If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Does it really matter? They were just going to write-in Ron Paul   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 120
    More: Interesting, write-ins, absentee ballots, Shindad Air Base, election officials, hanging chads, disfranchisements, Palm Beach County, cargo aircraft  
•       •       •

4383 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2012 at 8:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-27 02:58:34 PM

GanjSmokr: Tor_Eckman: And yes, I know you are not suggesting that people for R, but not voting for Obama only helps Romney. You will only be hurting yourself by voting third party. This is the only real reality of the situation.

Additionally, I've converted more Romney leaning voters than Obama leaning voters over to Johnson so it's kind of the exact opposite of that in my experience.


True that. I am a registered Virginia Republican, Marine deployed to Afghanistan (without a horse or bayonet), and right-wing/libertarian kind of guy. On all accounts, I should fall into the GOP camp. I voted Gary Johnson. No matter how much my younger 14-year-old inner self wants to root for Romney just because he's the GOP nominee, I just can't vote for someone who I really don't want in power.

I would say something along similar (albeit more respectful) lines with the President. I don't support his policies (although I like him as a person much better than Willmit), and I won't vote for him.

And I won't feel bad no matter who wins VA and the presidency, because I voted for someone I want, not against someone I don't want. On the issues I care about most: foreign policy, defense spending, role of govt, I really believe that while O/R may have very different policies, the margin of difference between their views is much smaller than the gap between either of them and my own.

So I'm not JUST saying, "both sides are bad."
I'm saying, "both sides are bad, one side is worse, but they are both so far beyond what I support that it doesn't really matter to me which one of them wins, so I'll vote for someone I support, thank you very much."

So don't go all Nader-guilt trippy on me if Romney wins VA. I would NEVER vote for either Obama or Romney, so your "side" would never have had my vote even if there was no third party candidate I liked. I would have simply stayed home (see my rant in the "Reasons to not vote" thread).

/I hate AFG, get me the fark out of here.
//Yes, I am a Fobbit.
///13 months of Fobbitry are probably just as bad as 6 months of patrolling
 
2012-10-27 03:03:12 PM

hasty ambush: How is contractors driving trucks etc hurting things.? It frees up troops to fight rather than running a water truck form point A to point B our setting up tents somewhere. I wish we had more contractors when I was in.


Who do you expect to driving those trucks? If they are Americans, it will cost more to pay them to come over here than it would be train a new soldier to do the job. If they are natives, suddenly you have a security issue on your hands. I remember one case where a hired Iraqi contractor was caught pacing out steps in our base so that mortar rounds could be more accurately fired at the TOC (there were several injuries just because of mortar fire, fortunately nobody was killed).

Some contractors are needed and do free up resources, but we've gone way overboard in their use over the last decade, such that soldiers trained up to fulfill a particular MOS find they no longer even have the jobs they were trained to do when they deploy. It's particularly shady when the Vice President had such strong connections to the biggest contractor, Haliburton, and that same contractor ended up ripping off the US government.

I can also tell you about the time I had to keep an eye on contractors sent to improve the SIPR and NIPR networks in our TOC. Anyway, they ended working like three or four hours a night, dragging their feet in getting the job done. Certainly not the most efficient use of resources in my opinion.
 
2012-10-27 03:04:35 PM

hasty ambush: Backlog of Veterans' Disability Claims Increases 179% Under Obama

Part of the issue has been exacerbated especially under Bush by a higher reliance on contractors to do the tasks the troops used to perform because they wanted to act like the war wasn't a big deal so they never got congressional approval to increase the size of the military, it was their way to fighting two engagements while keeping most of the costs off the books.

How is contractors driving trucks etc hurting things.? It frees up troops to fight rather than running a water truck form point A to point B our setting up tents somewhere. I wish we had more contractors when I was in.


So it's the fault of the president's policies that the "backlog" increased? What caused those veterans to become disabled in the first place? Are there more or less claims now than since the initial invasion of Afghanistan? The biggest complaint you could have is the growing pains associated with the new VA's new filing system, but that would have been implemented no matter who was sitting in the oval office. Even the Military Times didn't try to pin the backlog/system problems on the administration, and they'll trip over themselves to point a finger at a Democrat.

Better question - how exactly would any other candidate decrease the "backlog" of veterans claims?
 
2012-10-27 03:17:19 PM

hasty ambush: The idea of a one size fits all plan imposed Washington would work as well as a once size fits all education plan like Obama's race to the top or the Bush /Kennedy no Child left behind .
The Education and health care needs of Utah certainly differ from those of of Washington DC don't you think?


So you are saying you agree with Obama's decision to loosen up Clinton's one size fits all welfare system so that states have more leeway in how they get welfare recipients back to work?

And I'm certainly not against state-federal cooperation to achieve better medicare results, as long as the states in question are actually getting everyone covered. Right now the biggest hurdle is actually getting all the lobbyist out of the system, as there interference in regulation is largely what is driving up medicare costs (see Medicare part D rip-off for a prime example of this).
 
2012-10-27 03:25:39 PM
And how do the education needs of Utah differ from Washington DC? Why should a kid be taught one thing in one state but something else in another state? The US should have a federal curriculum for public schools. Someone living in DC, with two kids in school, should be able to move to Utah or Maine or Texas or California or Kansas at the semester without any change in their kids' curriculum. Federal education dollars should provide the bare baseline for each school - textbooks, classroom furniture, food, etc. Wealthier communities who want to supplement that with nicer improvements (musical instruments, nice art supplies, athletic facilities, iPads, etc.) from their city budgets could certainly do so, but it would ensure that even the poorest inner-city or rural school children have access to the same basic standards of education.

Libertarianism should never trump humanitarianism. No state should have the power to decide how stupid its children should be.
 
2012-10-27 03:27:16 PM

GanjSmokr: King Something: All because a few people voted for Nader over Gore for the same reason you're voting for Johnson.

Again, I will not vote for someone who stands for things AGAINST my morals just to make someone else happier with my vote.

Period.

And another again, it's not my fault if neither of the majors EARNED my vote. I don't vote for you just because I hate the other guy more. I vote for you because you REPRESENT what I believe in. These 2 major bozos do not. Thus they do not get my vote. It's that simple.


I'm with you on this one. Vote for whomever you want, and if anyone has anything to say about it, just tell 'em, "I do what I want!"

Serious question, though...
If there was absolutely no candidate that you felt represented what you believe in would you simply not vote or would you resign yourself to casting a ballot for the candidate that was least distant from your beliefs?
 
2012-10-27 03:41:36 PM

geek_mars: GanjSmokr: King Something: All because a few people voted for Nader over Gore for the same reason you're voting for Johnson.

Again, I will not vote for someone who stands for things AGAINST my morals just to make someone else happier with my vote.

Period.

And another again, it's not my fault if neither of the majors EARNED my vote. I don't vote for you just because I hate the other guy more. I vote for you because you REPRESENT what I believe in. These 2 major bozos do not. Thus they do not get my vote. It's that simple.

I'm with you on this one. Vote for whomever you want, and if anyone has anything to say about it, just tell 'em, "I do what I want!"

Serious question, though...
If there was absolutely no candidate that you felt represented what you believe in would you simply not vote or would you resign yourself to casting a ballot for the candidate that was least distant from your beliefs?


If there was nobody who shared at least a majority of my views, sadly I think I would not give anyone my vote.

I don't expect to agree 100% with anyone but there are several issues that I feel are pretty important and having my vote go towards someone who agrees with me on those issues is pretty important to me.
 
2012-10-27 03:48:34 PM

GanjSmokr: geek_mars: GanjSmokr: King Something: All because a few people voted for Nader over Gore for the same reason you're voting for Johnson.

Again, I will not vote for someone who stands for things AGAINST my morals just to make someone else happier with my vote.

Period.

And another again, it's not my fault if neither of the majors EARNED my vote. I don't vote for you just because I hate the other guy more. I vote for you because you REPRESENT what I believe in. These 2 major bozos do not. Thus they do not get my vote. It's that simple.

I'm with you on this one. Vote for whomever you want, and if anyone has anything to say about it, just tell 'em, "I do what I want!"

Serious question, though...
If there was absolutely no candidate that you felt represented what you believe in would you simply not vote or would you resign yourself to casting a ballot for the candidate that was least distant from your beliefs?

If there was nobody who shared at least a majority of my views, sadly I think I would not give anyone my vote.

I don't expect to agree 100% with anyone but there are several issues that I feel are pretty important and having my vote go towards someone who agrees with me on those issues is pretty important to me.


While I can respect that, I think I would have to vote against the candidate most opposed to my views rather than not vote. Sometimes one has to choose, even when the choices suck.
 
2012-10-27 09:29:46 PM

hasty ambush: Ah yes, the ever familiar if you are against Obama you must be racist chant. If true , the military being about 38% minority (depending on branch of service) you would think that Obama would pull in least 30% instead of a mere 26%.


You do realize that's a right-wing troll, right?

Wait what am I talking about? You're probably the same person.

indylaw: hasty ambush: We know it matters to Democrats. It means fewer absentee ballots they will have to try and get disqualified. We know most of them are not voting Democrat

Hey bud, the Democrats aren't the ones known for trying to disqualify ballots. See Florida in 2000, and also the Lisa Murkowski shenanigans in 2010.


Not to mention even with tradition and anti-democrat prejudice the military is starting to swing more democrat than before. Not a lot, but a bit.

daveUSMC: I voted Gary Johnson.


Bah, that dude's running a scam, even a Ron Paul write-in would be better in my opinion.

As would voting for a non-crazy party, but that's a different discussion.
 
2012-10-27 09:41:22 PM

ExpressPork: Fart_Machine: ExpressPork: Has anyone mentioned how odd it is that this crash was not reported until now? How do we have details like the weight of the lost mail but no mention of crewman? No other details whatsoever. This is farking weird. Normally a plane crash is news immediately.

It's in a war zone and apparently didn't result in any fatalities.

"Apparently" didnt result in any fatalities? Thats exactly my point. What is your source for this? You don't find it a tad peculiar that there's no mention of casualties in a crash big enough to destroy that much mail?


You're right it's a conspiracy. There is no such thing as a crash where damage is sustained to a military aircraft and the crew survives.
 
2012-10-27 11:55:35 PM
Yeah like a bunch of soldiers are going to vote against the most anti-military candidate in the Republican party primaries.

Not sure if herp or derp.
 
2012-10-27 11:56:23 PM
against for

like this thread's even alive anymore
 
2012-10-28 02:47:28 AM

whidbey: Yeah like a bunch of soldiers are going to vote against the most anti-military candidate in the Republican party primaries.

Not sure if herp or derp.


I've never served in the military, but if I were deployed in an overseas war zone I think I would be very tempted to ignore ALL other issues and cast my vote for the guy I thought was most likely to bring me home the soonest. If the "anti-military" candidate was the one who was most likely to do that, I can see myself voting for them in that instance.
Like I said, though, having never served I can only speculate as to what I'd be likely to do.
 
2012-10-28 03:17:19 AM

Gwyrddu: GanjSmokr: I don't care for provisions in the NDAA. Again, neither of the majors will do anything about that - they like their power too much.

I'd say there is some difference even on this one point. Romney would be much more likely to actually abuse the offending the section of the NDAA and Obama would very sign a bill repealing Section 1022 if it were to go through congress, who knows what Romney would do though? (yeah I know, Obama shouldn't have signed the NDAA in the first place and taken the hit on not supporting the troops, but I still mostly blame this on congress for putting this crapola clause in such an important bill in the first place).

I do agree with you though that these problematic stances in the Obama administration. But I just take a broader view of the race and look at who will bring more stability and do something about the run away wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

The drug wars will have to be fought on a state level for now, and if enough mandates are passed on the state level federal politicians will eventually have to take notice.


Here's another thing for me: As I've said, far too much attention is paid to the presidential election, because it's the only federal office that we all vote on. Not nearly enough attention is paid to the various congressional elections, and the fact that you could do far more damage by voting third party all the way down the ticket than you would voting third party for President. I mean, if you think Barack Obama has it bad with only a slight majority of a single chamber against him, imagine what would happen if Gary Johnson were elected...and the entirety of both the House and the Senate were against him on most of his core issues? That's why you should focus less on the Presidency and more to foster 3rd party politics at the state and local level.
 
2012-10-28 03:25:49 AM

GanjSmokr: Tor_Eckman: And yes, I know you are not suggesting that people for R, but not voting for Obama only helps Romney. You will only be hurting yourself by voting third party. This is the only real reality of the situation.

Additionally, I've converted more Romney leaning voters than Obama leaning voters over to Johnson so it's kind of the exact opposite of that in my experience.


Well if that's the case, you and Perot keep up the good work.

/voted Harry Browne in 2000
//i was young then
///socialist now but I'll settle for Obama
 
2012-10-28 05:55:43 AM

GanjSmokr: King Something: GanjSmokr: borg: The bolded part is where we disagree completely.

You tell me to vote for the person I agree with *most* out of the 2 majors. According to my results at http://www.isidewith.com, I side with GJ 95% and both O/R ~50%.

I will not vote against my morals to make someone else happier with my vote. If one of the major candidates loses by a close margin, that's their own damned fault, not mine.


This is something that I really don't understand about some people. Even though it seems to be en vogue to be a small L libertarian these days, many of these self-identifiers are straight up Romney supporters. The actual Libertarian candidate, who is actually libertarian, is decried and his supporters are mocked by the the aforementioned Romney supporters. In an election where a third party could have a good chance of becoming competitive, these people are more interested in getting out the guy they hate with someone that completely does not fit their values instead of trying to build a foundation of support for a candidate that does fit their values.

I really have a hard time making sense of these people.
 
2012-10-28 07:56:44 AM

Summoner101: The actual Libertarian candidate, who is actually libertarian, is decried and his supporters are mocked by the the aforementioned Romney supporters.


Gary Johnson lost credibility when he ran in the Republican Primary. Why should voters ignore pragmatism and vote on ideological principle when the man asking for their vote wasn't willing to do the same? Or did Johnson have a magical conversion by coincidence the nanosecond he was rejected by Republican voters?
 
2012-10-28 10:13:55 AM
This would make al gore happy. He does not believe their votes should ever be counted.
 
2012-10-28 09:28:12 PM

Nemo's Brother: This would make al gore happy. He does not believe their votes should ever be counted.


You owe me 20 bucks.
 
2012-10-29 12:21:22 PM

Fart_Machine: You're right it's a conspiracy. There is no such thing as a crash where damage is sustained to a military aircraft and the crew survives. journalism any more


How do you know that's what happened? Where does it mention this seemingly VERY relevant info.
 
Displayed 20 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report