I remember a thread like this in the OT a while ago, but since this is the official presidential election day, I thought I'd start another one.

I'd vote for Obama.

I'd vote for Obama

I try and stay out of US politics. It's like a family feud - they'll both turn on you if you get involved.

I'd vote Obama just to keep him in office. I'd feel bad if the first black president didn't get two terms.

Plus you know.... black guy in the white house. What's not to love about that.

Polls that use options for "don't care" or similar sentiments are inherently flawed. Their view is already adequately represented by not voting in the poll at all.

As the first American to type as well as vote...I'm voting for Obama. Strangely, although I've heard of people I know voting for Romney, anyone I've directly spoken with has shown support for Obama only. Romney supporters in my circle have only been hearsay, passed on from other Obama supporters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn it Ouze, posting on my phone you beat me in. I'm not the first American responding now. Jerk.

 Ouze wrote:
Polls that use options for "don't care" or similar sentiments are inherently flawed. Their view is already adequately represented by not voting in the poll at all.

helps to know how many people don't care

I voted for Romney.

 Sasori wrote:
I voted for Romney.

just curious, so feel free to ignore me but why?

 nomsheep wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Polls that use options for "don't care" or similar sentiments are inherently flawed. Their view is already adequately represented by not voting in the poll at all.

helps to know how many people don't care

I agree with nomsheep, any poll worth it's salt should represent the undecided margin. It's like when polls give the option to Agree/Disagree but not Neither Agree Nor Disagree - it ends up forcing camps and creating false divides. So yeah, quite the opposite in fact. In this instance, sure, people could not vote, but even then you've missed out on seeing what proportion don't care. Personally, that's still interesting to me.

 nomsheep wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I voted for Romney.

just curious, so feel free to ignore me but why?

I preferred him over Obama.

I'm not here to get into a political debate.

 Sasori wrote:

 nomsheep wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I voted for Romney.

just curious, so feel free to ignore me but why?

I preferred him over Obama.

I'm not here to get into a political debate.

tis cool, i know almost nothing about either candidate and have no real desire to. British politics annoy and confuse me enough.

 Ouze wrote:
Polls that use options for "don't care" or similar sentiments are inherently flawed. Their view is already adequately represented by not voting in the poll at all.

I think it's intresting to see how many people don't care. A poll is flawed when one option is represented by not voting in it imo.

Not voting is a legitimate option in every election.

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Polls that use options for "don't care" or similar sentiments are inherently flawed. Their view is already adequately represented by not voting in the poll at all.

I think it's intresting to see how many people don't care. A poll is flawed when one option is represented by not voting in it imo.

There are nearly 5,000 people browsing Dakka right now. There are 19 votes in this poll, currently. You now know how many people "don't care", which is to say, most.

A better option would be adding "I refuse to vote, American)" since that covers people that are aware of the election and actively choose not to vote for whatever reason. Perhaps also "Not eligible to vote, American" to cover the posters who are not yet 18 or are felons. This is more useful data to glean, in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Not voting is a legitimate option in every election.

Sure, but it's inherently useless information to get. It's non-data. It's only useful if you parse it somehow, such as "Not voting because I don't like the candidates" or whatever.

I don't mean this specific to this poll, I mean this to every Poll on dakka. There should never really be a "I don't care" option without adding some sort of disriminator.

The last option with the added "Why is it all over the news as if we could vote on it, pushing proper stories to the side?". Somewhat rhetorical I know.

Voted. Picked Republican for President, Republican for Senator, Democrat for House, Democrat for Mayor, Republicans for open City Council seats, and Democrats for the school board.

That's how you split a ticket, kids.

So Independents dont count? Thanks I guess. Apparently I dont care because Im not voting Republican or Democrat.

I skipped the presidential ballot, voted Democrat for state house, Independent for federal house, Republican for Sheriff.

Ill vote Repub for sheriff, always do. Not sure on the others yet, Ive got a few folks in mind, but Ill make the decision when I get there I guess. I know for certain Im not voting Repub/Dem for President though.

 Ouze wrote:

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Polls that use options for "don't care" or similar sentiments are inherently flawed. Their view is already adequately represented by not voting in the poll at all.

I think it's intresting to see how many people don't care. A poll is flawed when one option is represented by not voting in it imo.

There are nearly 5,000 people browsing Dakka right now. There are 19 votes in this poll, currently. You now know how many people "don't care", which is to say, most.

A better option would be adding "I refuse to vote, American)" since that covers people that are aware of the election and actively choose not to vote for whatever reason. Perhaps also "Not eligible to vote, American" to cover the posters who are not yet 18 or are felons. This is more useful data to glean, in my opinion.

So 4981 people don't care, you say? yeah right.

 Ouze wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Not voting is a legitimate option in every election.

Sure, but it's inherently useless information to get. It's non-data. It's only useful if you parse it somehow, such as "Not voting because I don't like the candidates" or whatever.

I don't mean this specific to this poll, I mean this to every Poll on dakka. There should never really be a "I don't care" option without adding some sort of disriminator.

People who don't vote are as much a political group as every party. Some candidates target that group to get more votes. It's always good to know how big it is, istead of saying "everyone who doesn't vote in this poll belongs to that group"

 KingCracker wrote:
Ill vote Repub for sheriff, always do. Not sure on the others yet, Ive got a few folks in mind, but Ill make the decision when I get there I guess. I know for certain Im not voting Repub/Dem for President though.

Virgil Goode 2012, Keep The Dream - Not Martin Luther King, Jr.'s - Alive!

 MrMerlin wrote:
So 4981 people don't care, you say? yeah right.

For the purposes of this poll...

 MrMerlin wrote:
People who don't vote are as much a political group as every party.

Yes, but because they don't actually vote, their opinions are essentially meaningless.

 Ouze wrote:

Yes, but because they don't actually vote, their opinions are essentially meaningless.

Do you have a method of protest voting in the states, like damaging the ballot in the UK? That is to say, protesting the political system? Because those people don't vote, but I would not consider their opinions essentially meaningless.

 Ouze wrote:

 MrMerlin wrote:
So 4981 people don't care, you say? yeah right.

For the purposes of this poll...

 MrMerlin wrote:
People who don't vote are as much a political group as every party.

Yes, but because they don't actually vote, their opinions are essentially meaningless.

Their opinion might be meaningless, but their number is intresting to most.

 Ouze wrote:

 MrMerlin wrote:
So 4981 people don't care, you say? yeah right.

For the purposes of this poll...

 MrMerlin wrote:
People who don't vote are as much a political group as every party.

Yes, but because they don't actually vote, their opinions are essentially meaningless.

No their opinions are not meaningless, not even essentially.

Would you accept the word "worthless" instead? It's like trying to determine how many goldfish were inclined to like Romney. Since they didn't actually vote, it has zero affect on the election (or in this case, the poll).

The only way it's not useless to gather this is if you try to quantify why they don't care. "Didn't like the candidates" would be a way of measuring how disaffected them are.

 Ouze wrote:
Would you accept the word "worthless" instead? It's like trying to determine how many goldfish were inclined to like Romney. Since they didn't actually vote, it has zero affect on the election (or in this case, the poll).

The only way it's not useless to gather this is if you try to quantify why they don't care. "Didn't like the candidates" would be a way of measuring how disaffected them are.

I think we can measure how disaffected they are the moment they don't bother to vote, regardless of the reason why (excluding of course those that can't vote).

 Ouze wrote:
Would you accept the word "worthless" instead? It's like trying to determine how many goldfish were inclined to like Romney. Since they didn't actually vote, it has zero affect on the election (or in this case, the poll).

The only way it's not useless to gather this is if you try to quantify why they don't care. "Didn't like the candidates" would be a way of measuring how disaffected them are.

Yeah it's intresting to know why they don't vote, but not essential.
Goldfish can't be targeted by the candidates of the next election, the people who don't vote today can.

untill i can vote for Sherrif Joe, im not voting

I'm voting for Michael Winstanley.

Wait, this is for the local PCC elections, right?

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Would you accept the word "worthless" instead? It's like trying to determine how many goldfish were inclined to like Romney. Since they didn't actually vote, it has zero affect on the election (or in this case, the poll).

The only way it's not useless to gather this is if you try to quantify why they don't care. "Didn't like the candidates" would be a way of measuring how disaffected them are.

Yeah it's intresting to know why they don't vote, but not essential.
Goldfish can't be targeted by the candidates of the next election, the people who don't vote today can.

But they're explicitly choosing not to. As such, their opinion is immaterial, with just as much impact as the choices of the goldfish (none). If you're not trying to figure out why they don't care, there is no point.

I have to go to work now, so good luck with this.

Albatross wrote:I'm voting for Michael Winstanley.

Wait, this is for the local PCC elections, right?

Sure, what did you think?

Yeah I'll edit the op

Ouze wrote:

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Would you accept the word "worthless" instead? It's like trying to determine how many goldfish were inclined to like Romney. Since they didn't actually vote, it has zero affect on the election (or in this case, the poll).

The only way it's not useless to gather this is if you try to quantify why they don't care. "Didn't like the candidates" would be a way of measuring how disaffected them are.

Yeah it's intresting to know why they don't vote, but not essential.
Goldfish can't be targeted by the candidates of the next election, the people who don't vote today can.

But they're explicitly choosing not to. As such, their opinion is immaterial, which just as much impact as the choices of the goldfish. If you're not trying to figure out why they don't care, there is no point.

I get your point. Yet I'm not trying to figure out why they don't vote, I just wanted to know how many. And that isn't useles data

MrMerlin wrote:And that isn't useles data

Technically, it's all kinda useless data, for any practical purpose. And since it's all useless, and only for interest, then it doesn't really matter what standard it's held to.

I give a damn, but can't be bothered. The lines are long and my job is nowhere near my polling place. My state couldn't be described as anything remotely close to "Swing". I just don't care enough about anything else on the ballot to be bothered.

If I did live in a swing state (or something close to it), I'd be out voting for Obama. The man is a bit a conservative for my tastes but he's better than the candidate of the party that can't seem to comprehend it's no longer 1950.

I voted two weeks ago.

 MrMerlin wrote:
I remember thread like this in the OT a while ago, but since this is the official presidential election day, I thought I'd start another one.

I'd vote for Obama.

I also voted the first week of early voting.

You didn't list the LIbertarians or the Green Party. Thats a big part of the problem.

You also didn't list the Wiener Dog Party. A steak in every bowl!

 Frazzled wrote:
the Wiener Dog Party. A steak in every bowl!

A blanket on every couch, a toy in every jaw?

As usual, the mainstream internet post creators leave Kodos off their push polls.

 Ahtman wrote:
As usual, the mainstream internet post creators leave Kodos off their push polls.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

As a Brit living here for the last 2 years, it's been interesting for me. It's very different to the UK system and there is far more bread and circus to it.

I have witnessed a witch hunt, something that has left me deeply angered, towards a man voted into office. Obama has faced accusations of being a muslim, being a nazi, being a communist and anything else certain people can come up with. I watched the rise of the angry mob in tricorn hats and holding badly spelled signs. The very elements who vaulted Bush's actions and labelled anyone who questioned the President as unAmerican, unpatriotic or subversive immediately changed position when the black man they had not voted for came to power and they then labeled the POTUS as 'the enemy', 'the subversive', the UnAmerican... All this, not on some tinfoil blog, but an unrelenting attack from the largest network 'news' channel in the nation, utterly and unswerving partisan to the point of tragic comedy. I hear WASPs saying that a mormon is closer to their religious views than a black Christian. It's a hypocrisy that I feel smells of racist undertones. As I was told in conspiratorial tones at work 'it's called 'white' house for a reason buddy...' well yes redneck donkey-cave, because it's painted white!

I have seen Obama win back the world stage for America and improve international relations after the dreadful damage inflicted to alliances by Bush Jnr's two wars. I watched Romney take one trip and insult the British people, America's strongest military ally, his very name drawing boos from the crowd at the London Olympics.

Economy, I have watched, and worked in, an improving economy. Things are getting better and the auto industry along with American manufacturing, are on the long climb back to the top. I heard the detractors on the other side talk about 'unemployment being higher now than when Obama took office' as though people are stupid enough to have not witnessed the terrible fallout Obama inherited and the massive steps his administration took to put the brakes on the downward spiral the US was taking. The Republicans started by decrying Obama for the unemployment then decrying him because unemployment was reducing but not reducing enough. The US is improving every day and it's a desperate race for Romney to get the election over and done with before things improve even more.

Obamacare; The United States is the only country in the industrialised world that does not afford it's citizens national healthcare. It is to this country's shame that it claims Christian values and talks of 'giving us your poor'... why so they can die here uncared for? Friends of ours here have had a premature baby born with cerebral palsy which is a preexisting condition and would have not been covered by their insurance but thanks to 'Obamacare' his treatments have been covered. If it were not for this, they would have incurred hundreds of thousands in debt. They are both working professionals and would have been utterly crippled by this. I have worked for an insurance firm, hate to break it to you all but their first priority is to profit, a national healthcare system would not be driven by it's profit margin but by the level of care it provides. And lets dispel a myth here, it's not going to take away your private options, should you wish to use them.

The sanctity of marriage? Absolute, if you're a Christian, you should be entirely entitled to keep your church free of gay marriages, they have no right to interfere with your place of worship. You, of course, have no exclusive right to the word Marriage or to a bonding ceremony between two consenting adults conducted in their place of worship next door to yours. Welcome to a democracy. It's not a theology. You are free and so are they.

Life/Choice? See above, if you are against abortion, you should never be forced to have one, not in case of rape, incest or the risk to your life, everyone else has an equal right to take another path and have an abortion if they want. Personal choice with no intrusion from Government.

It's weird for me, as an outsider, watching the right wing talk a huge amount about freedom from government interference in courting the libertarians, but utterly convinced it should take it's beliefs into stopping people having choices if they are choices that do not gel with their own vision. Either be all about personal freedom or admit you wish to enforce theocratic values onto the unwilling populace. So you want the government out of people's healthcare unless it's a woman's healthcare and then you wish to take away her right to make a decision. That's suppression and that's dictatorial.

So, if I had a vote in this country, and I wish as a tax payer I did, I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat.

I don't think Dakka is a representative sample of the US voting block.
While its interesting, its not indictivie of the election results.

@MeanGreenStompa

That was an excellent post. If I could applaud you, I would.

Good post, MGS.

Over the last few elections, I've had to watch the more out-spoken Republicans cater more and more to the far right. As a moderate Republican, I can tell you it's sickening. Those are not my ideals and values. More of my votes this year have gone to Libertarians and even a Democrat this time around (local councilman).

 htj wrote:
@MeanGreenStompa

That was an excellent post. If I could applaud you, I would.

You can, you'd just look kind of weird clapping in front your computer and he wouldn't be able to hear you.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
the Wiener Dog Party. A steak in every bowl!

A blanket on every couch, a toy in every jaw?

Interviewing for the future Press Secretary I take it. Consider yourself hired!

 Chongara wrote:

 htj wrote:
@MeanGreenStompa

That was an excellent post. If I could applaud you, I would.

You can, you'd just look kind of weird clapping in front your computer and he wouldn't be able to hear you.

Tragically I was born without the ability to applaud.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
*said some stuff*

Excellent post.

Great post MGS! Sums it all up, exalted.
@labmouse: I know. I was just curious how dakka-people vote /would vote.

I voted that I didn't care... but a more accurate polling option for me would be "Voted Third Party"

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I voted that I didn't care... but a more accurate polling option for me would be "Voted Third Party"

yeah sorry, forgot about that.

htj wrote:I try and stay out of US politics. It's like a family feud - they'll both turn on you if you get involved.

A wise man.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deathklaat wrote:
untill i can vote for Sherrif Joe, im not voting

GTFO.

 Frazzled wrote:

 MrMerlin wrote:
I remember thread like this in the OT a while ago, but since this is the official presidential election day, I thought I'd start another one.

I'd vote for Obama.

I also voted the first week of early voting.

You didn't list the LIbertarians or the Green Party. Thats a big part of the problem.

You also didn't list the Wiener Dog Party. A steak in every bowl!

This, my primary goal this election, and what I've been actually working for is to get the Libertarians ever closer to 5% of the popular vote, if the Greens could reach that level too without stealing Libertarian votes that's just gravy. I might be chipping away at the Demorat and Republican't power bases like a mouse working on an ice berg with a chisel.... but there's more people getting tired of D.C.'s collective equine gak and if you have enough nice with enough chisels...

Under the right circumstances I could vote for either major party's presidential selection, but Obama and Romney are both incredible donkey caves.

Where is Gary Johnson? Or is this thread controlled by corporations as well?

And in a SHOCKING turn of events (considering he's dead) apparently former German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel is on the ballot.

http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/11/confused-wwii-veterans-demand-to-know-why-rommel-on-presidential-ballot/

“While we applaud the American people for their willingness to vote for a centenarian, particularly a decorated war hero who turns 121 this month, we have serious questions about Mr. Rommel’s eligibility to be president and precisely what his platform consists of... as well as charges that he may have been involved in certain Nazi activities in the past, specifically the conquest of North Africa."

I want to believe that you know duffle blog is the Onion for people like us...and that you are simply trolling. A tiny piece of me thinks otherwise.

I vote Green Party or Libertarian, for governor last year I voted for the "rent is too damn high" party.

 Lord Scythican wrote:
Where is Gary Johnson? Or is this thread controlled by corporations as well?

More to the point, where the hell is Cave Johnson!

I'd vote for him in a second!

I'd vote Obama.

Cobra Commander.

Voted for Romney/Ryan (I know... shocker)...

But voted for Atkins (ugh... putrid choice, but McCaskill is way worst)...

Then locally... practically voted either Democrat (Gov, lieutenant Gov, state rep)... or libertarian.

Had to vote for crap ton of Judges... I re-voted the incumbent 'cuz, I didn't recognized their name... so, I guess they did a good job *shrugs*

Voted no to raise tobacco taxes by %720... (yeah, that's the right percentage).

Voted yes to amend state constitution to prohibit the state from creating Health Insurance exchange unless it passes majority of both state houses (will never happen, prepares legal challenge of ACA bill in future).

And some smattering of other propositions...

Did the Electronic touchscreen voting device for the first time. Pretty cool thingy.. .it also has a window on the device where you can *see* it print out your choices as a good paper trial.

Only waited 10 minutes to vote and everyone was in good spirits.

 Meade wrote:
I vote Green Party or Libertarian, for governor last year I voted for the "rent is too damn high" party.

It's a shame the american green party never has a chance. We have about five major parties in Germany (or six, depends on how you count), and the green party is quite big here. All praise the multi-party system!

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Meade wrote:
I vote Green Party or Libertarian, for governor last year I voted for the "rent is too damn high" party.

It's a shame the american green party never has a chance. We have about five major parties in Germany (or six, depends on how you count), and the green party is quite big here. All praise the multi-party system!

Indeed, it is great.
The Party for the Animals here has 2 (or was it one, damnit!)seats. They always have.

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Meade wrote:
I vote Green Party or Libertarian, for governor last year I voted for the "rent is too damn high" party.

It's a shame the american green party never has a chance. We have about five major parties in Germany (or six, depends on how you count), and the green party is quite big here. All praise the multi-party system!

GODWIN!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1930
Yeah I had to.

How about an option for those of us that threw away our vote on an independent candidate?

 Alfndrate wrote:
How about an option for those of us that threw away our vote on an independent candidate?

It's the last option...

Ah, election time...again! Every four years I sit up late, bleary eyed and clutching a two litre bottle of diet pepsi, whilst listening to some Republican drone on about swing states, and yet, it's compulsive viewing.

If I ever apply for American citizenship, while being able to recall watching Carter and Reagan's inaugaration speeches get me that green card? America owes me!!!

I feel sorry for democrats living in Texas, and republicans living in New Hampshire, as their vote is wasted. It should be a straight popular vote. But of course, the founding fathers knew better, and killed off the original revolution with a conservative counter revolution.

With regards to MGS's comments, the guy has it spot on. It never ceases to amuse me when some sections of the American right spout off about liberty and freedom, and small government, and yet are happy to cheer on the patriot act, the invasion of Iraq, and the legacy of Reagan and Bush, despite the former racking up government spending like no tomorrow.

To be fair, Bush did get a fair whack of vitriol his way, much of it undeserved IMO, but the undertones of criticism that have been directed at Obama are sickening. By all means attack the president, but leave the racism out of it.

Anyway, roll on the count.

Lol, but I do care... I just don't like either of those candidates... I was a bit of a republican when I was oh so wise in my 18 years of age, and have become far more moderate. I voted for McCain in the last election, and I voted for Gary Johnson this year. My worthless vote is far more important than your worthless vote because Ohio is a stupid swing state so neener neener neener...

Also, in an hour, how many political ads would you all say you've seen/heard? I'm pretty sure I reach double digits every hours...

In ten years time, are you going to look your kids in the eye and tell them you voted for somebody named after an oven glove!!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In ten years time, are you going to look your kids in the eye and tell them you voted for somebody named after an oven glove!!

Yup!

We'll see eh? Still about 9-12 hrs left of voting...

Go Mitt!

Still, President Mitt sounds a lot better than that Newt guy

Oh come on Tagg, you were supposed to be more subtle than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM&feature=youtu.be

Voted 3rd party in Nevada. I would prefer Obama to win, and I'm not sweating Nevada. Obama has a very healthy lead in the polls for Nevada, and if the polls are as wrong as conservatives insist they are Romney would hit 270 way before the polls close in Nevada. I think conservative pundits are wrong, the polls are right, and it's going to be a close election that Obama is a bit more likely to win.

 Chongara wrote:
Oh come on Tagg, you were supposed to be more subtle than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM&feature=youtu.be

aww, so cute.

 Chongara wrote:
Oh come on Tagg, you were supposed to be more subtle than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM&feature=youtu.be

Is that one of the machines owned by the Romney family?

 dæl wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Oh come on Tagg, you were supposed to be more subtle than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM&feature=youtu.be

Is that one of the machines owned by the Romney family?

Who knows? The "Oh come on, Tagg" line was just snark on my part. The video is still kind of hilarious in a disturbing kind of way, whatever it turns out to be. If it is one of those though, It's going to be a great show.

Watching people use the self checkout machines at Wal-Mart makes me fear the outcome of elections based on these things...

 AustonT wrote:
I want to believe that you know duffle blog is the Onion for people like us...and that you are simply trolling. A tiny piece of me thinks otherwise.

I've been reading the DB since they started it, not trolling so much as wanting to insert a brief moment of levity in srs bsnz 'murrica day.

You don't have the options I'm voting for.....

Voted earlier today for Obon... er, Obama I'm amazed how much nonsense was on television last night.

Id vote Romney, mostly since up here in Canada we have been stuck with that fethoff Harper for to long........ would vote Obama but he is wayyyy to polite for my liking. Only thing that would change my opinion is if Obama is pro-union

 Tazz Azrael wrote:
Id vote Romney, mostly since up here in Canada we have been stuck with that fethoff Harper for to long........ would vote Obama but he is wayyyy to polite for my liking. Only thing that would change my opinion is if Obama is pro-union

I guess you need to change your vote, he is pro-union

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I want to believe that you know duffle blog is the Onion for people like us...and that you are simply trolling. A tiny piece of me thinks otherwise.

I've been reading the DB since they started it, not trolling so much as wanting to insert a brief moment of levity in srs bsnz 'murrica day.

No FUUNI StuF on Voter DAy

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Tazz Azrael wrote:
Id vote Romney, mostly since up here in Canada we have been stuck with that fethoff Harper for to long........ would vote Obama but he is wayyyy to polite for my liking. Only thing that would change my opinion is if Obama is pro-union

I guess you need to change your vote, he is pro-union

Well crap.......

Well...He's pro union-ish
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/15/obama_to_unions_see_you_next_year/?mobile.html
The Greens are more pro union.

 AustonT wrote:
Well...He's pro union-ish
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/15/obama_to_unions_see_you_next_year/?mobile.html
The Greens are more pro union.

And the Republicans are less union than Democrats, and the Libertarians even more against them than Republicans, whereas the Socialist Party is even more pro-Union than the Greens. Yay, we made a spectrum!

Locally, I split my ticket. Mostly voted against incumbents.

Nationally, I never could get into the farce over whether Obama or Romney was going to carry on George W Bush's fourth term. Plus, if I was for deficit spending on half-assed demand-side nonsense or for murdering innocent civilians overseas with illegal drone strikes, then it wouldn't really matter which of the two I would have voted for.

As such, on the national level, I voted for the only candidate who has climbed Mt. Everest: Gary Johnson. The Iron-Man-competing former governor who stands for individual liberties, free markets and peace?

Sounds like the only candidate that is ACTUALLY different on the ballot. That he's not an option on the dakka poll makes me sad.

 Ahtman wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Well...He's pro union-ish
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/15/obama_to_unions_see_you_next_year/?mobile.html
The Greens are more pro union.

And the Republicans are less union than Democrats, and the Libertarians even more against them than Republicans, whereas the Socialist Party is even more pro-Union than the Greens. Yay, we made a spectrum!

HOW DARE YOU ALL BRING LOGIC INTO THIS!

*cough* excuse me, I lost it for a second, all I saw was red, white, and blue.

But yes, he's more union than republicans, because I believe it goes into that whole, "small government" thing that the republicans like.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Well...He's pro union-ish
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/15/obama_to_unions_see_you_next_year/?mobile.html
The Greens are more pro union.

And the Republicans are less union than Democrats, and the Libertarians even more against them than Republicans, whereas the Socialist Party is even more pro-Union than the Greens. Yay, we made a spectrum!

HOW DARE YOU ALL BRING LOGIC INTO THIS!

*cough* excuse me, I lost it for a second, all I saw was red, white, and blue.

Are we calling bringing socialists into this conversation logic now. You know the largest number of votes the current Socialist Party has EVER gotten for its presidential candidate? About 10,000.
/golfclap
The Libertarian Party is notably more pro-union than Republicans. Look at that reality strikes again.

The logic was the "spectrum" aspect of his post.

I would vote Obama.

Also as a UK citizen I don't want Romney having anything to with the UK, there's just something I don't like about the guy..........

 Brother-Captain Scotti wrote:
I would vote Obama.

Also as a UK citizen I don't want Romney having anything to with the UK, there's just something I don't like about the guy..........

Is it his religious choice that forbids caffeine?

 Brother-Captain Scotti wrote:
I would vote Obama.

Also as a UK citizen I don't want Romney having anything to with the UK, there's just something I don't like about the guy..........

icky Mormon?

icky Republican?

icky Rich dude?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Brother-Captain Scotti wrote:
I would vote Obama.

Also as a UK citizen I don't want Romney having anything to with the UK, there's just something I don't like about the guy..........

Is it his religious choice that forbids caffeine?

No... that's alcohol... which, is a black mark... at least we'd know who would be the designated driver would be!

I would vote independent, probably Green.

I find myself in my usual position: Not so much voting FOR anyone, as voting AGAINST the more useless of two cantidates.

Case in point: Here in MO we have the race between McCaskill and Akins. Claire has been, at best, a very poor Senator. She was so bad that even most Democrats were going to vote against her. Akins literally had an election he COULD NOT LOOSE.

Then he opened his mouth and talked about legitimate rape. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory!

Regardless of how one feels about abortion, that he would make such a divisive statement and risk his election bid doesn't speak well to either his intelligence or his judgement.


Of course, that's normal in American politics, where the quality of people we routinely vote for cantidates to run our country is are so corrupt we wouldn't willingly invite into our homes...

I voted against someone because he had a terrible mustache. OK, that isn't true, but I really wanted to vote against him because I hated his mustache.

I split the ticket. There were some local Republicans I like and a few Democrats. The local 3rd party candidates were kinda meh this election cycle.

I went to vote for the guy who isn't a coporate owned morally corrupt bastard, but sadly they left him of fthe ballot.


As long as our two party system is in place it prevents us from having any sort of true Democracy.

My wife and I both voted straight ticket Democrat. Less POTUS and House for me. She voted actual straight ticket.

Early voted straight ticket democrat (sucks to be the people who have to stand in line on election day!) in a choice between the disappointing party and the repulsively evil party. My state is too closely divided for a protest vote, so I had to settle for doing what I can to keep the worse of the two evils out of office.

I voted for the party of Disappointment as well, generally. Still a few R's here and there where I know who they are and what they do (Sheriff, some judges, etc).

Going to an NBA game tonight, I will assume all the usual crazy people will be in here when I get back.

Where are the other options on the poll, Jill, Rocky, and Bill I think? There were at least 6 candidates on my ballot for President this cycle.

I voted for romney because i hate everybody . I kid but i find it so odd how most my age esp. from europe are so left wing.

I honestly don't care much about politics and i'll probably get bashed for being the one person in the crowd to choose different but i wasn't fond of obama and the better republican candidates got weeded out. Still prefer not to go obama though. Hate me if you wish. Hate me for not really casting care into the vote i cast.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


*snip*

Thanks for writing that, I enjoyed reading it (actually, not sure that is the correct phrase as was actually a bit upsetting to read, but it was certainly well written!)

I'm sending my vote for Obama, hopefully the US accepts it.

Both sides have their good and bad. Honestly i'm not for abortion or for others approving it. I have my reasons. I think it's just beyond what we know or what we think we know (when life starts or not).

As far as religion or being gay or not goes i don't care. You can be a gay black hippie that enjoys marrying and having sex with goats for all i care and then decides to have goat-men children. Ok that's probably a little extreme but considering single parents i see nothing wrong with gay people marrying and having kids. Why can't they just marry outside of your religion? It's not as if people said gay christian people have to marry. Then again this goes into the whole question of why people that are gay or decide there are so many things wrong in their opinion with the bible why they still believe in it anyway.

I also don't really care on people deciding for for legal weed or not. To me a pot-head is still annoying but it's not any worse than alcohol and at least pot-heads will shut up about legalizing it if it is legalized.

Other than that i find myself going republican for some other things. It's just how i am. I find myself leaning to the left a little but mostly on the gay marriage thing.

I find both sides whine a lot but even though i work with a lot of right wing people and grew up around them they don't seem half as annoying to me as the left wing people. Most of my age group is left wing and they just love to let you hear it. Sometimes i wonder if 80% of the people i know are left wing. It feels like they feel they are the underdog when most news stations are on their side anyway and most of tv.

------------------------------

Well in short both sides are bad. I've seen or at least been witness to the extremes of both sides and let me tell you they are annoying.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
some awesome stuff

MGS, that was an amazing post, and you're my new best friend. Why can't we have more people like you in the US?

So, I'll reply to the now oft-quoted MGS post.

As mentioned, you've only been in this country for two years. If you think that Obama has gotten a massive amount of thoughtless rage, then that's because you missed the George W Bush years. Whatever witch hunt you've been seeing pales in comparison to what it was years ago.

Meanwhile, in the world of foreign policy, Obama didn't do anything of the scope of Bush, but he directed the invasion of more countries, and drastically stepped up Bush's program of illegal drone strikes. And he didn't close gitmo. And he didn't properly stop rendition.

Economically, both Obama and Bush spent trillions of dollars they didn't have for little positive effect, while very little has changed on social issues (at the federal level) since the year 2000.

I mean, they've been basically the same president, and both have been endlessly attacked by lunatics frothing at the mouth. If you've only just tuned in, you'd think that it was all just some anti-obama thing.

The only thing more disheartening is that on the off-chance that Romney wins, it will still be four more years of the last twelve years.

 Ailaros wrote:

Meanwhile, in the world of foreign policy, Obama didn't do anything of the scope of Bush, but he directed the invasion of more countries,

I don't think you know what an invasion is.

OBAMA WON! YAY MY VOTE MATTERED

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I voted for romney because i hate everybody . I kid but i find it so odd how most my age esp. from europe are nowhere near as right wing as Americans seem to be.

Fixed that for you

Hey what do you all think of my picture? Too soon? Too Much?

Just makes me want to watch Waynes World.

 ShatteredBlade wrote:
Just makes me want to watch Waynes World.

That is not a bad thing.