Comments:John McCain and Hillary Clinton win New Hampshire primaries

...

Can we include something about validity of results? I think we need to make sure that this is actually what was voted. The best way would be to report how they were counted and how they voted. Mobus 07:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote Ron Paul
Sorry to be that guy, but DO IT. Ron Paul is the only candidate who would move America away from the "World Police" mentality that is apparently so widespread now that none of the other candidates are even talking about it.

He's also the only candidate who has consistently tried to follow the Constitution, instead of just talking about how America is #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.88.255.139 (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are sorry at all. --SVTCobra 19:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's Beliefs
Mitt Romney believes that the Republicans have a monopoly on truth. In other words, as a Republican, he believes that it is his responsibility to promote and endorse things that might not be popular, but that are ethically or religiously "right". As a Latter Day Saint, he literally believes that he is an Angel, a Saint. He believes that a person's faith governs their personal beliefs. He believes that women are spiritually, mentally, and physically inferior to men. In the afterlife they will serve their husbands. He supports the death penalty. He believes in a form of Social Darwinism in that he believes that those of Muslim faith, or any other faith other than Mormonism, are religiously inferior. Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, believes that black people became so because their ancestors were burned in the fires of Hell for their sins.


 * [citation needed]
 * Social Darwinism isn't a belief, it is a theory that within a set group those "most fit" will prosper. You've not clearly articulated why you feel Romney is unfit for PoTUS, you just slandered him and his beliefs. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I say something politically incorrect? Social Darwinism is a belief. It is not backed by scientific fact. If you feel that the comments are "slander" please point out why and where the statements are not factual. No citation is needed because this is an opinion page. If you do not believe these comments, that is your right. I have not provided proof using citations. However, ask Mitt Romney if he believs that those of African American descent are actually descendants of Cain. Ask Mitt Romney if acting as President, if he had to pick between the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints tenets over the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights, which would he pick.
 * So what if a Mormon becomes President. The worst he'd do as a Mormon specifically would likely be to lobby against booze and to endorse a renovation of that crappy Cinderella Castle temple on the beltway, both of which probably wouldn't be all that bad a pov. 204.52.215.107 04:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypocritical Huckabee
Huckabee has credited divine intervention with some of his political success (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee). Huckabee is pro-life, but he supports the death penalty. By endorsing the war in Iraq, he also is endorsing civilian casualties in Iraq. Under the circumstance that the Bush Administration lied about Iraq harboring weapons of mass destruction, Huckabee believes that it's okay to continue killing people in Iraq. By this standard, he in effect is contradicting his own beliefs, where the Biblical ten commandments include, "thou shalt not kill". Perhaps Huckabee believes in a figurative interpretation of the Bible.

McCain - Henchman for an Iraqi Occupation
John McCain believes as long as Americans are not being hurt or injured or killed, it's okay for the U.S. to be in Iraq. ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain ). What about civilians in Iraq? Is the death of children in Iraq okay? Is that "family values?" Is it okay for the U.S. to kill, even accidentally, civilians in Iraq? Is it okay because oil is at stake? I sincerely question the ethics of a man who voted that Bill Clinton was guilty during the impeachment trail, when John McCain does not question the lies that led to the Iraq war. Which is worse, a private lapse of ethics which has no bearing on political office, or public abuse of power? The Bush Administration has publicly abused the office of the Presidency. McCain endorses that Administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.194.176 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

McCain might screw up traffic in California, the Midwest, and the Northeast if elected
If he vetoes spending bills because they include Amtrak spending (which he has a record of considering to be "pork barrel spending"), effectively zeroing out Amtrak's budget, then the trains might stop running, leading to heavy traffic jams in urban parts of this country. Opposing Amtrak as an Arizona senator (Arizona has lousy Amtrak service, so it doesn't amount to much influence on traffic over there) is one thing, but if he goes to the White House and does it, he's bound to draw a lot more criticism from the nation as a whole. Amtrak is NOT a Pork Barrel project; it is essential to many states and draws customers to tourist destinations in most of the Lower 48. 204.52.215.107 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)