Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

  On 8/7/2012 at 1:35 AM, YO303 said:

Because whoever killed JFK now controls the world.

Johnson came after JFK.

Johnson was involved in the whole thing, he enabled the puppet masters to establish themselves before the next president.

Johnson is fascinating but specifically because he was such a slick and sleazy politician. I'm shocked that he's not bashed as much as Nixon in retrospect.

Also, the alternative answers on this were super lame:

  Quote

Should Congress raise the debt ceiling?

I got 84% Jill Stein.

the amount of stupidity in this thread is depressing. Complain all you want about the system, but if you don't vote, or make a fake vote out of spite, you're conceding defeat and just being a petty whining bitch. So best not to whine at all, if that really is your choice. Keep your lazy, nihilistic viewpoint to yourself :-)

*note: agonizing over whether or not to go with a 3rd party candidate is a legitimate tough choice, imo.

I feel you can't focus on the whole political sport that the media drums up every election. All you can do is vote for the person that most represents you. It's like voting for AOTY...

  On 8/7/2012 at 2:28 AM, lumpenprol said:

the amount of stupidity in this thread is depressing. Complain all you want about the system, but if you don't vote, or make a fake vote out of spite, you're conceding defeat and just being a petty whining bitch. So best not to whine at all, if that really is your choice. Keep your lazy, nihilistic viewpoint to yourself :-)

 

*note: agonizing over whether or not to go with a 3rd party candidate is a legitimate tough choice, imo.

How is voting no confidence a depressingly stupid exercise of a vote? Or are you referring to Awepittance?

I was just grumbling generally, but now that you mention it, is voting no confidence much better than his stance? Why not at least choose some weird 3rd party?

I rate "no confidence" as only slightly higher than flat out non-participation. I understand the desire to make a protest vote, or protest by non-participating, but I just would never boast about it like it was some sort of revolutionary act (not saying you in particular, just a general whiff I got from the thread). If anything, it's an incredibly depressing and cynical confirmation of one's world-view. If someone seriously believes our democracy isn't worth saving through the normal sanctioned channels, well, they're either right (in which case we are indeed well or truly fucked), or they are contributing to the problem through apathy and nihilism cloaked as virtue.

92% Obama

90% Jill Stein

84% Stewart Alexander

9% Ron Paul

Seems about right. I disagreed with Obama and agreed with Jill stein on foreign matters, but it seems that the science matters pushed Obama over the edge.

It should be noted that occasionally the difference in candidate is just a disagreement in terms. For example:

I probably think it is a fact to the same extent that Obama, Johnson and Stein do. But when I was answering this quiz I didn't like using the word "fact". It doesn't make much of a difference, though.

i bow out. i can't get riled up about this.

maybe I should look up no-confidence. I thought that was basically formally saying "all listed options suck"?

I'm voting for Obama, strictly as the lesser of two evils. He's bought-and-paid-for like all of them but at least he means well (or does a good job pretending). And before anyone chides about voting for the lesser of two evils bear in mind I live in Rhode Island, and thanks to our ass-backwards electoral college my vote won't matter anyway. Of course there's always this guy:

In the state and local elections I'm voting against every incumbent, which is as close to a vote of no confidence as one can hope to get. Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently, and for the same reason.

i just got a 90% Gary Johnson. i really wasn't planning on voting this year cause seriously, i hate just about all candidates. but after this i think i might read up on this guy cause i've never heard of him.

http://www.isidewith.com/results/43026078

  On 8/7/2012 at 1:35 AM, Boxus said:

not voting. don't care. i'm a solipsist.

lol i didn't see this.

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:26 AM, baph said:

  On 8/6/2012 at 11:51 PM, Awepittance said:

i'm voting for Romney just to piss off all my friends.

 

lol, that seems more than a little dishonest, intellectually. If you don't support Romney or Obama, vote for a third party candidate who better fits your position if you can, or don't fucking vote. If the elections don't matter, piss "Liberal" Democrats off by not voting. Not voting is a valid response to not having a meaningful choice, and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise. Kobayashi Maru that shit. Knock over the chessboard.

 

Alternately, just admit that you support Romney. Who fucking cares.

I sided most with the Green Party as well, but I'm planning on voting Gary Johnson since he's the only third party candidate that will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

  On 8/7/2012 at 3:46 AM, Bob Dobalina said:

I'm voting for Obama, strictly as the lesser of two evils. He's bought-and-paid-for like all of them but at least he means well (or does a good job pretending). And before anyone chides about voting for the lesser of two evils bear in mind I live in Rhode Island, and thanks to our ass-backwards electoral college my vote won't matter anyway. Of course there's always this guy:

 

 

In the state and local elections I'm voting against every incumbent, which is as close to a vote of no confidence as one can hope to get. Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently, and for the same reason.

romney is about as close to evil as you can get. i'm convinced that he's a sociopath, because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney_dog_incident

tl;dr: when he went on a cross-country road trip with his family, they decided to take their dog along. they put the dog in a cage and then secured the cage on the roof of the car. this poor dog was sitting on top of a car traveling 50-70mph (assuming they took interstates, which they most certainly did) for hours. apparently, at some point, it shit itself in fear. at the next rest spot, romney took the cage down and hosed it... with the dog still in it.

only someone that lacks the ability to feel empathy could do that to a poor animal, wtf.

First time hearing of Jill Stein also. I would guess she is behind this page. Nice work either way. I have marginally more hope for a 3 party system after reading that she is the first Green Party candidate to qualify for federal fund matching.

according to the article he built a windshield for the dog container. Doesn't sound sociopath to me.

  On 8/7/2012 at 2:28 AM, lumpenprol said:

the amount of stupidity in this thread is depressing. Complain all you want about the system, but if you don't vote, or make a fake vote out of spite, you're conceding defeat and just being a petty whining bitch. So best not to whine at all, if that really is your choice. Keep your lazy, nihilistic viewpoint to yourself :-)

 

*note: agonizing over whether or not to go with a 3rd party candidate is a legitimate tough choice, imo.

  On 8/7/2012 at 3:19 AM, lumpenprol said:

I was just grumbling generally, but now that you mention it, is voting no confidence much better than his stance? Why not at least choose some weird 3rd party?

 

I rate "no confidence" as only slightly higher than flat out non-participation. I understand the desire to make a protest vote, or protest by non-participating, but I just would never boast about it like it was some sort of revolutionary act (not saying you in particular, just a general whiff I got from the thread). If anything, it's an incredibly depressing and cynical confirmation of one's world-view. If someone seriously believes our democracy isn't worth saving through the normal sanctioned channels, well, they're either right (in which case we are indeed well or truly fucked), or they are contributing to the problem through apathy and nihilism cloaked as virtue.

  On 8/7/2012 at 4:52 AM, jefferoo said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:26 AM, baph said:

  On 8/6/2012 at 11:51 PM, Awepittance said:

i'm voting for Romney just to piss off all my friends.

 

lol, that seems more than a little dishonest, intellectually. If you don't support Romney or Obama, vote for a third party candidate who better fits your position if you can, or don't fucking vote. If the elections don't matter, piss "Liberal" Democrats off by not voting. Not voting is a valid response to not having a meaningful choice, and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise. Kobayashi Maru that shit. Knock over the chessboard.

 

Alternately, just admit that you support Romney. Who fucking cares.

 

Please tell me you jokers didn't take the Star Trek reference as actual revolutionary fervor. Fuck, if watmm can't see a kobiyashi maru reference as ironic hyperbole, we're all fucked.

But the point is, lumpy, non-voting is a normally-sanctioned channel. If you honestly feel like a vote for one of two options would harm your self-interest, and you decide to vote for the "lesser of two evils," you're making a tacit acknowledgment that the democratic system has failed-- at least failed to provide you with a satisfactorily granular series of choices. That's ok. There's utility in voting for the lesser of two evils. But I'm assuming that a non-voter also would have done some sort of at least unconscious utility analysis. The utility of non-voting would be increased by actively voicing one's disapproval of a two party "democracy" through public channels rather than "passively" abstaining. Exercising that option should be anticipated by a healthy democracy. Being "forced" to vote against your interests or beliefs, to me, is a far more passive activity.

Hypothetically, if you are fundamentally opposed to a continuation of, say, the Patriot Act or the Bush Doctrine, and both available options would continue those policies, then non-voting is certainly a valid option from an ethical perspective.

But I'm voting for one of those "weird" third parties you mentioned, so just discount this post as stupidity if you'd like.

Edit: Anyway, see, Awepittance, you'll piss so many friends off by not voting.

the turd sandwich

wat

where

edit: oh

It might be best to just vote in the most evil president possible, then maybe society would stop acting like a prozac zombie and grow some balls like egypt did.

What are you, the Kwisatz Haderach?

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:37 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 12:26 AM, baph said:

  On 8/6/2012 at 11:51 PM, Awepittance said:

i'm voting for Romney just to piss off all my friends.

 

lol, that seems more than a little dishonest, intellectually. If you don't support Romney or Obama, vote for a third party candidate who better fits your position if you can, or don't fucking vote. If the elections don't matter, piss "Liberal" Democrats off by not voting. Not voting is a valid response to not having a meaningful choice, and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise. Kobayashi Maru that shit. Knock over the chessboard.

 

Alternately, just admit that you support Romney. Who fucking cares.

 

yeah, for real. i'm kinda disappointed that you're doing this, awepittance

 

i got jill stein too. i was planning on voting green, anyway. my allegiance will always lie with the people of lord nader.

In some sense, I get what Awepittance is saying. After all, California is going to Obama. The electoral college makes voting irrelevant in many states. Part of me is voting for Obama specifically because I know it's going to Romney in Texas and I want to "piss off" my condescending conservative friends and family by telling them I voted for him. But that said, I agree that a 3rd party vote or "not voting" at all is a better message.

This is also a strange realization, but part of the big turnoff of Obama in 2008 were his supporters. The amount of naivety and ignorance, especially people my age, behind the campaign was particularly annoying. I haven't seen it nearly as much this time, maybe I'm tuning it out, but I seriously think (and hope) a lot of people know he's nothing special as a candidate. But in comparison, even the most anti-Bush rants I heard back in the day were at least rooted in some kind of fact and appropriate anger. The absolute hatred and disdain I've seen from some people toward Obama is eerie. Most, if not all of them, had never been that angry over any previous liberal president or leader. Often I feel like it's not even grounded in any sense of reality of how society and government actually works.

As for Romney, I don't think he's evil or anything, in fact I'd say, and this is totally in context of the other batshit crazy and flat-out evil GOP field he ran with, he's not that bad. But he's pathetic. He's a spineless cop-out. This is the same man who has bowed to the GOP establishment and Tea Party right-wingers and completely denied the only arguably decent achievement in his career: his term as Massachusetts Governor. Just read up on it: he help balance the state's deficit partly through ending loopholes (albeit mostly through cuts), he ran as a pro-choice candidate in 2002, he signed in their well-known healthcare reform law (which as since made them one of the best ranked states for women's health, dropped uninsured rates, and reduced emergency care visits), he supported stem cell research, the Federal assault rifle weapon bans, greenhouse gas emission cuts, and increasing his states minimum wage. There are likely other examples, but fact is, he was a moderate. He was a centrist. He was, or least seemed like, a sensible legislator. And he's had to apologize and deny every last iota of that legacy. It's sad, it's disturbing, it's an absolute embarrassment that in order to win an election he's pandering to every piece of extreme, reactionary bile the right is spewing out today about Obama: the 'socialist' label, the nonsensical conspiracies about the "liberal elitists," all of the doublespeak and flat-out lies about "big government" and anything that isn't vague, right-wing populism. He doesn't even give off the self-awareness of defeat and mistaken tactics that McCain did once his campaign spiraled out of control in 2008. There's a bit of respect I will argue that McCain still maintains in comparison. I can't say that about Romney. There's no way I'm voting for him. He's not absurd enough even to vote for as a joke. Now, if Awepittance was in the hypothetical position to troll vote for the Cain Train I would completely understand.

  On 8/7/2012 at 1:08 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 1:05 AM, chassis said:

If I lived there, Id probably vote Obama. Even though he had a shit presidency, he doesnt have to worry about being re-elected this time round and can afford to piss off the republicans by being mad progressive.

 

lol, you're delusional if you think obama is going to do that. he's a moderate, plain and simple.

Agreed. Personally, I believe if there was a Venn diagram of him and W's term, they'd share quite a large overlap. Obama's super pragmatic, one of the few reasons I'm probably voting for him over a 3rd party candidate is because Romney's foreign policy is grade-A neo-con American exceptionalism. He's vague, hawkish, and scary in that regard. Obama is hardly more peaceful or notably diplomatic than W - he's very much in line with Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. His handling of the "War on Terror" is similar to that of Nixon's wind-down of Vietnam. He's going to keep drones flying, Gitmo open, and US covert forces operating worldwide. But with Romney it'll be all that AND increases in military spending AND plans to strike Iran AND efforts to continue and increase troop deployments overseas. He'll galvanize the religious right, particularly in regards to Israel. So as a cynical person, Obama's record is clearly more appealing.

Also, I don't want a GOP president appointing any more Supreme Court nominees nor vetoing every damn reform regarding taxes, healthcare, environmental regulations, etc. There's enough of that corrupt legislation and reckless budget cutting in many states, with regressive social laws being passed to boot.

  On 8/7/2012 at 3:52 AM, Frankie5fingers said:

i just got a 90% Gary Johnson. i really wasn't planning on voting this year cause seriously, i hate just about all candidates. but after this i think i might read up on this guy cause i've never heard of him.

 

http://www.isidewith...esults/43026078

That guy is legit. Everyone (myself included) to have ever given into any Ron Paul hype would actually find true consistency and earnestness in Gary Johnson a "libertarian" candidate.

  Quote

Johnson holds fiscally conservative, socially progressive views,^[76] and a philosophy of limited government^[77] and militarynoninterventionism.^[78][79] As well as a libertarian, he has often identified as a classical liberal.^[80] Johnson is in favor of simplifying and reducing taxes.^[81] During his governorship, Johnson cut taxes fourteen times and never increased them.^[82] Due to his stance on taxes, political pundit David Weigel described him as "the original Tea Party candidate".^[83] Johnson supports balancing the federal budgetimmediately.^[84] He supports "slashing government spending", including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Securityentitlements.^[81] His plans include cutting Medicare and Medicaid by 43 percent and turning them into block grant programs, with control of spending in the hands of the states to create "fifty laboratories of innovation".^[84] He advocates passing a law allowing for state bankruptcy and expressly ruling out a federal bailout of any states.^[77] In his campaign for the Libertarian Party nomination, he stated he opposed foreign wars and pledged to cut the military budget by 43 percent in his first budget as president.^[79] He would cut the military's overseas bases, uniformed and civilian personnel, research and development, intelligence, and nuclear weapons programs.^[85][86] He is opposed to the United States' involvement in the War in Afghanistan and the Libyan Civil War.^[87] He has stated that he does not believe Iran is a military threat, would use his presidential power to prevent Israel from attacking Iran, and would not follow Israel, or any other ally, into a war that it had initiated.^[88] Johnson is a strong supporter of civil liberties and received the highest score of any candidate from the American Civil Liberties Union for supporting drug decriminalization and online freedom while opposing USA PATRIOT, enhanced airport screenings, and the indefinite detention of prisoners.^[89] Johnson endorsed same-sex marriage in 2011;^[90] he has since called for a constitutional amendment protecting equal marriage rights,^[90] and criticized President Obama's position on the issue as to have "thrown this question back to the states."