• 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!

Who will you vote for in the 2012 presidential election...

Who will you vote for in the 2012 Presidential Election?

  • Total voters
    113
Kal'Stang said:
No vote is a wasted vote. Votes are about more than just voting in someone, its also about making a point. Wish more people would realize that instead of just ALWAYS voting along party lines.
Click to expand...

Very idealistic but it still elects Hussein Obama.........Myself I don't belong to a political party so I try and vote for someone whose politics are closes to mine and that is usually a republican............Did vote for JFK and LBJ as well as Senator "Scoop" Jackson as well as Congress man Norm Dicks all democrats........
 
Navy Pride said:
Very idealistic but it still elects Hussein Obama.........Myself I don't belong to a political party so I try and vote for someone whose politics are closes to mine and that is usually a republican............Did vote for JFK and LBJ as well as Senator "Scoop" Jackson as well as Congress man Norm Dicks all democrats........
Click to expand...

Yeah, right now it is considered "idealistic". But that is because most people won't vote based on anything but the "lesser of two evils". I don't believe in voting that way because evil is still evil.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yeah, right now it is considered "idealistic". But that is because most people won't vote based on anything but the "lesser of two evils". I don't believe in voting that way because evil is still evil.
Click to expand...


I don't view a candidate, or any person, that is not a perfect representation of my personal ideals to be evil, but that's just me.
 
Catawba said:
I don't view a candidate, or any person, that is not a perfect representation of my personal ideals to be evil, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

In this case the term "lesser of two evils" is simply someone that you think will be a bad POTUS/Senator but is still better than the other person. It's not meant to say that they actually are "evil" in the normal sense of the word.
 
Kal'Stang said:
In this case the term "lesser of two evils" is simply someone that you think will be a bad POTUS/Senator but is still better than the other person. It's not meant to say that they actually are "evil" in the normal sense of the word.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, one is just a less perfect representation of my ideals and priorities than the other.
 
Catawba said:
The way I see it, one is just a less perfect representation of my ideals and priorities than the other.
Click to expand...

The difference being that the product you buy won't take away/restrict rights or add new laws to keep rights away or add new laws just because they can. ;)
 
I think I'll vote 3rd party or leave the Presidential election slot blank........ You can do that right?
 
Kal'Stang said:
The difference being that the product you buy won't take away/restrict rights or add new laws to keep rights away or add new laws just because they can. ;)
Click to expand...

Many services chosen unwisely will have serious consequences. But please tell me more about the president's abilities to establish laws. I was under the impression that was up to Congress.

I see Romney and Obama as fairly representative of the predominant ideologies of American citizens. Of course my perfect candidate choice would be someone like Kucinich. Only problem is most people consider him too extreme. So yes, I could vote for Kucinich, but I would be throwing my vote away for a candidate that, while not perfect, would be better than the other candidate.

I'm not trying to convince you to vote for anyone. What you do with your vote is your decision. Bottom line, I think is that when our society becomes more evolved socially, we will have a better candidate pool to choose from.
 
Catawba said:
Many services chosen unwisely will have serious consequences. But please tell me more about the president's abilities to establish laws. I was under the impression that was up to Congress.
Click to expand...

He has his say when he signs a law...or veto's it. But besides that we also vote for those in Congress and the Senate. ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
He has his say when he signs a law...or veto's it. But besides that we also vote for those in Congress and the Senate. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeppers, for whoever we think best represents our ideals and priorities. And a president's veto can be overridden by Congress.
 
Catawba said:
Yeppers, for whoever we think best represents our ideals and priorities. And a president's veto can be overridden by Congress.
Click to expand...

And if neither of the candidates represent our views even 50%?

And yes Congress can veto a presidents veto power. But I have to wonder just how often that is done.....

I checked and apparently in our entire history there has only been 106 times that Congress has overridden a veto. Out of 1484 regular vetoes.

Senate.gov
 
Kal'Stang said:
And if neither of the candidates represent our views even 50%?
Click to expand...

For me, there hasn't been an election where one of the candidates didn't represent more than 50% of my views.

And yes Congress can veto a presidents veto power. But I have to wonder just how often that is done.....
Click to expand...

I have to wonder just how often we demand it of them?


I checked and apparently in our entire history there has only been 106 times that Congress has overridden a veto. Out of 1484 regular vetoes.

Senate.gov
Click to expand...

And how often were representatives voted out of office because of their votes?
 
I was going to vote for the candidate who keeps trying to raise taxes on every American, whose failed energy policies resulted in lost American jobs and gas prices at $4, who laundered $500 million to one of his supporters through a failed green energy company, who stole Chrysler from their bondholders and sold the company overseas to pay off his union voters, who sold guns to Mexican drug lords in order to influence public opinion on the 2nd amendment, who is suing states for trying to help prevent illegal immigration, who voted to let doctors kill babies after they are born, who increased the debt more in three years than every other president before him combined, who has found a scape goat for every bad move he's made, and refuses to fire his incompetent, racist attorney general. But then, inexplicably, I decided I'm going to support Romney instead. I dunno, there's just a thing or two I don't like about Obama's record. Maybe someone can tell me what Obama has done right that would make me want to vote for him over Romney.
 
MadLib said:
You don't know what job Oberon has. He could be an economist. Don't assume he's some spiteful laborer who just hates the rich. There are plenty of middle-class and even upper-class people who think that the rich should have a bigger burden and who don't contribute enough to society.
Click to expand...

Yes there are many middle class people who assume they are smarter and more "valuable" than the rich and rather than dealing with the fact that they have inflated their own sense of worth or marketability, they blame their employers or the market for their status and then hope the government punishes those who are doing better than they are.

PhDs who cannot hack it in the real world are perfect examples. I had several law professors who made top grades at Yale or Harvard but couldn't hack the brutal hours and politics of places like Cravath Swaine and Moore or Sullivan and Cromwell or Hughes Hubbard and Reed so after a couple years there they fled back to the ivory towers and spend the next 4 decades of their lives complaining that some guy who was a B student in the class they graduated first second or third in was now making a million a year as a senior partner at some big wall street firm while the poor "smarter and more talented" professor was only making 100K teaching at Chicago, Columbia, Cornell or Duke

if you want someone who makes more to have a bigger burden that is worthless to me. the rich are the only group that is paying more of their share of the income tax than their share of the income
 
Catawba said:
For me, there hasn't been an election where one of the candidates didn't represent more than 50% of my views.
Click to expand...

It is certainly that way for me this election and happened with me last election.

Catawba said:
I have to wonder just how often we demand it of them?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I do know a lot of people demanded that Obama veto Obamacare because of the mandate...yet that didn't happen. So that might be a good question to pose also. "How often did the majority of people demand that the POTUS veto a bill and the POTUS didn't do it?"

Catawba said:
And how often were representatives voted out of office because of their votes?
Click to expand...

Unknowable really as a representative could be voted out simply because the "other guy" aligned more with a majority of peoples views than because of any action by the rep.
 
Zyphlin said:
Going to depend a good bit on Romney's VP, and on how the campaign plays out.

At this point, I'm going to be voting Romney.

If he nominates a VP I just can't get behind, or the campaign just sours me even more on him, then I'll likely either vote 3rd party or write in John Huntsman so I can at least say I voted for who I'd want to be President.
Click to expand...

Was going to post pretty much the exact same thing. Huntsman's my ideal candidate, but Romney hasn't soured on me enough to get me to waste my vote. Getting there though.
 
Navy Pride said:
Judging by the results of the poll spaming just might of happened favoring Hussein Obama
Click to expand...

There are 37 real votes to 44 total. Highly unlikely that's happening. Want to go check out the gay marriage polls where your side spams 150 votes for against gay marriage when only 4 people voted against it?

You really have to start thinking before you post.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/108220-government-cant-create-jobs.html

That is a thread where your side spammed the poll. 20 real votes when 116 total votes. One of your immature prick friends went a bit overboard.
 
Last edited:
How does one spam polls? If the administrators have them set up so that 'guests' can vote, then it is their fault isn't it? Seems for most software, that is simple setting to change. Not sure why any forum such as this would want 'guests' to vote anyway.
 
Arbo said:
How does one spam polls? If the administrators have them set up so that 'guests' can vote, then it is their fault isn't it? Seems for most software, that is simple setting to change. Not sure why any forum such as this would want 'guests' to vote anyway.
Click to expand...

They allow guests to vote in order to help draw them in.
 
Navy Pride said:
Judging by the results of the poll spaming just might of happened favoring Hussein Obama
Click to expand...
LOL Navy....as usual you simply ignore the facts. Do the math. 37 of 46 Obama votes are accounted for thats 82%. Only 26 of 34 of Romney votes or 75%.

That means more spamming for Romney votes.


But thanks for playing!
 
Kal'Stang said:
They allow guests to vote in order to help draw them in.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense. It seems obvious it is merely something being abused, not drawing people in.

I can't, for the life of me, remember a time I saw a poll on the internet and thought 'oh man, great poll, i gotta sign up there!'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom