Who are you voting for?

cdrewferd

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#21
I think the most important thing to remember, is it almost doesn't matter what the canidate WANTS to do. Their ideas on things they want to see still have to make it through the house and the senate. While they both have radical ideas, I don't see them all happening.

Evan, you said it best and that's why I'll votefor Romney as well. Also, he's promised to get rid of ObamaCare which in itself should mean you vote for him.
 

a bag of it

Angel Fish
M.A.S.C Club Member
#22
I guess I should've been more specific. I don't have a problem with a religiously affiliated president, but I do take issue with a president who let's his religious beliefs dictate social policy. The fact that Romney wants to make abortion illegal even in the case of rape is appalling. If you've read freakenomics, you know the positive effects that have resulted from legalized abortions. I'm not a big Obama fan, but I don't feel he would take us back a few steps like Romney will.

Sent from my AT&T Galaxy Note
 

cdrewferd

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#24
a bag of it;193399 said:
I guess I should've been more specific. I don't have a problem with a religiously affiliated president, but I do take issue with a president who let's his religious beliefs dictate social policy. The fact that Romney wants to make abortion illegal even in the case of rape is appalling. If you've read freakenomics, you know the positive effects that have resulted from legalized abortions. I'm not a big Obama fan, but I don't feel he would take us back a few steps like Romney will.

Sent from my AT&T Galaxy Note
Romney can't do anything without going through congress. There is no way that proposal will ever make it through.
 

rmougey

Tang
M.A.S.C Club Member
#27
Interesting website..... according to them, I should be voting for Jill Stein (94%), Obama (89%) and Rocky Anderson (78%)..... I agreed with Romney on 23% of his positions... well.... the few that he has committed to. :)

How fun!
 

ShelbyJK500

Dolphin
M.A.S.C Club Member
#28
WOW...I was completely shocked that I had a 92% "siding" with Romney. I honestly didn't think it would be that high since I'm more of a Constitutionalist/Tea Party/Independent! All the more reason for me now I guess. ;)

cdrewferd;193392 said:
Evan, you said it best and that's why I'll votefor Romney as well. Also, he's promised to get rid of ObamaCare which in itself should mean you vote for him.
Glad to know what I threw out was even understandable...was tired when I posted. ;) And yes, something as huge as healthcare, one of the largest industries in our country, being so radically changed toward a socialistic ideology is completely unsat with me. I agree that issue alone would get me to vote for "almost" anyone running against Obama. ;)
 

Zooid

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#29
a bag of it;193399 said:
I guess I should've been more specific. I don't have a problem with a religiously affiliated president, but I do take issue with a president who let's his religious beliefs dictate social policy. The fact that Romney wants to make abortion illegal even in the case of rape is appalling. If you've read freakenomics, you know the positive effects that have resulted from legalized abortions. I'm not a big Obama fan, but I don't feel he would take us back a few steps like Romney will.

Sent from my AT&T Galaxy Note
[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: left"]From http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Abortion.php

Romney position on Abortion
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]
Pro-Life

Romney previously supported a woman’s right to decide, but he is now adamantly opposed to abortions, unless it involves cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in mortal danger.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Guys, this disinformation about Romney is being spread by the George Soros machine and the Obama campaign.
I personally don't like Romney, my first choice was Herman Cain and if Ron Paul's foreign policy wasn't so atrocious I'd vote for him. I can't justify voting for a third party candidate since the last time I did that it was for Ross Perot. Never again will I waste my vote. This time it's crucial for the economic sanity of our nation that I vote for someone with more logical ideas about how to improve the economy, not someone who wants to make it "fair". When I hear the meme about the rich paying their fair share, I get ****ed every time because what is their fair share? The rich already pay a HUGE amount of the bills in this country.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1

"This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank."

"The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46% of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes."

"The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

When we tax the rich, who is really hurt? The middle and lower classes because jobs go away and prices skyrocket. If we taxed the wealthy at 100%, we could run the government for 4 months I believe. It's not a tax problem, it's a spending problem. We need to stop spending but this administration can't seem to do that. Bush was bad but Obama puts him to shame. He's run up more debt in four years than Bush did in eight. This is unsustainable and we need someone in office that is more LIKELY to stop the flow.
 

djkms

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#30
Gale,

Obama's spending is not out of control, his lack of cutting spending is out of control. Big difference.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

-----


The real issue is we don't have enough people paying taxes and our GDP is down. We need to revamp our tax system and increase our production. These are not solely because of Obama, however the fact is, we need to make some tough decisions if we still want to prosper as a country. I truly believe Obama means well but we just cant afford to help everyone. We are a country of equal opportunity built on capitalism and free enterprise. IMO bailouts and our current welfare system undercut the ideals of what this country was founded on and really only enable the system to be taken advantage of. I work in the financial industry and the idea of "to big to fail" is total BS. A huge point of capitalism is if one company fails, another will rise to take its place. On the point of welfare, it should only be a temporary solution, not a permanent fix. I feel for those who are unemployed, I really do but those (unemployed) who are still accepting entitlements for years on end are not only hurting themselves but also hurting our country and another 4 years of Obama will only make the situation worse I am afraid.

Keep in mind, voting 3rd party typically means a vote for the incumbent. I can probably write a book on this subject but I will stop now. Whatever you do, make sure to make a informed decision with your vote, do your best to sift through the rhetoric and vote. There is a lot of mudslinging and misinformation out there so try to find the truth, there are a few fact checking websites out there.
 

Zooid

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#31
Kris,
I consider spending billions of dollars on unproven technology (Solyndra, et al.), cash for clunkers, bank bailouts which has been repaid, GM's bailout which is still not repaid, and other programs that are unnecessary, out of control spending. In better times, perhaps alternative energy would be an investment worth trying but not while we are in the depths of this recession...oops, I mean "recovery". He hasn't done a thing to tackle the real spending problems, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

As for the factcheck.org site, I'll look through it but I have absolutely no faith in their fact checking abilities.

"Whatever you do, make sure to make a informed decision with your vote, do your best to sift through the rhetoric and vote. There is a lot of mudslinging and misinformation out there so try to find the truth"

I agree with this wholeheartedly.
 

Zooid

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#32
oh, and even though ObamaCare isn't costing much now......it hasn't even gone into gear yet. I think people who love the idea of ObamaCare will be in for a huge surprise after it starts. I can see all our healthcare options turning into systems similar to the VA and/or Medicare system. Medicare WILL go bankrupt as it is now and I wouldn't want anyone to go to a VA hospital. I was in the Navy for eight years, I know how that operates.
 

djkms

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#33
I guess I should have elaborated more. I think most people (not implying you Gale) equate the 1 trillion per year added to our deficit as Obama's out of control spending which it is not. IIRC Obama has increased spending by around 8% while other presidents average 6-7%.
 

Zooid

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#34
djkms;193632 said:
I guess I should have elaborated more. I think most people (not implying you Gale) equate the 1 trillion per year added to our deficit as Obama's out of control spending which it is not. IIRC Obama has increased spending by around 8% while other presidents average 6-7%.
You're right, most people probably do believe that the trillion dollar deficits are because of spending. I don't, but I also think that the government should have a budget that spends less than it receives. They force me to live within MY budget, so I feel that the government should not be able to live outside its means either. I wish I could go to the bank and say, "Hey, I ran out of money this year, I want you to raise my credit limit to one million dollars, NOW!" They'd laugh at me before they called the cops or psych ward on me. If we have less tax revenue then we must decide what should be cut because raising taxes won't pay the deficit we're running now.
 

Haulin Oates

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#35
I'm glad this thread took off! And in the right direction! I think the biggest threat is the people that don't vote. A year ago I was so fed up I wasn't going to... But since then I've realized that wouldn't help at all, that's why I started this thread.
I personally believe that what's best for us in the next 4 years will be job creation, limited spending, and reigning in the deficit. I hate to say it, but oil and natural gas drilling will help a ton in these areas. I also believe there needs to be major changes to welfare and Medicare, as well as social security. For those reasons I am almost convinced I will be voting for Romney... I just hope he's so busy with these items that he won't try to pass any "human rights" bills (ie. gay marriage or Abortion.). I also hope he doesn't try any nonsense about gun control, since he's wavered quite a bit on that issue as well.
 

Zooid

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#36
I don't think he'll be sinking his teeth into too many social issues because either he veers to the left and wouldn't have a chance of being elected again or he veers right in which case, Congress and/or the Supreme Court would stop him. I don't think he's as bad socially as some of you think. Hell, he used to be pro choice. He used to govern based on global warming. He was a typical east coast Republican, leaning more left than right. Like I said, I don't trust the guy (mainly because he's a politician) but at this point I think an unknown will be better than the known we have.
 

Zooid

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#37
I don't think he'll be sinking his teeth into too many social issues because either he veers to the left and wouldn't have a chance of being elected again or he veers right in which case, Congress and/or the Supreme Court would stop him. I don't think he's as bad socially as some of you think. Hell, he used to be pro choice. He used to govern based on global warming. He was a typical east coast Republican, leaning more left than right. Like I said, I don't trust the guy (mainly because he's a politician) but at this point I think an unknown will be better than the known we have.
 

djkms

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#38
Its interesting how the media seems to skew things as well. Just about every news outlet (minus fox) has Obama leading by a 5+ point margin (changes often so im being conservative) yet everywhere I read and the people I talk to seem to be more keen towards Romney. Have any of you read the comments on news stories on Yahoo? Man, the comments are better than the story and boy there is a lot of hatred towards Obama.

I will say this; this race is UGLY, I dont ever recall seeing a country so divided in my lifetime towards politics. Although it could just be me, im only 34 and haven't followed politics as keenly as I am now. I think a lot of it has to do with me being a parent now as well. I want whats best for my child and a climbing national debt will eventually destroy this country and I want my daughter to have a bright future with the same if not more opportunities that I had.
 

Haulin Oates

Reef Shark
M.A.S.C Club Member
#39
djkms;193643 said:
Its interesting how the media seems to skew things as well. Just about every news outlet (minus fox) has Obama leading by a 5+ point margin (changes often so im being conservative) yet everywhere I read and the people I talk to seem to be more keen towards Romney. Have any of you read the comments on news stories on Yahoo? Man, the comments are better than the story and boy there is a lot of hatred towards Obama.

I will say this; this race is UGLY, I dont ever recall seeing a country so divided in my lifetime towards politics. Although it could just be me, im only 34 and haven't followed politics as keenly as I am now. I think a lot of it has to do with me being a parent now as well. I want whats best for my child and a climbing national debt will eventually destroy this country and I want my daughter to have a bright future with the same if not more opportunities that I had.
I agree, similar age and kids! I've never been so concerned, and I've never seen this much outright hatred and mudslinging!! I was talking to my dad and gramps, and they both said that's how it seemed for them as well at similar ages... So I think it comes with age.
 

Ghosty

Butterfly Fish
#40
I'm surprised foreign policy hasn't been mentioned. I am left-leaning moderate with a few conservative ideals too. I've voted for Bush twice, and Obama this time, and could go either way on any future candidate. BUT... I for one do NOT want to see a president who's foreign policy will allow Israel a "free pass" and our country's military actions be dictated by Jewish warhawks. War with Iran will be a monumental DISASTER, both militarily and economically. That's the LAST thing our limping economy needs. The thought scares me enough, that it could tip my vote to Obama over Mittens. Plus is Mittens really the best and brightest candidate the GOP could put up? Ugh, that's pretty frickin' sad! It's also sad that Ron Paul can't makeover his own foreign policy and more crazy radical demilitarism and isolationist views. He'd be a lot more appealing. A conservative SCOTUS appointee (in the event another retires or dies), also scares me. The court is already a tad conservately-balanced, I don't think it needs to be made rock-solid conservative, you can then forget about "separation of church & state" in future decisions, imo.

Yes I know it's AlJazeera, normally I don't ever read it because it's a Muslim-sympathetic anti-American news outlet, BUT this particular article is not. It's just a sobering commentary about what the author thinks a US-Iran war would end up like, which is NOT PRETTY. It's worth the read, no matter what your political affiliation. Let me know what you think, I've had a few military guys on other boards tell me they don't disagree with the contents, it's pretty spot-on. I know the FoxNews fans will cringe to even click on this, but trust me on it. If it's too long for ya, just read the stuff I bolded below.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291194236970294.html

After a decade of exhausting and demoralising conflict between the United States and two of the weakest, most impoverished countries in the world, Iraq and Afghanistan, many within the US political establishment are calling for the country to engage in yet another conflict; this time with a relatively powerful enemy in Iran.

In the past week alone, top Republican figures such as John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have called for increasing belligerence towards the Iranian regime, bringing the two countries closer to the brink of armed conflict. The heightening standoff with Iran over its nuclear programme, curious in itself for its recent rapid escalation given that leading American and Israeli intelligence estimates have both concluded that Iran has neither developed nor is planning to develop nuclear weapons, is leading to increasingly belligerent rhetoric out of Washington calling for war with Iran.

Leading members of the House and Congress from both parties as well as the closest advisers to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney have called for attacking Iran, with some high-ranking GOP advisers even suggesting that the time is now for a Congressional resolution formally declaring war on the country. Romney and many other leading Republican figures have called for pre-emptive war against Iran, and have continually upped the ante in terms of threats of military action throughout the election campaign. This alarming and potentially highly consequential rhetoric is occurring in a context where the American people are still recovering from the disastrous war in Iraq and winding down the US occupation of Afghanistan, while at the same time coping with the worst economic drought since the Great Depression.

Public statements claiming that the extent of the conflict would be limited to targeted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities are utterly disingenuous, ignoring the escalating cycle of retribution that such "limited" conflicts necessarily breed. As did the war in Libya start off with calls only for a benign "no-fly zone" to protect civilians and seamlessly turned into an all-out aerial campaign to topple Muammar Gaddafi, any crossing of the military threshold with Iran would also likely result in a far bigger conflagration than the public has been prepared for by their leaders.

War with Iran would be no quick and clean affair, as many senior political and military figures have pointed out it would make the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which cost trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of soldiers and civilians, seem like "a cakewalk". The fact that it is becoming increasingly likely, inevitable in the eyes of many, and that it is high on the agenda of so many leading political figures warrants exploration of what such a conflict would really entail. Conflict on an unprecedented scale

Not a war of weeks or months, but a "generations-long war" is how no less a figure than former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy describes the consequences of open conflict with Iran. In comparison with Iraq and Afghanistan, both countries with relatively small populations which were already in a state of relative powerlessness before they were invaded, Iran commands the eighth largest active duty military in the world, as well as highly trained special forces and guerilla organisations which operate in countries throughout the region and beyond.

Retired US General John Abizaid has previously described the Iranian military as "the
most powerful in the Middle East" (exempting Israel), and its highly sophisticated and
battle-hardened proxies in Lebanon and Iraq have twice succeeded in defeating far
stronger and better funded Western military forces.

Any attack on Iran would assuredly lead to the activation of these proxies in
neighbouring countries to attack American interests and would create a situation of
borderless war unprecedented in any past US conflicts in the Middle East.
None of this is to suggest that the United States would not "win" a war with Iran, but
given the incredibly painful costs of Iraq and Afghanistan; wars fought against weak,
poorly organised enemies lacking broad influence, politicians campaigning for war with
Iran are leading the American people into a battle which will be guaranteed to make the
past decade of fighting look tame in comparison
.
The rest of the article is intering as well. Not trying to be preachy, just food for thought.
 
Top