[usakos]

Clinton, Obama, Huckabee or Romney.

One of these candidates might be our next president or may be not.

Who do you think is more pro-small business, someone who Wall Street can cheer for?

[AspiringVC]

USAKOS,

If you're only taking economics into factor, I would say non of the candidates above. My choice would have to be (Ron Paul).

President - well that is a whole different sector.

[criniit]

From an economic perspective I agree with VC and none of the above. But from a regular stand point...

Clinton: I don't think clinton will even come close. I mean, if you wanted a Clinton president you should have voted for Bill Clinton. At-least he was charismatic and a great public speaker. I didn't agree with his politics/stances but at-least he had that going for him. Hilary does not have any of the above going for her.

Obama: Well I actually liked Obama until he id he was for the ban of all civilian owned guns. After a president candidate says that I just can't take them seriously anymore. Not to mention carrying a gun as a civilian is part of my job.

Huckabee: Well he has got that whole extreme evangelist thing going...ehh. And he wants to legalize citizenship for illegal immigrants. No thanks.

Romney: Well Romney is a business man so I initially have a liking for him. And hey he wants to get rid of the capital gains tax for people who make under 200k...

So out of all those I would vote for Romney, but none of them in my opinion are ideal.

[usakos]

Being a democrat; I am divided between Clinton and Obama.

When Bill was president, almost everyone was smiling to the bank, amid that he came to power when Bush Sr. had everything screwed up, and when Clinton left the office, he had had balanced the budget, and the deficit was in control. Although most people believe that Hillary was mostly responsible for helping Bill accomplish all of those.

So, does Hillary have the it factor? I think she does. But then she sometimes has that illustrious funny smirk on her face, that makes you think that she's saying one thing but then actually she may mean something else.

Obama; he's a fresh face in Washington. His ideas are commendable, and him being against civilian guns, etc, I agree with him. I too believe that civilians should be limited to caring guns. I don't carry or own a gun, and I have never carried, owned or fired a gun, and I want to stay that way.

If civilians were limited to stringent gun control, then these treacherous accidents like the Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Nebraska Mall, and many other unreported gun shootings may not be happening.

So, if I could vote for two candidates, I would vote for Hillary and Obama, but since that can't happen, given all his stance on many different matters, I'd vote for Obama.

[criniit]

All of those shootings were done with illegal weapons. Whether they were underage or illegal automatic weapons what happened there had nothing to do with our current gun laws.

As for the world being a safer place without guns for certain civilians...

Criminals and murderers are always going to be able to get guns, I think the world would be a safer place if everyone had one. Who is going to rob a guy if he knows he has got a magnum under his arm?

[usakos]

so, this is like saying that the world would be safer if every nation on planet earth was a nuclear power; has nuclear weapons. So, who's going to nuke somebody who has certain number of nuclear bombs?

[ADVERTISE HERE!]

I tend to avoid political discussion, as they tend to become quite heated and often irrational, but I will throw my thoughts out there for anyone to comment on / take offense to / attack me about / etc.:

- I think that it is ignorant to declare oneself a Democrat or Republican. I tend to align myself with traditional Republicans on economic issues, and I side with Democrats as often as I side with Republicans on social issues. My opinion is that declaring oneself as a Democrat or Republican generally ignores consideration of the entire landscape of issues and positions of each candidate on either side. As usakos has pointed out, declaring oneself a Democrat, for example, will only allow that person to consider half of the candidates in selecting the best option for leading our nation. Ignorant. Rather, I take each candidate on their own, and base my decision on who would most likely make the best decisions for our nation and for me personally. If that is a Republican, then so be it, and if that is a Democrat, then so be it.

- At the end of the day, the President has little to no power with regard to economic issues. Congress has the real power. Still, I respond positively to candidates who support business (traditionally Republicans). I think that higher taxes slow the economy and waste greater amounts of money on inefficient social programs, while tax cuts tend to encourage economic activity (creating jobs and causing income to "trickle down" to those in lower tax brackets) and waste less money on inefficient social programs. I support taxes, as we need them to run our country, but our current tax scheme is horrible, frought with inefficiencies, ineffectiveness, unfairness, and disincentives.

- The thought of Hillary in office scares the hell out of me. Her husband was an amazing President, whose otherwise amazing record was marred by his "personal" scandal. He balanced a budget, he inspired and encouraged Americans, and he was able to unite Republicans and Democrats in Congressional efforts. But that was not Hillary. I see no reason WHY she would be a better President than anyone else, though I invite discussion on this issue.

- I am opposed to gun control for several reasons. 1) Constitutional Right: Our forefathers, who built the foundation upon which our great nation has grown to what it is today, guaranteed my right to bear arms, just as they did my freedom of speech. It is my Constitutional right, and I will continue to fight for each and every one of my Constitutional rights, as they seem to be harder and harder to preserve. 2) Safety: I have completed my course and will soon be applying for a Concealed Carry license. I hope to God that I would never need to use it, but if I do ever need to, I want to be able to. 3) Effect: Do you really think that a ban on civilian handguns will have any positive effect? No. In fact, it will have a negative effect. Law-abiding citizens who have weapons for, and only for, self-protection, will be no longer have such protection. Non law-abiding citizens who have guns illegally or plan to use them illegally, will continue to possess or use them illegally, as there will be no way to completely ban them. Whenever something becomes illegal, a black market is created, and this is what will happen here, to a greater degree than already exists. You will still have criminals obtaining weapons and committing crimes and kids shooting up schools - you'll just have one more hoop for them to jump through in doing so, which they will jump through. Further, they will be more likely to commit such crimes, as they have a safety net in the fact that they have no fear of everyday citizens protecting themselves. Thus, crimes could actually INCREASE. Instead, spend our tax dollars on violent crime prevention rather than on taking my own means of self-protection.

Very interesting discussion, though not unique. Any other thoughts? I would only ask that arguments be supported rationally, with facts and thoughtful reasoning, rather than with emotions and/or ignorance with no support. For example, do not argue just, "Hillary will make a great President" or "Democrats ruin the economy," but provide rational arguments for your conclusions.

[Assault on Reason]

Economically, and overall,

Ron Paul

[usakos]

I don't think it's ignorant for one to declare a party affiliation.

Because it's based on tradition, culture and or belief. This is the same as someone declaring either to be catholic, Mormon, Christian, or Muslim. Or such as being a Laker's fan or Piston's fan. Either way, you get to belong to a group, a body, which stands for something, whatever that might be.

For me; it's based on hands-on experience with some republicans, and my belief, culture and tradition by being a democrat, and no one will ever take that away from me. I don't see other parties being wrong, just a matter of my belief and certain issues.

And if you jump around party lines, then what do you stand for? There's a saying; "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything".

[The Stealthy One]

Wow, finally - a forum where folks know who Ron Paul is - and don't have inaccurate information about him. Of everyone running, Paul is by far my favorite - I'm a Libertarian, and it's nice to see another one run, even if it is for the wrong party.

As for mainstream candidates, I like Obama. He's fresh, genuine, and could bring a new perspective to long-time problems.

[crackah]

Obamaramma!


I dont like ron pual.

He is to backward for me, to much old thinking imo.

That doesnt mean I dont agree with alot of the things he says.