him, perhaps you are not a republican. The converse holds true for democrats.

Complicating this decision are available candidates on the ballot. If your candidate isn't on the ballot, don't bother writing-in a vote; they never win except in extreme rare cases. If you are not able to vote for the morally superior choice because he's not on the ballot, then vote your party. Underlying this action is the assumption that you selected your party based on a reconciliation of your moral beliefs and your party's. The intent and effect of your vote is to turn your set of moral beliefs to government action (law) as best you can.

mikeandgerry wrote:One can throw their vote away by voting for a non-main stream candidate who is clearly not popular.

I don't think it is "throwing away your vote." I think you are making a clear statement that a candidate's "popularity" does not impress you, or cause you to support that candidate with your vote.

mikeandgerry wrote:One cannot throw their vote away by choosing the "lesser of two evils".

I would define that as the very definition of throwing away your vote! I will not vote for anyone because of their popularity or lack thereof...or because some advocate (from either side) tells me that doing what I know is right is somehow dumb & that I should just role over & vote for who they tell me too! ..No Way!!.......I have to face myself in the mirror while shaving every morning (these very same "Experts" would probably tell me that heating with coal is dirty & dumb & no one really does it any more....BS!)

mikeandgerry wrote:One should first choose a party that they agree with,

!

That is my main problem this year Mikeandgerry.......I can't support either of the major parties:

Current Crop of Republicans:
They have gotten us into this mess over the last 8 years (they have had control of Congress for 12 of the last 14 years too)
They are all about lies & big oil & no accountability or oversight & corporate greed & screw the middle class & keep our eyes on foreign boogie men so that we wont see the real mess here at home & inept administration of government (like Katrina) & corruption & hypocrisy &............. too many things to mention here.
They are running a candidate who promises to keep all of GH Bush's policies in effect for the next 4 years! McCain's represents no change at all....That's just his latest lie!


Current Crop of Democrats:
In 2006, they ran on a platform of stopping the war & bringing some accountability to the Bush administration, & won control of both Houses of Congress.....They have not had the guts to do either! (They could have simply cut off funds for the occupation of Iraq, but they did not!
(personally, I think Obama has some good ideas on the economy, health care, foreign policy & allot of other things.
My problem is that I will not support his cowardly party!


Thus, I have decided that neither major party has "EARNED" my vote this November. Instead I will vote for an honest, very gutsy guy....Ron Paul. I do not agree with all of his ideas/policies but never have with any candidate but I refuse to throw away my vote on "The lessor of two evils" based on what the "Talking Heads" tell me about what my vote would mean, etc....BS!!
I trust Ron Paul to not just "mouth" what's popular or politically expedient this hour, or look me in the eye & lie, ...but to do the right an honorable thing.

(steps off his soapbox)

Not to be insulting but, Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist



I can not vote with the sheep any longer. It took me thirtytwo years to understand who owns the mainstream media, and the politicians that the main stream media supports. During the Bush I term media was deregulated. This deregulation has led to nearly all of the media being owned by six corporations. This means that there is no honest accounting in the news because the corporations that own all of the media outlets are going to only publish news that suits their big business agenda. Profits and power is what these people crave. In Americas beginning the press was more often than not opposed to government, today the press is in bed with the government and whispering sweet nothings into the politicians ears.


http://www.corporations.org/media/

I'd like to embed the following image, it is a must see, however I respect the owners rules.

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

A real conservative heeds the values of the Constitution otherwise what exactly is it that is being conserved? The Constitution framed the U.S. as a representative republic, NOT A DEMOCRACY! The Founding Fathers understood that when a majority rules the minority has it's rights violated.
WARNINGS from the Founders

John Witherspoon, signer - “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”

Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first legal text - “It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”

Benjamin Rush, signer - “ a simple democracy … is one of the greatest of evils.”

John Quincy Adams - “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”

Noah Webster - “In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”

James Madison - “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

John Adams - “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Gouverneur Morris, who led the committee that produced the final draft of the Constitution, said, "We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate - as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism - Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to the level of folly and guilt."

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, called a "simple democracy...one of the greatest of evils."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351222/posts

Yet the Media rarely or never mentions that this country is a republic because as long as they have the "majorities minds made up" they win, and win big. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against big business, I'm against big business controlling the electorate through manipulation and lies. One of the most morally repugnant things that the Supreme Court has ever done was to grant corporations the capability of being a natural person. In doing so the court essentially injected corporations into the political process by allowing them to act as donors and constituents to what ever cause gained the corporations the greatest profit, Mere mortal men will rarely have the capability to influence politicians in the way that corporations will due to a lack of media influence and cash.

the 1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):

In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage.

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler


Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

* A government of the masses.
* Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
* Results in mobocracy.
* Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
* Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
* Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

* Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
* Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
* A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
* Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
* Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
* Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".
http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm

The history posted above is why I do not feel as if I am throwing my vote away. It is why you are throwing your God given rights away by voting for McCain or Obamma. The U.S. Constitution does not give the government any rights, it provides that people are endowed with inalienable rights that are the law of God, not man. The current candidates scoff at such thoughts and are unworthy of my vote for that very reason. With that said, don't get me wrong, I'm not a religious man, but I would rather derive my rights from God, even if God is a fictional character than derive my rights from any man, because rights granted by man is tyrannical in nature.