Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, write-ins, absentee ballots, Shindad Air Base, election officials, hanging chads, disfranchisements, Palm Beach County, cargo aircraft  
•       •       •

4388 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2012 at 8:58 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-10-27 09:39:51 AM  
3 votes:

borg: Ron Paul isn't running and writing in his name won't count so go ahead and waste your vote.


Gary Johnson *is* running, and you don't even have to write his name in in 48 states, so go ahead and vote for whoever you actually agree with on issues instead of voting by the (LETTER) behind their name..

The only wasted votes are those cast for someone you don't agree with.

/swing state Johnson voter
2012-10-27 09:37:28 AM  
3 votes:

Great_Milenko: 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

Yes, we're all familiar with the pervasive conservative bias in the military, even though we never talk about it if's just as much of a myth as the liberal media.


FTFT.
2012-10-27 03:25:39 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:03:12 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:49:51 AM  
2 votes:

badhatharry: Go ahead and write in RON PAUL unless you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president.

WTF is wrong with you people in Ohio?


I actually agree with GanjSmokr and others who preach that you should "vote for who you actually agree with," but only because their heads tend to explode when I tell them I actually agree with the President.
2012-10-27 09:38:23 AM  
2 votes:
Yahoo comments make Youtube comments look like literary dissertations.
2012-10-27 09:30:04 AM  
2 votes:
2012-10-27 09:13:12 AM  
2 votes:
Screw sending a new ballot to anyone who requests one: send every American in that zip code a new ballot.
2012-10-27 02:58:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:52:50 PM  
1 vote:
hasty ambush:

Let's break this down.

It is more than about their pay it is about being well equipped and trained. As anybody who was there can tell you about the dismal state of both equipment an training in mid to late 70s and mid to late 90s (Peace dividend my ass).

I am not talking about high dollar jets and ships. But things like mortars, trucks and radios. I am taking about having enough ammo, fuel and spare parts for training. (I remember our vehicles being limited to 3 miles per month, due to fuel costs unless authorized by the Battalion commander).


First off - what timeframe are you talking about with the fuel costs? In the 90s we were driving CUCVs, HMMWVs, and deuce-and-a-halfs in huge loops twice a month on the local highways. Why? OPTEMPO miles for Class VIII money.

And do you really want to start talking about the basics? In the 80s and 90s, all services wore the very inexpensive BDU, switching to equally inexpensive desert and cold-weather variants as necessitated by deployment. Now let's fast forward to the modern DoD. We have 2 versions of MARPAT, the ACU, the ABU, and the NWU. These uniforms cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to develop, and eliminated DoD-wide commonality of basic items like pistol belts and canteen covers due to color and pattern. And are those last three uniforms being worn in the AOR? Nope. Deployed units are issued Multicam, which isn't even approved for wear in CONUS.

If anyone in congress or the SecDef's office looked at this for two seconds, they'd slap all four services upside their heads, ban all four utility uniforms, and mandate Multicam across the board. It would be a 60% savings to taxpayers, and that is an extremely small category of supply.

There is no reason whatsoever that the services use different equipment for the same exact missions. Do the services have unique missions and requirements? Yes. But tell me what the mission difference is between their helicopters, land vehicles, ground radios, desktop computers in their offices, commercial fleet vehicles on CONUS installations, etc. There is room for billions of savings across the DoD budget, without any sacrifice of capability.

What good does it have the best aircraft or fighters in the world if you nobody is trained how to use them? Pilots need flight time, sonar operators need experience tracking targets under reatl conditions etc. etc. Simulators are not enough-and also cost money

Yeah, about that whole "best fighter in the world" thing... how many combat hours to F-22s have? Our pilot training, however, is second to none. I've seen ANG pilots flying Block 30 F-16s fly simulated missions against RAAF pilots in their best F/A-18s. Our part-time pilots, in our oldest aircraft, slaughtered the Aussies. And the RAAF, in turn, could slaughter any threat that an undeveloped nation could throw at us our our allies. Our military is ready to respond to any threat, regardless of what is in the inventory.

If you want o look at the real cost of having a military it is personnel and training costs. Procurements costs can be spread out over years and decades but you cannot do that with training.

24% is personnel and training costs. 14% is procurement, which are only the contracts specified in the Defense Appropriation. 44% is O&M, which is the purchase and repair of "things" not specified in the Appropriation bill (anything from vehicles to computers to munitions to contract employees). 16% is R&D - money spent that doesn't result in any actual product this year. So 24% is the "real cost," not the combined 74%?

Look at the Middle East Countries that spend billions on the latest weapons but their troops perform poorly . Their government either do n to want to spend the money on training or do not trust their troops to train them well. They limit that to a so called elite- the Iraqi Republican Guards for example.

What they spend on weapons and equipment is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend, proportional to GDP. You're right about the training though. The Republican Guard, which Fox News painted as our greatest threat during the '03 invasion, were roughly the equivalent of a US Army Private in Week 5 of Basic Combat Training. The average E-4 from the 3rd ID (who handled a good chunk of the invasion) was better trained than most Republican Guard commanding officers.

You leftists are great about pointing out about how we have the most expensive military in the world but like to ignore the fact that we also have the most expensive welfare(( $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011) and education systems( over $900 billion FY2011) in the world but that does not keep you from insisting they need more tax dollars.

The argument isn't raw dollars - it's percentage of total federal expenditures. We give an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of taxpayer (and borrowed) funds to defense contractors and maintain a ridiculous number of overseas bases compared to other developed countries.

At least with military spending we have a first class military with hardware and terrorists put down for dirt naps to show for it. Exactly what are we getting for our trillions of education and welfare dollars that warrants giving them more money? Neither system is first class despite all the money we spend.

What "trillions" do we spend on education, unless you're counting college tuition? There are 2.1 million active duty servicemembers, and 1.2 million reservists in this country. There are 48 million children in public school. We're spending money on stealth attack fighters that can't fight, tanks that will never see an open battlefield, and a navy whose greatest threats are bomb-laden rowboats and pirated fishing vessels. We're still purchasing weapons to fight a uniformed enemy fighting a conventional war. Other than those 20 days in 2003, our enemy is non-uniformed, using surplus small arms, and hiding among the civilian population. We have no conventional enemies. The only country who could ever pose any conventional threat is China, but they will never be an enemy while American companies are selling Chinese goods domestically. So let's start weaning some of that money out of the defense industry (not from the troops themselves) and back into domestic programs.

What do you think the average Afghanistan veteran needs more? Hundreds of new or upgraded tanks that will never see combat during his few remaining years in the military, or the promise of a healthy domestic economy and an educated population for his entire life?
2012-10-27 01:26:16 PM  
1 vote:
If I were a veteran, I would definitely vote for RON PAUL.

RON PAUL ended the repeated extended 15 month combat tours with no time off in between.

RON PAUL got our forces out of Iraq.

RON PAUL is winding down the war in Afghanistan and should have our troops out by 2014.

RON PAUL rehired General Eric Shinseki the Army Chief of Staff that told Rumsfeld and the neo-cons they were full of shiat about numbers needed for Iraq. (Shinseki himself was under by several hundred thousand.)

RON PAUL doesn't want to break the nation's economy by running up debt building ships and tanks that aren't needed or wanted by the military.

RON PAUL doesn't want to invade Iran unlike some other Republican candidate who has made it a goal of his administration.

Yes, if I were a veteran I would vote for RON PAUL. He's the only logical choice.
2012-10-27 12:51:30 PM  
1 vote:

The Great EZE: Another farker put this all in perspective a while ago: This is really just single-issue voting. Third partiers have made hay with marijuana legalization talk, garnished with a couple of other pie-in-the-sky ideals and they suck up the votes of people who really just want to smoke weed and care not about the dirty business of actually leading (for now) the world's largest super-power.

When third-partiers tell you they're not going to be proactive in fighting terrorism, they're either misguided or lying to you. When third-partiers tell you they won't sign bills they don't 100% love, they either don't know how Congress works are or lying to you. When they tell you they can have the deficit licked and debt erased in the next 10-20 years, they either never looked at the bill for running a society of 311 million people or are lying to you.

But when they say they want to make weed legal...they might be telling the truth. Maybe. And that's enough to suck a vote away from one of the two guys who actually will be President this coming January.


this is pretty much how I see a third party vote. It's not "I agree with them, but I won't vote for them because they won't win", it's "I agree with them, but marijuana legalization (which I am in favor of) is not my highest priority at the moment." And it's not like it's some kind of misconception about third parties, it seems like even their own supporters tend to latch onto what are (in my opinion) 3rd tier policy positions as if it was the frontline position and shiat-else was going on in the country.


Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but I'm also skeptical of whether or not 3rd parties would actually do anything different against NDAA, Marijuana legalisation, drone strikes, etc. It strikes me as (unfortunately) naivety that will inevitably be met with political reality with the added bonus of not having any political allegiances in Congress. So maybe the bigger issue is voting in 3rd parties on a local, state, congressional levels first, but voting 3rd party in the presidential election just seems strategically inept at this point.
2012-10-27 12:17:38 PM  
1 vote:

hasty ambush: You mean like Clinton through Obama? You might try taking a look at your party's constituency.


Yes, because cutting taxes needed to support the most expensive military in the world makes so much more sense. I'm guessing selfless service isn't one of the military values people should strive for despite every army recruit being told otherwise.

right-thinking.com
2012-10-27 12:03:16 PM  
1 vote:

MithrandirBooga: You just can't argue with stupid.


Not really no...

I don't mind unintelligent people... I dislike stupid people. Unintelligent people just aren't very smart. Stupid people are purposefully and willfully ignorant.
2012-10-27 11:22:41 AM  
1 vote:

Tor_Eckman: "Yes, Obama duped young people by not doing every single thing they want, so now, they'll all vote Republican. It's like when I want some bread, I won't settle for half a loaf. Instead, I will have a muffin made of broken glass." Stephen Colbert

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. 

Your posts indicate that you are a young, naive idealist. This is why I thought your calling me "kiddo" was so ridiculous. Now let me not mind my own business for a moment: Vote your ideals down ticket. You are not going to change the system from the top. There are only two choices, and one of them is far better than the other. You do not seem like an idiot, so you must be able to see this. If you want to see more people like Johnson or Paul actually have a chance in national elections, you are going to have to start at the bottom with local and state elections.

Now back to my regularly scheduled minding of my own business.


Another farker put this all in perspective a while ago: This is really just single-issue voting. Third partiers have made hay with marijuana legalization talk, garnished with a couple of other pie-in-the-sky ideals and they suck up the votes of people who really just want to smoke weed and care not about the dirty business of actually leading (for now) the world's largest super-power.

When third-partiers tell you they're not going to be proactive in fighting terrorism, they're either misguided or lying to you. When third-partiers tell you they won't sign bills they don't 100% love, they either don't know how Congress works are or lying to you. When they tell you they can have the deficit licked and debt erased in the next 10-20 years, they either never looked at the bill for running a society of 311 million people or are lying to you.

But when they say they want to make weed legal...they might be telling the truth. Maybe. And that's enough to suck a vote away from one of the two guys who actually will be President this coming January.
2012-10-27 10:59:48 AM  
1 vote:

clkeagle: hasty ambush: About your so called myth

Romney 66% Obama26%

Link2008 McCain 68% Obama 23%

The Military Times polls exclusively measure the active duty vote. There are over 60,000 Guard and Reserves currently mobilized - you'll generally find more political balance among the reserve components. Another thing that isn't measured - a very disproportionate number of servicemembers are from safely Red states in the first place.

The military absentee vote simply isn't going to affect swing states one way or the other. I wouldn't look for conspiracy on either side - just chalk it up to the utter and total lack of cooperation and planning on the part of large bureaucracies. This happens every election cycle, and they're stunned by it every time.

crab66: Why. Why did I read the Yahoo comments?

Don't ever do that.

I spent about a week playing around in Yahoo comments last month... never thought I could do anything about the hardcore loonies - just thought some actual facts and data would help influence the younger kids in there who probably don't know any better. I couldn't sleep the first two nights. So I changed my strategy from "reason and logic" to "openly mocking and making funny jokes at their expense." It still didn't help - I had to just give up on it completely.

As much as some of the usual trolls on Fark drive us crazy, they've taken barely two sips of Kool-Aid compared to Yahoo. Most of those commenters seem to be drinking it from a fire hose.



It is a strange phenomenon. I think there's a 'crazy event horizon' wherein once a certain number of crazy people start posting on a forum, the number of sane people starts dropping off dramatically. The sane voices get drowned out by the idiots who have nothing better to do than ramble on about birth certificates and Kenya all day so they just give up.

I think point moderation systems make it even worse. I looked through a few threads and unhid any hidden comment, and every single one of them were reasonable posts. Hell one guy said he was a marine vet and he was voting for Obama. nothing trollish or incendiary: 57 downvotes, 0 upvotes.

And the trollish inflammatory comments were all +50 or more.


Some sociologist should study Yahoo comments. I'm sure there's a lot to be learned about mental disorders.
2012-10-27 10:29:01 AM  
1 vote:

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: That has nothing to do with political party, it is merely a reflection of the rampant racism in the military. Find us some numbers from before 2008.


Blatant racism? In an organization with a disproportionate number of minorities and no way to choose who you share a foxhole with? You'll find more racists in whitebread rural parts of northern states than you will in the military today.

73% Bush, 18% Kerry. Link

2000 was something like 84% Bush, 15% Gore. Can't find any sources because all my Google searches come up with are "stolen election" articles about the lost absentee ballots.

The military is sliding closer to balance. Two continuous warzones and increased education benefits are the biggest contributors. A growing number are also paying attention to what the parties actually do. Republicans "support the troops" by shoving overpriced, unusable garbage like the F-22 down our throat (see also "smallest navy since WWI"). But the second anyone talks about reducing the defense budget by a single percentage point, they go after troop pay and benefits instead of reducing acquisition contracts.

Democrats, on the other hand, have done more for veteran health and employment in the last ten years than Republicans have since Eisenhower. They also care about quality of life for current military - the major increases in troop pay during W's administration were signed into law by Clinton. Reagan and Bush had kept military pay down well below civilian equivalents.
2012-10-27 10:15:00 AM  
1 vote:
I've been busy getting conservatives to vote for GARY JOHNSON instead of Romney. I lay out the reasons why Romney sucks balls, then say something like "if you don't like Obama, that's fine, but GARY JOHNSON may be a very good alternative". You would be shocked at how many people actually, once they listen, don't like Romney and would rather vote for an alternative. Remember kids, every vote that shiatt doesn't get is best.
2012-10-27 10:13:23 AM  
1 vote:

GanjSmokr: The Great EZE: badhatharry: Go ahead and write in RON PAUL unless you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president.

WTF is wrong with you people in Ohio?

I actually agree with GanjSmokr and others who preach that you should "vote for who you actually agree with," but only because their heads tend to explode when I tell them I actually agree with the President.

No head'asplodin here - I'm perfectly fine with whoever people vote for as long as they've actually done research on the issues and the candidates.

The people I have a problem with are the people that cast a vote *against* the other guy - no matter their agreement/disagreement with the candidate they're voting for, or the people that vote for a candidate based purely on one issue (abortion, guns, gay marriage, etc) and don't pay any attention to any other issues.

I think the people that bother me the most are the people that say "Well, I agree with [3rdpartycandidate] on alot of things but they can't win so it would be a waste of my vote to give it to him/her. Might as well vote for [O/R]."


Stop worrying so much about what other people do.

It's none of your farking business.
2012-10-27 10:05:45 AM  
1 vote:

The Great EZE: badhatharry: Go ahead and write in RON PAUL unless you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president.

WTF is wrong with you people in Ohio?

I actually agree with GanjSmokr and others who preach that you should "vote for who you actually agree with," but only because their heads tend to explode when I tell them I actually agree with the President.


No head'asplodin here - I'm perfectly fine with whoever people vote for as long as they've actually done research on the issues and the candidates.

The people I have a problem with are the people that cast a vote *against* the other guy - no matter their agreement/disagreement with the candidate they're voting for, or the people that vote for a candidate based purely on one issue (abortion, guns, gay marriage, etc) and don't pay any attention to any other issues.

I think the people that bother me the most are the people that say "Well, I agree with [3rdpartycandidate] on alot of things but they can't win so it would be a waste of my vote to give it to him/her. Might as well vote for [O/R]."
2012-10-27 09:52:21 AM  
1 vote:

badhatharry: Go ahead and write in RON PAUL unless you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president.

WTF is wrong with you people in Ohio?


No, no, no. Do not listen to this man. If you live in one of the handful of states that will determine our next president, please feel free to write in RON PAUL. Encourage your like-minded friends and family to do the same.
2012-10-27 09:06:03 AM  
1 vote:
You mean the postal service in a war zone sometimes has issues?
2012-10-27 09:03:49 AM  
1 vote:
Man, the GOP is getting desperate.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report