BarkingUnicorn: "I haven't decided yet" is a polite way of saying, "none of your business."

This.
I know who I'm voting for, but it would a stupid derp fight with some of my family, so that's exactly what I say.

I voted today. The presidential race was the last one to get filled in on my ballot, not because I was even considering Romney but because the only reason I would have voted for Obama was as a "Not Romney" vote.

For me the decision was between "Not Romney" and Gary Johnson. I know Johnson won't win and I don't agree with everything he says, but he's a lot closer to my views than either Romney or Obama.

This is the first time voting for president since the '80s that I was really torn. In all the other races, it was either a foregone conclusion or at least a near certainty as to who would carry the state I lived in but now I live in a swing state where Obama only has the slightest of leads - well within the margin of error and Sunday I saw a poll which showed Romney ahead.

So I struggled with whether to vote for "Not Romney" but eventually came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience do that. Gary Johnson it is then! If Obama loses Colorado you can thank me.

I studied every issue/race on the ballot. I literally spent hours researching candidates for the state legislature most of whom had never held office before. I read the candidate's web pages, I watched videos of their debates/forums when there were held. I read their responses to questions from newspapers and the League of Women's Voters and when a candidate failed to respond I interpreted that as a huge negative.

I even researched issues that I knew how I would vote on before even reading the Amendment. Legalize marijuana? Helll yes! I read the arguments against it. Some of them were typical reefer madness, but others said this was the wrong way to do it There really wasn't any reason for me to read the arguments for it - I had already made up my mind.

There were 9 judges on my ballot. They weren't running against anyone - we were simply asked to "Retain" or "Do Not Retain". I only found one newspaper which made recommendations on them. They reluctantly recommended "Retain" for a state Supreme Court Justice and cited 2 of his decisions which they weren't happy with. I happened to agree with those decisions so I voted to retain. After researching the next couple of judges though I gave up. I couldn't read up on every case that came before them. There didn't appear to be anything very controversial.

Interestingly I found a few "conservative" sites that said to NOT retain a few of the judges. One of those sites didn't offer any explanation why they shouldn't be retained. Another was very non-specific and said something like they "seem" to put their own policy preferences against the rule of law and the 3rd was also very vague. "She's all over the board" they said. Well (from other research), she voted against Ward Churchill (not enough for the tea-baggers I guess), but she was on a committee for sentencing reform and I did find a news article where she was involved in a decision that I wasn't particularly pleased with but upon further review was probably the correct decision as the law is written. I was tempted to vote the opposite of their recommendations but the 3 sites weren't even consistent and who knows? I might have actually agreed with them if only they had articulated their reasons. I ended up abstaining from most of the those.

snuff3r: Happy Hours: This is the first time voting for president since the '80s that I was really torn.

_sigh_

Why? Is Obama the perfect candidate? Should I have been more torn in presidential elections in prior years?

I'm not sure if you read what I said, but I wasn't torn between Obama and Romney. For me it was a choice of "Not Romney" and a candidate who more closely mirrored my political views.

Hopefully when Romney loses they'll look at all the votes for 3rd parties and realize they should listen to those of us who refuse to pledge allegiance to a particular political party. Hopefully the Democrats will do the same. Unaffiliated voters where I live far outnumber those who are registered Democrats or Republicans.

I cast votes for Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians. If you're one of those people who votes a straight party ticket, you're a huge part of the problem.

Happy Hours: I voted today. The presidential race was the last one to get filled in on my ballot, not because I was even considering Romney but because the only reason I would have voted for Obama was as a "Not Romney" vote.

I'm happy you made a decision and participated. Unlike George Carlin and those who constant quote him this time of year (hint: the man wasn't perfect), I do not believe apathy makes you cooler or more enlightened than the rest of us voters. It makes you ignorant, immature, irresponsible and just as culpable for the collapse of our fair society as the people who voted for the politicians who make it happen.

farking Carlin. A thousand brilliant things said over his life and one moment of misguided (okay, I'll say it: stupid) flippancy is the one everybody seems to remember.

As for the undecideds, I read a TPM article suggesting that undecided voters might break toward Obama because they like him personally--the "have a beer with" test, if you will.

If so, fark it, this election is too important, welcome aboard. And let's not pretend that committed Romney voters aren't making their votes for equally stupid "personal" reasons.

Via Infinito: Many of us like Carlin, think he wasn't particularly stupid, and vote anyway.
Your mileage obviously varies.

I guess I should clarify that I don't have a problem with Carlin so much as I do with Carlin's fans. Much like Bill Hicks fans--can't stand them--some Carlin fans like to forget the man was a comedian first and foremost. And while there's truth behind every joke, jokes weren't made to be quoted like gospel and acted upon as such, no matter how true they seem.

I voted.
It was a write in.

The Great EZE: Via Infinito: Many of us like Carlin, think he wasn't particularly stupid, and vote anyway.
Your mileage obviously varies.

I guess I should clarify that I don't have a problem with Carlin so much as I do with Carlin's fans. Much like Bill Hicks fans--can't stand them--some Carlin fans like to forget the man was a comedian first and foremost. And while there's truth behind every joke, jokes weren't made to be quoted like gospel and acted upon as such, no matter how true they seem.

That's why I attend the First United Church of the Fonz. He had a message you could get behind, base your life on.

Lando Lincoln: BarkingUnicorn: "I haven't decided yet" is a polite way of saying, "none of your business."

No, saying that you haven't decided yet when you have would be called "lying."

Saying, "I'd rather not say" would be a polite way of saying that it's none of their business.

No, because when you say "I'd rather not say." you've pretty much told them "It's the guy you hate."
/as long as you are asked by people you know.
/who the fark asks you who you voted for when you don't know them

markie_farkie: [splitsider.com image 375x281]

America, here are your undecided voters.

They're also the same farkwads that, despite having used their ATM card 50,000 times in the past 15 years, are continually baffled by the menu choices and take 10 minutes and 5 failed attempts to withdraw $20 from their checking account.

And why are they always in front of me??

Deport them. Deport them all.

As much as I want everyone to vote, it does horrify me who the people are who have no idea who to vote for at this point.

Via Infinito: The Great EZE: Via Infinito: Many of us like Carlin, think he wasn't particularly stupid, and vote anyway.
Your mileage obviously varies.

I guess I should clarify that I don't have a problem with Carlin so much as I do with Carlin's fans. Much like Bill Hicks fans--can't stand them--some Carlin fans like to forget the man was a comedian first and foremost. And while there's truth behind every joke, jokes weren't made to be quoted like gospel and acted upon as such, no matter how true they seem.

Understandable, but surely you've noticed that comedians tend to be more truthful than most public figures these days.

[0.tqn.com image 493x617]

I think Jon is an exception. Spent all that time doing a fake news show that he's obviously developed a strong opinion on the news. The thing he has going for him is that he seems very smart and sincerely well-connected to current events (as opposed to following current events just to piss on them in a future stand-up act) so he might be able to balance the two worlds.

I can only imagine the bitter edge his show will take should Romney win.

GAT_00: As much as I want everyone to vote, it does horrify me who the people are who have no idea who to vote for at this point.

Why do you want everyone to vote? Many people are morons. Is it bad that I abstained from voting on certain issues on my ballot? (see above post - I did not vote to "retain" or "do not retain" for all of the judges which appeared on my ballot. I also refused to vote for anyone running unopposed).

In the case of the judges, I did not have enough information and after spending way too much time researching the first few and finding very little information I said "f*ck it!". Was that wrong?

I suppose I could have started reading each and every case that had been argued before them. The first judge on my ballot has been there for over 10 years. How long would that take me?

Should I have just blindly taken the recommendation of a local GOP website which told me how to vote without offering any explanation as to why?

And undecided voters don't necessarily "have no idea who to vote for". They're just as likely to be carefully considering their options and looking at the pros and cons of ALL the candidates. It's not just Romney and Obama in the presidential race.

Would you be happier to have people voting based on the race of the candidate than to have those people stay home and not vote? Either because they voted for Obama because he was black and they believed in affirmative action or because they voted for Romney because they believed that blacks should be sent back to Africa? Is that really preferable to you?

I'm glad some people don't vote. If they can't be bothered to vote, they certainly can't be bothered to make an informed vote.

What about the people who vote D or R all the way down the ballot without a 2nd thought? They either think all Republicans are fascists or all Democrats are commies. Is that really for the greater good? Do you really want to encourage people like that to vote?

Perhaps instead of encouraging people to vote you should be encouraging people to pay attention and if they pay attention they will be more inclined to not only vote but to cast an informed vote. I may disagree with their vote, but if they understand the issues and just happened to disagree with my views I'm much happier to see them vote than someone who thinks "Bush really sucked so I'mma gonna vote for Obama and every other Democrat I see on my ballot!".

propasaurus: Happy Hours: I know Johnson won't win and I don't agree with everything he says, but he's a lot closer to my views than either Romney or Obama.

Hmmm... wonder why?

Happy Hours: Legalize marijuana? Helll yes!

Ah, there it is.

Funny, but that's not why. Even if Johnson were somehow elected, I wouldn't expect marijuana to be legalized within his term. There are other issues. There are civil rights, foreign policy and economic issues all of which Obama sucks at. Sure, Romney may suck more but that doesn't make Obama good at any of them.

But hey, enjoy Obama's policies of signing the NDAA, being gung ho for CISPA, SOPA or whatever the next piece of legislation will be and signing death warrants all over the world.

propasaurus: Ah, there it is.

I wonder how many people who vote for Paul and Johnson do so only for that. It's got to be a pretty high percent, isn't it?

jaylectricity: Happy Hours: Obama's policies of signing the NDAA,

They sign that every year. It's how they know how much to spend on defense. The new president will be signing it every year as well.

Ahhh - and if it includes a provision allowing jaylectricity to be shot on sight, you'd be cool with that?

propasaurus: Happy Hours: jaylectricity: Happy Hours: Obama's policies of signing the NDAA,

They sign that every year. It's how they know how much to spend on defense. The new president will be signing it every year as well.

Ahhh - and if it includes a provision allowing jaylectricity to be shot on sight, you'd be cool with that?

The NDAA was passed by a veto proof majority in Congress. If the President had refused to sign it, they would have simply overridden his veto, and you'd still have your right wing talking points about the President authorizing indefinite detention PLUS he'd be 'against the troops'.
The NDAA also included severe sanctions against the Iran Central Bank, which is one of the reasons their economy is in shambles right now. And it included pay raises for military personnel. As I recall, the President did issue a signing statement essentially saying he disagrees with certain provisions and won't be enforcing them.

I see what your problem is. Unlike most third-party voters, you understand how Congress works and how even the most idealist President can be forced to sign bills he or she doesn't agree with.

I'm sure Gary Stein PAUL would never do something like that *snort*.

The "Why Guantanamo is Still Open" issue is a 400-level class. Not enough time to explain now.

People who don't vote should be paraded around town with a sign around their neck stating, "I'm an ignorant, uneducated buffoon who takes my civil rights in this country for granted." Small children should then pelt them with tomatoes.

If you're undecided at this juncture, don't vote. Just remember not to wear white.

Coco LaFemme: People who don't vote should be paraded around town with a sign around their neck stating, "I'm an ignorant, uneducated buffoon who takes my civil rights in this country for granted." Small children should then pelt them with tomatoes.

If you're undecided at this juncture, don't vote. Just remember not to wear white.

I audibly LOLed at that but...yeah. You're right. Twitter is such a disgrace today with idiots thinking they're oh-so-smart by revealing the big "THEY'RE ALL CROOKS!" secret. Some are actually rage quitting (temporarily) because political opinions--on a social networking site where people are encouraged to give opinions--are some affront against god and humanity.

Very disappointed. Between the apathetic "all sides are bad"ers and punkass "POLITICS SCARES ME LET'S TALK SPORTS" types, you've got a good cross-section of otherwise-reasonable society who could actually make a difference in this country if they'd just nut up, find a voting booth, and not be afraid to butt heads with fools.

The Great EZE: I see what your problem is. Unlike most third-party voters, you understand how Congress works and how even the most idealist President can be forced to sign bills he or she doesn't agree with.

Unlike you, I understand how principles work.

Let's say I have a gun pointed at your mother and I say I'm going to shoot her. I ask you to sign a piece of paper saying you're okay with that. It doesn't matter whether or not you sign it, I'm going to shoot her. Do you sign the piece of paper?

Happy Hours: The Great EZE: I see what your problem is. Unlike most third-party voters, you understand how Congress works and how even the most idealist President can be forced to sign bills he or she doesn't agree with.

Unlike you, I understand how principles work.

Let's say I have a gun pointed at your mother and I say I'm going to shoot her. I ask you to sign a piece of paper saying you're okay with that. It doesn't matter whether or not you sign it, I'm going to shoot her. Do you sign the piece of paper?

At least you're not engaging in hyperbole...

It's easy to have unwavering iron-clad dedication to your principles when you're only responsible to you and yours. Now I've never been a President, but I imagine the equation changes a bit when you're responsible for untold thousands of troops, their families, and the rest of the country. Every President since Washington has had to face a similar choice. And I'm sure even President since Washington ended up making a decision that left a bad taste in their mouth for the sake of looking their people in the eye the next day.

Of course, this isn't limited to Presidential politics. I'd go so far as to say if you've never faced a decision where you seriously had to compromise some principles, you've never really had anything important at stake in your life.

alwaysjaded: The Great EZE:

farking Carlin. A thousand brilliant things said over his life and one moment of misguided (okay, I'll say it: stupid) flippancy is the one everybody seems to remember.

Yea, He had a few "I'm old and cranky" moments but hardly so many that it tarnished his legacy. I've always believed that most politicians start out with good intentions but, much like the small town person who comes to Hollywood and makes it big fast, gets caught up in the bubble and their views start changing. Plus, lets face it. It takes a certain personality to want to be in the thick of things like that. FSM knows I couldn't handle having every little thing that I do and say being run over with a fine tooth comb 24/7.

Richard Jeni is a much better fit for this thread.

Good bit. The "after 9/11" part needs to be repeated for emphasis in case Mr. Miller and Ms. Garofalo didn't catch it.