Each day, I see more and more 'questions' about voting for Hillary or Obama (just an example). I realize that your vote is deeply influenced by party affiliation, but if people are truly interested in having the best person for the job in office, how can they make such premature decisions? We can hardly understand their positions on issues at this early stage...so how can we make an informed decision?
2007-02-01 01:01:05 · 11 answers · asked by Super Ruper 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Very good question. The answer, unfortunately, is that most people in this country make their voting decisions based on very superficial information - race, sex and party affiliation.
That's why neither Clinton nor Obama will win the Democratic nomination. The Dems are not stupid. They know how ignorant most Americans are when it comes to voting. The average American voter will base his or her decision on the color of someone's skin, or whether someone menstruates, rather than listening to the issues and what the candidates have to say.
It sucks, but that's America today.
2007-02-01 01:22:01 · answer #1 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The EMF on a try cost, q, determines if the source cost, Q, is the comparable or distinctive cost sign. here is how. F = qE + q(v X B) = qE while B, the magnetic flux, is discounted. For a static factor source, like an electron, E = kQ/r^2 is the electrical powered container potential the place Q is the electron cost, ok is the consistent, and r is the area between q and Q. while the EMF, F, is repelling, q and Q are the comparable sign. while that is attracting, the two are distinctive signs and indications. So in the journey that your source cost, Q, is distinctive as a destructive cost and F is repelling, then the objective cost, q, is likewise destructive. If Q is termed helpful, then q is helpful while the EMF is repelling. And if the EMF is eye-catching, q and Q are opposite cost signs and indications. So in case you call Q helpful, then q might desire to be destructive...and vice versa. and that's surprisingly lots it. with the aid of the years, we basically suggested electrons have a destructive cost so F = qE = qke/r^2 the place Q = e is the electron source. So if we insert a try cost, q, and the EMF is eye-catching, that q is helpful charged, like a proton. Had history left us with electrons distinctive as helpful, each little thing could have been reversed in sign, however the physics consequences does no longer have replaced. case in point, if we had called the proton cost destructive, we'd nonetheless get an charm EMF with an excellent electron.
2016-11-02 01:11:41 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do like Hillary but she has draw abacks, electabilty to me is improtant, issues aare as well and I think we need a national health care program, repeal much of the patriot act and I wish the Libertarian party would come up with a winable candidate
2007-02-01 01:16:40 · answer #3 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most of those candidates didn't just spring up out of the blue. They have histories in politics and voting records. If you don't know where Hillary, McCain, Edwards, et al. stand by now you must have been living under a rock for the last 20 years.
2007-02-01 01:11:40 · answer #4 · answered by porkchop 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You make a good point. Especially since we have some really good choices this time around. I haven't even started to decide who I'll back but alas, it really doesn't matter since I don't live in a state like Iowa or New Hampshire that decides who's going to get each party's nomination.
2007-02-01 01:22:10 · answer #5 · answered by Do You See What Happens Larry? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Informed people will need more time to make that decision,for there is much more information to be gained....The" sheeple "on the other hand....(and they know who they are ),have already chosen....
2007-02-01 01:05:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
study their past, read what the liberal media doesn't want you to see. who has the least dirt to hide? they hope you wont remember what they did twenty years ago in Arkansas. go buy a good pair of knee high rubber boots and a heavy rain slicker. this campaign is going to get messy.
2007-02-01 01:17:46 · answer #7 · answered by whodad 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Agreed. Much can happen between now and 2008.
2007-02-01 01:04:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
At this point in time Hilliary would be my choice. but I keep my options open who knows who will throw their hat into the ring.
2007-02-01 04:32:09 · answer #9 · answered by joymlcat 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Leave it to the lobbyist they decide not you.
2007-02-01 01:11:09 · answer #10 · answered by lonetraveler 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋