The who will you be voting for Poll and Discussion Thread

[Jeryhn]

Decided Romney wasn't getting my vote once it came out he wanted more oxygen in a fiery airplane cabin.

[Ksandra]

This Fast and Furious argument makes no sense imo. Let's say Obama knew and lied. That's one lie vs. like 50 that Romney has been caught saying. How the fuck can you use that to vote for him instead? If you hate Obama for this "lie" don't vote or vote for a third party. Voting for Romney over it is just lol and hypocritical.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Jefe's sources are sound, but none of them can really prove whether or not Obama knew about what the ATF was doing. You realize how much he has on his plate? Fast and Furious wasn't exactly the biggest thing on his radar, at any point, ever. There's a difference between lying and not knowing the truth. If you can point me to a source that proves that the President himself was aware of this, then by all means - otherwise, your argument still holds very little water.

It's pretty common practice for subsections of the government to do things without the President's knowledge. In fact, that's pretty much most of what goes on.

Lies. Obama himself approved my social security disability application. EVERYTHING MUST GO THROUGH THE PRESIDENT.

[Aksannyi]

This is from Cantih's post.

The value of not voting is that you save, say, an hour of your time. If you're an average American wage-earner, that's about $20.

Is this for real? If that's the truth, I'm so far below the average American wage-earner that it's not even close to funny.




As for voting, it needs to be reworked. We should see the candidates and listen to them debate. Listen to their stances on the issues. Then when we go to vote, there's no names. The top issues that the major candidates differ on should then be posed against each other, you select which stance you agree with, and at the end your vote is cast, and you never even know who you voted for.

[Jakson]

This is from Cantih's post.
*The value of not voting is that you save, say, an hour of your time. If you're an average American wage-earner, that's about $20.*
Is this for real? If that's the truth, I'm so far below the average American wage-earner that it's not even close to funny.

I think that's going off the idea that the average American makes like 39k/year. AFAIK, that's all the wages/earnings/income made by Americans in a year, then divided among the population, which is kinda bogus. I think the actual wage of the people in the 49-51% range of the population (right in the middle) make more like 26k-27k/year, or about $13/hr.

[Ksandra]

As for voting, it needs to be reworked. We should see the candidates and listen to them debate. Listen to their stances on the issues. Then when we go to vote, there's no names. The top issues that the major candidates differ on should then be posed against each other, you select which stance you agree with, and at the end your vote is cast, and you never even know who you voted for.

There was that link people posted where you voted based on issues and it said who you sided with the most (so similar to what you are suggesting). At first glance, it would have been interesting, but as many have mentioned Jill Stein seemed to be at the top of the list for a lot of people, BUT honestly, I don't think she'd do a good job at all. It's not just about their political stances, but whether or not they will actually do anything about it when they take office.

[Aksannyi]

I think that's going off the idea that the average American makes like 39k/year. AFAIK, that's all the wages/earnings/income made by Americans in a year, then divided among the population, which is kinda bogus. I think the actual wage of the people in the 49-51% range of the population (right in the middle) make more like 26k-27k/year, or about $13/hr.

That is still more than I make. I know that my wages are low and I live in a part of the country where wages are not high. The only reason I survive on what I make is the overtime. Still I was blown away that $20 an hour is considered average.

[djzombie]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YYJqGpvoS_M
probably already been posted but cant tell on my phone

[archibaldcrane]

The median (50th percentile) household income in the US was just over 50k in 2011. I don't know what the median number of hours worked in said household is though.

I make a dollar a minute at work. It's weird to think of it that way.

[quannum]

There was that link people posted where you voted based on issues

http://www.isidewith.com/

[Aksannyi]

http://www.isidewith.com/

That's kind of what I think it should be, honestly. Except at the end, you never know who you voted for. Anonymous polling. It would keep this country less, "Well, you damn Democrats voted for this guy and he's terrible!" and more, "Well, we all voted this guy in." Not only that, but people would have to actually pay attention to the issues instead of just blindly vote by party, which we all know is what happens these days.

[Cantih]

Seriously, since I'm unemployed, I'd just be happy to make the CA minimum of 8.
But I know full well with the local cost of living I'd really need more around 14.

[Salodin]

This is from Cantih's post.



Is this for real? If that's the truth, I'm so far below the average American wage-earner that it's not even close to funny.




As for voting, it needs to be reworked. We should see the candidates and listen to them debate. Listen to their stances on the issues. Then when we go to vote, there's no names. The top issues that the major candidates differ on should then be posed against each other, you select which stance you agree with, and at the end your vote is cast, and you never even know who you voted for.

That's stupid, cause ya know, people lie and stuff.

[Ksandra]

That's kind of what I think it should be, honestly. Except at the end, you never know who you voted for. Anonymous polling. It would keep this country less, "Well, you damn Democrats voted for this guy and he's terrible!" and more, "Well, we all voted this guy in." Not only that, but people would have to actually pay attention to the issues instead of just blindly vote by party, which we all know is what happens these days.

Let's say you ended up siding with Rosanne Barr's stances. Do you think that she would do a good job as president? Actions speak louder than words.

[Aksannyi]

I just don't like the idea of the presidential election being a popularity contest more than anything. Not saying it's a perfect plan by any means, but I would appreciate more if people were forced to vote on the issues instead of just 'HRR DRR REPUBLICAN' or 'DERPA DERPA DEMOCRAT' fucking blind sheep. Fucking party system has polarized this country which I can't stand.

Though you're right, and I'd never seen it that way, whether we could trust who gets put there based solely on their stances; if they'd actually do shit worth a damn. I just think there's got to be a better way that doesn't involve the "REPUBLICANS ARE STUPID," "YEAH, WELL DEMOCRATS ARE DOUCHEBAGS," that seems to go around.

[BaneTheBrawler]

A lot of the problems with our current system come from the way we do campaign funding, and the imbalanced winner-takes-all Electoral College.

[quannum]

Let's say you ended up siding with Rosanne Barr's stances. Do you think that she would do a good job as president?

yes? i don't see what you're getting at.

[Andalusian girls]

A lot of the problems with our current system come from the way we do campaign funding, and the imbalanced winner-takes-all Electoral College.

we have one of the worst campaign finance systems in the first world

yay supreme court

[Ksandra]

I just don't like the idea of the presidential election being a popularity contest more than anything. Not saying it's a perfect plan by any means, but I would appreciate more if people were forced to vote on the issues instead of just 'HRR DRR REPUBLICAN' or 'DERPA DERPA DEMOCRAT' fucking blind sheep. Fucking party system has polarized this country which I can't stand.

Though you're right, and I'd never seen it that way, whether we could trust who gets put there based solely on their stances; if they'd actually do shit worth a damn. I just think there's got to be a better way that doesn't involve the "REPUBLICANS ARE STUPID," "YEAH, WELL DEMOCRATS ARE DOUCHEBAGS," that seems to go around.

Ya, don't get me wrong, I agree our system is fucked. Your concept has been actually brought up a lot this election year, and at first I also thought it was a really good idea. The more I thought about it though, the less I liked it. Part of being a politician isn't just taking stances, but how they go about achieving them (and whether they even want to, or just said it for votes). They have to be good at convincing others; otherwise, nothing gets done. As much as Obamacare isn't as good as it could have been Obama actually found a way to get it through. Even Clinton shut up about it when he realized what it would take to get universal healthcare.

A lot of the problems with our current system come from the way we do campaign funding, and the imbalanced winner-takes-all Electoral College.

^

I think the idea of stances-voting could work, but we'd have to strongly rework how campaigning is done AND how things are passed in Congress.

[Jefe]

Jefe's sources are sound, but none of them can really prove whether or not Obama knew about what the ATF was doing. You realize how much he has on his plate? Fast and Furious wasn't exactly the biggest thing on his radar, at any point, ever. There's a difference between lying and not knowing the truth. If you can point me to a source that proves that the President himself was aware of this, then by all means - otherwise, your argument still holds very little water.

It's pretty common practice for subsections of the government to do things without the President's knowledge. In fact, that's pretty much most of what goes on.

You're saying that President Obama is an incompetent president, a bumbling cretin if you will. Let me get this straight. He makes an appearance in The View, w/ those horrible women, just horrendous shrews a waste of time. Shows up w/ John Stewart, talks about couple of issues drops a few one liners and he's out. Hangs w/ the social pariahs of redit, a member of his team probably tells him about his meme and drops it. BUT, nobody from the administration hold him ever, 'oh btw, the ATF is handing a couple of thousand semi-automatic riffles to cartels in MX and other countries'? Unlike you, I don't think he's an uninformed idiot. I didn't agree w/ his answers to the matter, and hence I will not be voting for him. I care more about the propositions.