United States Presidential Election 2012 MEGATHREAD
2,907 replies, posted
Took me 15 minutes to vote.
Done and done.
Now if you will excuse me, I will continue to hide under a rock until the political ads are done.
[QUOTE=Thrilled;38338241]I clicked Romney on the poll, but really; I'm actually not gonna be voting this year. I have had no time to sit on my ass in front of the TV/computer and look up the pros & cons of each candidate or bullshit prop thats out there.[/QUOTE]
That is literally the worst excuse ever
Here,
Let me help your uninformed ass:
Do you want to keep going forward in a way where we are now seeing recovery [sp]obama[/sp]
or
Do you want everything Bush was [sp]romney[/sp]
Ugh. Not old enough to vote, but I'm following as closely as I can. The wait for any information at all is killing me.
[QUOTE=Kirbunny431;38340101]Ugh. Not old enough to vote, but I'm following as closely as I can. The wait for any information at all is killing me.[/QUOTE]
[sp]i voted obama[/sp]
ahh yes, the american presidental elections
or as we arabs call it, "we're screwed either way"
[QUOTE=jordguitar;38340129][sp]i voted obama[/sp][/QUOTE]
Looks like Obama wins. You and the Peruvian Shamans have eased my nerves.
Mann I love how no one told me there was a month waiting period thing.
I was three days over when I went to register.
Remember when they bought out the voting machines?
[video=youtube;QdpGd74DrBM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM[/video]
Yep.
Welp, taking a shower and heading down to the polling station. First election. Not voting for Romney or Obama because neither represent my political views, and voting third party- mostly Green- as much as possible for every other race.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38340369']Welp, taking a shower and heading down to the polling station. First election. Not voting for Romney or Obama because neither represent my political views, and voting third party- mostly Green- as much as possible for every other race.[/QUOTE]
And in the end you are doing nothing but hurting the 2 main parties because unless one of the local elections has a wide lead for a independant, they will never get elected due to the spoiler effect
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38340369']Welp, taking a shower and heading down to the polling station. First election. Not voting for Romney or Obama because neither represent my political views, and voting third party- mostly Green- as much as possible for every other race.[/QUOTE]
Don't be that guy
[QUOTE=Daring_Robin;38340368]Remember when they bought out the voting machines?
[video=youtube;QdpGd74DrBM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM[/video]
Yep.[/QUOTE]
RIP America
all because of an uncalibrated touch screen.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;38340413]RIP America
all because of an uncalibrated touch screen.[/QUOTE]
From video comments
[QUOTE]I thought this was also the case, so before recording the video I tried your suggestion. I selected Stein and it worked fine. I selected Romney and it was fine. Additionally, I did call over a vote official who told me, and I quote, "Don't worry about it, everything will be fine."[/QUOTE]
Goddamn, my mothers main reason for why she won't vote for Obama, "someone has to save all the unborn babies and bring back Christianity"
:suicide:
Obama fucking [I]hates[/I] babies.
[I]"Get that shit out my face,"[/I] he was quoted as saying upon seeing his daughters for the first time.
Insider reports from reliable sources reveal that, if reelected, Obama is planning to make abortions mandatory, and if that's not enough, he's also making [I]conception[/I] mandatory, simply so that he can raise his kill count. You heard it here first, folks.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;38340489]Goddamn, my mothers main reason for why she won't vote for Obama, "someone has to save all the unborn babies and bring back Christianity"
:suicide:[/QUOTE]
have you explained that mormonism considers all forms of christianity "abominations"? They actually refer to the catholic church as "the church of the devil"
or that mormonism has an actual [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_vengeance"]oath to destroy america[/URL] as vengeance for the death of its creator
because these are things people are overlooking because OH MAN WE NEED TO GET RID OF THIS BLACK MUSLIM FROM KENYA
offtopic, I forgot to make signs this year
[t]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md22gyxIUC1qjeigjo1_500.jpg[/t]
Today's the big day! I am a bit more optimistic about Obama winning today than I was in the last week. Lets all hope for the best!
[QUOTE=Daring_Robin;38340368]Remember when they bought out the voting machines?
[video=youtube;QdpGd74DrBM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM[/video]
Yep.[/QUOTE]
Wait is this real?
[QUOTE=Daring_Robin;38340403]Don't be that guy[/QUOTE]
That guy who votes for the positions he supports?
I voted for Democrats as well, but they were the minority. I much prefer the Green Party to the Democrats, and there's a lot of Greens in my area, and I'd take a third party like the Libertarians over the party dichotomy. My special interest is the support of third parties whenever possible- as an observer to the two major parties who is not a supporter of either, it's extremely easy to see how the differences between Republican and Democrat- and [I]especially[/I] Romney and Obama, are little to none with the exception of a handful of domestic social issues and minor economic issues that hold no major sway in anything political, and that no one will get passed even if their party controls Congress. Presidents rarely change the system or make radical changes. The last president who made a major change to the system was Reagan, and before him FDR. Issues that I care about- ending the wars, stopping drone usage, closing military bases, raising taxes on the rich, workers' rights, cutting military programs, increasing workplace democracy, universal healthcare, and low-cost (if not free) higher education...none are considered by either candidate, because both are status quo moderate Liberal capitalists who have an interest in preserving the ideas of the majority who are advertised the same concepts each election, and then are sorely disappointed and angry when nothing gets done (84% disapproval rating for Congress, yet no one accepts that it's their candidate that's the problem. Wonder why).
But because the system is so clogged with money and special interests, two parties somehow are juuust perfectly representative of the views of 330 million people, while much smaller countries have a far larger variety of political parties that consistently hold office. Even the UK and Canada have 3 major parties- that's one more branch of the political spectrum than what we have represented here. Here, you have two parties that attempt to appeal to the largest possible voter base, so they make outlandish claims about what they will or can do (mostly only because their party is pushing them to: see Mitt's change from when he was governor, and Obama's change on gay rights), and then don't or can't do any of it when they're in office. They spread their positions thin and dilute any possibility of working together, even within their own party, therefore making themselves ineffective and catering to too many different positions. (This year was a great example with the Republican primaries. Tea Partier Bachmann, strict social conservative Santorum, conservative-libertarian Ron Paul, corporatist Trump, moderate Romney, whatever the fuck Herman Cain was, slightly-less-moderate Perry, libertarian Huntsman, and libertarian Johnson- and none got along. In any other world they would be different parties)
Again, I'm voting as per my political positions and taking the next best when it isn't represented. So my ballot looked mostly Green (for economic policy) and Libertarian (for social policy) with a few Democrats. I think that it's important that we support political diversity by supporting third parties that could open the system up to real progress or change.
By no means am I saying just vote for a third party that you don't support, but given that the major parties' ideologies are so out of touch with any one political position, and that there's many many many third parties that represent far more reasonable political spreads, then there really isn't any reason that you shouldn't be considering voting third party, unless you're really so convinced that the alternative to your beliefs is so bad and that your vote will split the "lesser of two evils". Which isn't the case, trust me. Romney getting into office will not be very bad at all, especially when you consider how he governed in Massachusetts, and that once the race is over you can expect him to support the same sorts of positions. If the option's there, consider it. We're only about 20 years from seeing a major shift in party ideology anyhow, if we continue on the current path.
[editline]6th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=jordguitar;38340387]And in the end you are doing nothing but hurting the 2 main parties because unless one of the local elections has a wide lead for a independant, they will never get elected due to the spoiler effect[/QUOTE]
I live in a county with a strong Libertarian and Green presence, especially in local elections. It's not far fetched to say that they have a real chance of winning. Half of the township elections were between a Democrat and a Libertarian or a Green, with a mix as incumbents.
I love your chutzpah, but I got a little iffy about it when you mentioned 'how he governed in massachussetts'. Care to explain this? All I hear is that he did well with education, but it was his predecessor who's point was to really work up the education, so apparently romney just coasted on that afterwards. And why would his state, if so well taken care of, have nigh 100% chance right now of the electoral votes going to obama?
I actually want some elaboration, you sound like the guy to give it. I hear he was much better there than he's made out to be now regardless of these facts, but hwo's to say he'll go back to his old policies once the race is over? Clearly there's a lot of funding from businesses and private sources, I can't say I'm not skeptical he won't let that continue to dictate his actions further in
"Obama will take an early lead, until the republicans get off work." "I don't know. Gas stations are open 24/7."
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;38341492]"Obama will take an early lead, until the republicans get off work." "I don't know. Gas stations are open 24/7."[/QUOTE]
if you want some more... "actual" predictions, check Nate Silver (538), he's been the most accurate predictor, analyzing tons of polls and data.
[quote]The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year.[/quote]
[url]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/[/url]
I believe the only thing I've heard bad about him is rush limbaugh the other day, responding to (at the time) a prediction of 80% chance for obama winning by calling him gay, around the same time he called chris christie fat
a man of deep argument
[QUOTE=daijitsu;38341463]I love your chutzpah, but I got a little iffy about it when you mentioned 'how he governed in massachussetts'. Care to explain this? All I hear is that he did well with education, but it was his predecessor who's point was to really work up the education, so apparently romney just coasted on that afterwards. And why would his state, if so well taken care of, have nigh 100% chance right now of the electoral votes going to obama?
I actually want some elaboration, you sound like the guy to give it. I hear he was much better there than he's made out to be now regardless of these facts, but hwo's to say he'll go back to his old policies once the race is over? Clearly there's a lot of funding from businesses and private sources, I can't say I'm not skeptical he won't let that continue to dictate his actions further in[/QUOTE]
Well, he was a fair bit more [URL="http://talkaboutequality.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/romney_flier_pride_weekend1.jpg"]socially[/URL] [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/http://www.romneyhealey.com/issues/"]progressive[/URL] (that's 2 links) and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform"]economically so[/URL]. He's supported [URL="http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200910070008"]cap-and-trade[/URL], a liberal position, and supported [URL="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/27/romney-hearts-ethanol-subsidies/"]ethanol subsidies[/URL]. Essentially, Romney is a very moderate conservative, and ran so as governor.
None of these policies changed until he began running for president, and he's even now changed since he was in the primaries. But this happens all the time- we have candidates who are too moderate or too radical who become real contenders for a party, and are then endorsed. To receive the endorsement, they have to proclaim to follow the party's platform [I]and almost every time follows the platform to the letter, even when in opposition to previously held beliefs or statements[/I]. It's politics. When they get into office, they aren't bound as much by the party platform, especially if they're seeking re-election, and therefore [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter"]do[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt"]their[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson"]own[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush"]thing[/URL]. It's not unreasonable that Mitt Romney will support policies that he supported as governor and held up to the 2008 race. He very well could be a totally unremarkable president if elected. And since it seems likely that Congress is going Democrat, I don't think that we'll see him doing much otherwise- a president capable of getting anything done in Congress by reaching across the aisle is more popular than one who plays partisan and gets nothing done ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton"]to an extent[/URL]).
[QUOTE=jordguitar;38340387]And in the end you are doing nothing but hurting the 2 main parties because unless one of the local elections has a wide lead for a independant, they will never get elected due to the spoiler effect[/QUOTE]
isn't that the point? I don't think anyone in this position votes expecting a third candidate to actually win. I'll most likely just be voting green, I live in Illinois so I don't feel that me not voting for Obama will really help Romney at all.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;38340387]And in the end you are doing nothing but hurting the 2 main parties because unless one of the local elections has a wide lead for a independant, they will never get elected due to the spoiler effect[/QUOTE]
People need to vote third party if they aren't satisifed with the two major parties
Sure their guy won't get elected, but imagine what it would cause next election when they realized 30% of the population didn't vote for a major party. It would send a strong message that a lot of the population isn't satisfied with the two party system or their view points.
Besides, elections in the US don't actually elect presidents anyways, it's simply a popular vote used to determine statisitics and discover how popular a president is, and the people who support him, will be. These statistics are useless if people vote according to who they think will win, or who they don't want to win, not who they want to win.
Just because you vote third party in an election doesn't mean you throw away your vote - because your vote doesn't actually elect the president anyways.
I turned 18 on the last day you could register to vote. That was disappointing, I completely spaced about the window and I thought it was cool that I would be able to vote in a presidential election so soon after turning 18.
[QUOTE=KorJax;38341819]Besides, elections in the US don't actually elect presidents anyways, it's simply a popular vote used to determine statisitics and discover how popular a president is, and the people who support him, will be. These statistics are useless if people vote according to who they think will win, or who they don't want to win, not who they want to win.[/QUOTE]
just gonna throw it out there that sheer number of popular vote isn't necessarily a win. you could have, say, 300 units vote for candidate A in an area of 500 total, but if two other smaller regions with 400 units both vote 201-199 (candidate B wins), you'd be at 702-598 unit-votes in favor of candidate A, but (if we count 100 units=1 electoral vote), the electoral votes would tally 8-5 in favor of B
It's happened three times now-
[quote]• In 1876 there were a total of 369 electoral votes available with 185 needed to win. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.
• In 1888 there were a total of 401 electoral votes available with 201 needed to win. Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.
• In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president.[/quote]
i can't imagine how nervous obama and romney are
they must be trembling for the next few hours or something
i hate the people who say "i dont care politics are boring"
we are deciding on how the entire fucking country is run, you [i]should[/i] fucking care.
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38342664]i hate the people who say "i dont care politics are boring"
we are deciding on how the entire fucking country is run, you [i]should[/i] fucking care.[/QUOTE]
I think a friend of mine did worse. Note: he's gay, so this is a direct issue for him
[quote=him]Until every last citizen of this country has the right to marry who they love and wish to, I'm not giving my vote to anyone.[/quote]
[quote=me]If people don't vote for a candidate who would support this equality, how will this issue ever be overcome?[/quote]
[quote=him]Considering my vote doesn't 'really' count, it wont make a difference. Just as I have a right to vote I have a right to abstain. It's to simply show that I'm upset.[/quote]
[quote=a friendgirl of his] that is a lie. your vote does count. if you do not vote you are sitting back and letting others make the decision for you. it's no wonder we don't have gay marriage yet, people like you are not letting your opinions and decisions count in the government. go vote aaron.[/quote]
if you ask me, with the decision to abstain you lose the ability to complain.
Yes, you can think of it like you're a drop of water in a bucket that is only meant to tip the scale to one side or the other. But, without any of the other drops, the bucket is dry. Ultimately, I already know Illinois will go democratic and that would be his choice anyways, but that tiny little number shows just how much the people care on an issue. Like mentioned before, if everyone stopped and realized something crazy like 30% of the country not voting red/blue, it may make others stop and think about expanding their ideals a bit because they have valid potential to make a difference
Ok Obama for me, in the U.K a couple days ago there was a documentary about Obama and it referred to how in 2008/9 many worshiped him and thought him to be a messiah, he noticed and send something like (can't remember word for word) "Everything that I need to do in 100 days I will do in 72 and on the 73rd...I will rest" <-- Jesus he is soo smooth also here Romney is being portrayed as a massive Johnson if this election was global Romney would be squashed xD
Also an American kid in my school who is a Jehovah's Witness said this when I asked him who should win: "Obama, Romney is a mormon. He will rape us all." And if that is not political hardball, well...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.