• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Presidential Election: Who are you voting for or might/could you vote for?

Presidential Election: Who are you voting for or might/could you vote for?

  • Total voters
    65
samsmart said:
Well, I don't agree with her in nuclear disarmament, nor on prohibiting the use of land mines, as land mines are an important strategy for deterring North Korea from launching an invasion against South Korea.

But, on the whole, I agree much more with Jill Stein than I do with either Obama or Romney.

And I think that she has much more conviction than Obama or Romney does too.
Click to expand...

oh well i certainly wasn't questioning why you like her or not i hope you didnt think that i was just saying how "I" find her foreign policy confusing.

Not sure how she accomplishes it realistically. How do you force even more rules on a area while limiting the tools to do it. But this could be cleared up by her. I haven't heard or seen her speak a lot so maybe in print it comes off different than her actual plans.

other than that i like a lot of her stances, i was surprised by gary to on his stance on social issues, for a main stream libertarian i found them surprising.
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
oh well i certainly wasn't questioning why you like her or not i hope you didnt thing that i was just saying how "I" find her foreign policy confusing.

Not sure how she accomplishes it realistically. How do you force even more rules on a area while limiting the tools to do it. But this could be cleared up by her. I haven't heard or seen her speak a lot so maybe in print it comes off different than her actual plans.

other than that i like a lot of her stances, i was surprised by gary to on his stance on social issues, for a main stream libertarian i found them surprising.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, though, is that both Stein and Johnson agree on limiting our military budget, ending drone assassination strikes, and being much more collegial when it comes to global powers.

Mostly because Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same on those issues.
 
samsmart said:
Honestly, it's because of her foreign policy that I'm voting for her. I'm tired of the War on Everything, or that Americans feel the need to make the world just like we are, or that the U.S. is single-highhandedly responsible for all that's good in the world while ignoring the bad that is done in the name of the United States.

There are many ways to exert influence in the world, and we need to better prioritize for what reasons we do so.
Click to expand...

Shame on you Sam. You know that "The War On Everything" keeps the pseudo-economy going - when real estate bubbles or the like burst.
 
Removable Mind said:
Shame on you Sam. You know that "The War On Everything" keeps the pseudo-economy going - when real estate bubbles or the like burst.
Click to expand...

It's also a jobs program for our military. Because heaven forbid we have a jobs program for doctors and teachers and technicians and musicians and artists and writers.
 
samsmart said:
It's also a jobs program for our military. Because heaven forbid we have a jobs program for doctors and teachers and technicians and musicians and artists and writers.
Click to expand...

Well its EASY to tell where I stand, I make military products and Im still fine and think we should cut our defense budget.
More specifically on hardware not on personal benefits/pay.
 
I'm voting for Johnson and Gray. And that's the only combonation i would vote for. Everyone else is a Statist
 
DaveFagan said:
I am a genuine Conservative.
Click to expand...
and....
DaveFagan said:
I would vote for Obama
Click to expand...
True Conservatives don't vote for Radical Liberals. You are not a Conservative. I'm sorry you had to hear it from me.

DaveFagan said:
You mean to imply that Republicans are Conservative.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I'm saying that you are not a Conservative. I'd say at least 75% of what you post in this forum is liberalistic in nature.

DaveFagan said:
I am what I say I am.
Click to expand...
You are what you write. For example: You said you would vote for Obama (a radical liberal) if you thought Romeny had a chance to win. This tells me that you are a liberal, not a Conservative.

DaveFagan said:
My political lean is environmental and a desire to restrain Corporate power and political influence.
Click to expand...
Your political lean is environut and anti-business. You, a Conservative? No way in hell. You are a tree worshipper and a Wall Street Occupant.
 
Last edited:
Dooble said:
and True Conservatives don't for Radical Liberals. You are not a Conservative. I'm sorry you had to hear it from me.

Wrong. I'm saying that you are not a Conservative. I'd say at least 75% of what you post in this forum is liberalistic in nature.

You are what you write. For example: You said you would vote for Obama (a radical liberal) if you thought Romney had a chance to win. This tells me, and anyone else that you are a liberal, not a Conservative.

Your political lean is environut and anti-business. You, a Conservative? No way in hell. You are a tree worshipper and a Wall Street Occupant.
Click to expand...

Obama is a radical liberal? he seems more center right, even his healthcare, his crowning achievement, is based around shoving money into the hands of big pharma and big insurance.
 
I voted for Stein several weeks ago. I am not a swing state voter so I felt no obligation whatsoever to play the "lesser of two evils" game.
 
Sarcogito said:
I voted for Stein several weeks ago. I am not a swing state voter so I felt no obligation whatsoever to play the "lesser of two evils" game.
Click to expand...

i would have liked to do that, unfortunately i live in florida, and i got worn down by my dad, but i don't feel so bad voting for the lesser evil he likes since he is 50% responsible for my existence.
 
Cephus said:
So you need to decide, between the two, who will do the least amount of damage to the country.
Click to expand...

That argument ONLY holds the least bit of water if you live in a swing state.
 
roflpublican said:
Obama is a radical liberal? he seems more center right, even his healthcare, his crowning achievement, is based around shoving money into the hands of big pharma and big insurance.
Click to expand...
I think you don't know what you're talking about. Read below, and then we'll talk further:

The Real Purpose of Obamacare
 
roflpublican said:
i would have liked to do that, unfortunately i live in florida, and i got worn down by my dad, but i don't feel so bad voting for the lesser evil he likes since he is 50% responsible for my existence.
Click to expand...

It is difficult for me to begrudge a swing state voter allowing their pragmatism to trump their ideology. If I were one I would probably cave as well. :)
 
Dooble said:
I think you don't know what you're talking about. Read below, and then we'll talk further:

The Real Purpose of Obamacare
Click to expand...

that's interesting but following the money is a better judge of purpose than an opinion piece.

Sarcogito said:
It is difficult for me to begrudge a swing state voter allowing their pragmatism to trump their ideology. If I were one I would probably cave as well. :)
Click to expand...

well my dad is the type of guy who will calmly explain his position 500x in a row until you either walk away or shoot him in the voice box. resistance was futile, especially since i'm always swinging by to see whats on the menu, 5 years of independence on and he stills cooks way better than me :smash:
 
Last edited:
Sarcogito said:
That argument ONLY holds the least bit of water if you live in a swing state.
Click to expand...

If you don't live in a swing state, you might as well just stay home because nothing you vote means a damn thing anyhow.
 
roflpublican said:
that's interesting but following the money is a better judge of purpose than an opinion piece.
Click to expand...
What you fail to understand, is that you are the opinion piece. Did you read the article?
 
Cephus said:
If you don't live in a swing state, you might as well just stay home because nothing you vote means a damn thing anyhow.
Click to expand...
Is PA a swing state?

Does that mean I have to vote for one of the two main party assholes, if I dislike the other more?
 
Cephus said:
If you don't live in a swing state, you might as well just stay home because nothing you vote means a damn thing anyhow.
Click to expand...

There are still several reasons for third party voters to vote, swing state or not.

First, you still count toward the popular vote. While Obama will likely win the popular vote, I can still play my little part in ensuring that he does not have a mandate. Whoever wins, Obama or Romney, I want them to know that most people who voted did NOT vote for him.

Second is money. The more support a third party gets the more likely they are to be eligible for matching fund in the future, thus increasing the likelihood of getting the word of their agenda out.

Third, while it is a foregone conclusion that a third party candidate will not win the Presidency, that is far from the only race on the ballot. There are plenty of more local elections going on in which the odds of a third party winning are not so long. So if you are already going to be at the ballot box voting in those, how much extra work is it to slide your hand over and mark the box for the Presidency as well?
 
Sarcogito said:
First, you still count toward the popular vote. While Obama will likely win the popular vote, I can still play my little part in ensuring that he does not have a mandate. Whoever wins, Obama or Romney, I want them to know that most people who voted did NOT vote for him.
Click to expand...

If you think they seriously give a damn, you're out of your mind.

Second is money. The more support a third party gets the more likely they are to be eligible for matching fund in the future, thus increasing the likelihood of getting the word of their agenda out.
Click to expand...

Which, unfortunately, is just as ridiculous. A third party has to get over 5% of the popular vote to qualify and the biggest, most powerful third-party, the Libertarians, have never gotten more than 1% of the vote and that percentage is dropping every election. Last time, they got 0.4% The best they've ever done is the Perot campaign in 1992, but even then, they lost their official party status following their failure in the 1996 election to maintain more than 5% and have never come remotely close again. Unless an independently wealthy candidate comes along again and buys into the election, the chances of a third party getting funded in the future is zero.
 
Obama or Romney... hm, let me see... It's one of those "are you a dumbass or yes" dilemmas. :peace
 
Dooble said:
and.... True Conservatives don't vote for Radical Liberals. You are not a Conservative. I'm sorry you had to hear it from me.

Wrong. I'm saying that you are not a Conservative. I'd say at least 75% of what you post in this forum is liberalistic in nature.

You are what you write. For example: You said you would vote for Obama (a radical liberal) if you thought Romeny had a chance to win. This tells me that you are a liberal, not a Conservative.

Your political lean is environut and anti-business. You, a Conservative? No way in hell. You are a tree worshipper and a Wall Street Occupant.
Click to expand...


Am I conservative enough to want to protect the environment that nourishes us as a species. Yes! That's anti Republican. Am I a tree hugger. Hell, yes, I told you I'm a Green. Do I want to see the power and influence of Corporations in the USA restrained. Yes! That's anti Republican and anti Plutocracy and anti Oligarchy! Republicans are a radical and I repeat, RADICAL, pro Corporate ideology dedicated to protecting the status quo of Big Money, like "let's give the tax breaks to the wealthy and they will do good things for the needs of the general populace." Yeh! Like maybe buying an island off Aruba to escape the squalor. I seek a nice balanced conservative policy that benefits all, today and tomorrow. Not short-sighted and radical protectionism, war, pollution, and poverty that is endemic to Republican politics. I'm pretty damned Conservative.
 
Romney is the only candidate available that might be able to defeat Obama. Some other candidates may be more desirable if I knew their whole platform, but defeating Obama has to take priority and since they cannot do it, I must go for Romney.

I will Vote for only a single Incumbent. My Representative, I would even vote against him if the opposing candidates resume didn't read like a how-to to become a welfare liberal. A more moderate Dem would of gotten my vote, but one didn't volunteer to run. The libertarian candidate didn't campaign that I saw and I have not found any information concerning him, other than a name that is supposedly running.
 
I've been legitimately undecided for quite some time, going back and forth between Romney & Johnson. But I've decided just today that Johnson will receive my vote.

If the Libertarian party receives 5% of the national popular vote, as I understand they will be eligible for federal campaign funds in the next election cycle. This could be over $90MILLION. Significant enough to make them more known, potentially getting up to 15% nationally in polls and even included in the debates.

I disagree with some of the more extreme ideas of the Libertarian Party being implemented practically (even if I do agree with the ideologically), but as a party that has no shot in winning, they can afford to be more extreme. If/when they should start becoming popular, I would expect them to cut off some of those extreme ideas and focus on the ones that will have an impact and are popular among the people.

I'm voting for Johnson with the intent of helping to get his popular vote above 5%, or if nothing else, get him close enough that the party can get over 5% in the next cycle. I believe the Libertarians are on the road that will save us most efficiently -- they just need to be tamed slightly by the people. I believe enough people are not happy with this 2-party system right now that if a change were to come, it could build momentum fairly quickly.
 
DVSentinel said:
Romney is the only candidate available that might be able to defeat Obama. Some other candidates may be more desirable if I knew their whole platform, but defeating Obama has to take priority and since they cannot do it, I must go for Romney.

I will Vote for only a single Incumbent. My Representative, I would even vote against him if the opposing candidates resume didn't read like a how-to to become a welfare liberal. A more moderate Dem would of gotten my vote, but one didn't volunteer to run. The libertarian candidate didn't campaign that I saw and I have not found any information concerning him, other than a name that is supposedly running.
Click to expand...

Johnson's campaigned quite hard to get in front of the people. The fact that you've heard of him says that he's done his job. The fact that you don't know about him says that you haven't done your job in researching your options. He cannot force the media to cover him and they won't unless he's popular. He cannot become popular if the people only look into the people the media tells them to look into. It's a viscous cycle and only the individuals have the power to stop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom