• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I could lie about who I am voting for...

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
No its not. This is sloppy thinking...

It's not sloppy. It's dead-on proven game theory 101. A vote for someone with no hope of winning is a vote that could have been cast for the RNC-chosen candidate who stands the only chance of beating Obama... but wasn't. It's an opportunity lost, a wasted vote, one cast in a frivolous and irresponsible manner.

If an undesirable, destructive candidate wins, his voters are responsible. And, the undesirable, destructive candidate is responsible for his own destructive actions in office.

How can a candidate be "undesirable" if more people vote for him than the other guy? Sad to say, but Obama's in office because more people voted for him than for McCain. However, he's ALSO in office because way too many Republicans sat on their cans instead of heading to the polls last election. Their votes were wasted, as were the ones cast for write-ins.

At the RNC, only one candidate will be chosen. If you want to throw your vote away on a non-candidate, that's your right, but it makes about as much sense burning your money so no one else can get their hands on it.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The premise is that President Obama has sh*t on the Constitution; I reject that premise.

You've gotta be joking...

Here is a list of some of the unconstitutional actions of President Barack Obama:

- You (as in he, Obama) signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But now we can see that the administration's trillion-dollar stimulus plan clearly is not working. Both the Constitution and history are witnesses that testify that the Stimulus Plan is both a federal usurpation of power and economically misguided. It may very well cause another "catastrophe."

- You promised that this plan would create jobs immediately and keep the unemployment rate below eight percent. We are now at about 9.5% without including those who are no longer counted due to the length of their unemployment. Americans are asking, "Where are the jobs?" With 14.6 million people officially jobless, 5.9 million who have stopped looking but say they want a job, and 8.5 million who are working part time but would like to work full time, you end up with nearly 30 million Americans who cannot find the work they want and desperately need. The ARRA is primarily designed not to stimulate the economy, but to build the size and scope of government. Government spending plans do not stimulate the economy. They are based on the idea that feeding "new" money into the economy will create economic growth. But the money isn't new—it's either taxed or borrowed. It's essentially redistributed from one group of people to another, and no new money is created. And also, State governors, looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by your "stimulus" plan, are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time.

- You signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. The federal government is now forcing Americans to buy health insurance. Even with the disapproval of the American majority you pushed through what we call "Obamacare." Over 20 states are now suing the federal government over your health care reform law. This law began the process to socialize America's health care system. It forces Americans to buy health insurance from a private company against our will.

- You appointed over thirty Czars without any Congressional oversight to control every aspect of the country.

- You intervened in the troubled automotive industry, renewing loans for General Motors and Chrysler Corporation to continue operations while reorganizing. Over the following months the White House set terms for both firms' bankruptcies, including reorganization of GM giving the U.S. government a temporary 60% equity stake in the company. Where in the Constitution does it say the government can do that?

- You signed into law the popular Car Allowance Rebate System, known popularly as "Cash for Clunkers." In the middle of our country's worst financial crisis you give out freebees with taxpayer dollars?

- You used your executive powers to shakedown British Petroleum after the oil leak catastrophe in the Gulf to create the $20-billion escrow (slush!) fund without any law, legal controls, or binding rules to guide it on how and how much those injured materially by the oil spill (and whom among them) will be paid.

- You believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I thought that the only way to change the Constitution was to amend it? It's not all your fault, Mr. President. If Congress and the Supreme Court did their job properly you would have been checked and balanced.

Don't get me started on the NLRB, his comments dismissing the Supreme Court before they've even made a decision on Obamacare and his often-stated intent to illegally bypass Congress altogether. Obama is BY FAR the most un-Constitutional President our nation has ever seen!
 

gunns

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
270
Location
Minnesota
I wasn't going to get into this but since someone said they were going to vote for Obama I just can't help myself. I don't think we have had an honest president since Carter and he was a terrible president. But at least Carter can claim he wasn't the worse president now. I don't think O kept any of his promises except health care. Though the health care we got was NOT reform, but a bigger fiasco then what was available before. Real reform would have been forcing the drug companies to get their cost of R&D on all drugs sold, not just those sold in the U.S. Also open up country wide competition for health care companies, etc, etc.

Everything else was a lie, the biggest liar I have ever seen who ran for President. Just a few, that cost us hundreds of billions and trillions over the next few years. "Shovel Ready", "Health care will be televised (Pelosi - have to pass it to know whats in it), "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer", "I've done more for Israel's security then any other president ever (tell that to Israel)", "the fence between Mex and US is nearly complete", on and on and on. I would need 10 pages to print them all.

I don't see any honest American can vote for him. He has people working for him that want the cost of living to increase in the U.S. so we come on par with the rest of the world. That will destroy us. He is the first President in History that claimed he would try to increase gas prices on par with Europe. He is succeeding. France is the size of Iowa, we are much larger and our driving to and from work is much greater, this has a significant impact on the standard of living which he has no idea about.

At least Romney made his own money, ran businesses and actually contributed to society other than public service. Still don't trust him but it about the devil you know versus the devil you really know.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
+1. I had thought this tired, old argument about no-vote=no complain was put to rest years ago.

Whether I vote or not has no bearing on my right to complain. I have a First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances. It is not limited to voters. All I need in order to rightfully complain is to be 1. alive (unalienable rights), and 2. encroached or infringed.

VOTING IS YOUR BIGGEST FIRST ADMENDMENT RIGHT.

I personally think it is a responsibility and not just a right.

You say you are not going to vote but yet complain. If your to lazy to vote then don't but that is saying that you don't care in my book. I have been in 3 wars for the USA and been to many countries where people don't get to vote; we are lucky we get a voice and the VOTE is the BIGGEST VOICE any of us has.

If you vote for Romney but want to vote for Ron Paul only because you think Ron has no chance then maybe you shouldn't vote. This is why we have the crooks in office it is because people don't think there vote counts or are just to lazy.

When I hear people complain and I ask them who they voted for, if they say Obama or they didn't vote I just walk away because all they are is complaining they did NOTHING to TRY and change things. They are along for the ride and didn't pay for the ticket by voting.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
No its not. This is sloppy thinking that twists responsibility.

I am empowered to vote my conscious. If an undesirable, destructive candidate wins, his voters are responsible. And, the undesirable, destructive candidate is responsible for his own destructive actions in office.

+1

I would add those that didn't vote are just as to blame for the distructive candidate that wins.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
It's not sloppy. It's dead-on proven game theory 101. A vote for someone with no hope of winning is a vote that could have been cast for the RNC-chosen candidate who stands the only chance of beating Obama... but wasn't. It's an opportunity lost, a wasted vote, one cast in a frivolous and irresponsible manner.



How can a candidate be "undesirable" if more people vote for him than the other guy? Sad to say, but Obama's in office because more people voted for him than for McCain. However, he's ALSO in office because way too many Republicans sat on their cans instead of heading to the polls last election. Their votes were wasted, as were the ones cast for write-ins.

At the RNC, only one candidate will be chosen. If you want to throw your vote away on a non-candidate, that's your right, but it makes about as much sense burning your money so no one else can get their hands on it.

You may consider it throwing a vote away but I like to think of it as being true to myself and what I believe in and not being a sheep being led to slaughter.

I vote my who I believe in and not for who others tell me to vote for, if more people did that then we wouldn't have this two party system that brings in two crooks.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
It's not sloppy. It's dead-on proven game theory 101. A vote for someone with no hope of winning is a vote that could have been cast for the RNC-chosen candidate who stands the only chance of beating Obama... but wasn't. It's an opportunity lost, a wasted vote, one cast in a frivolous and irresponsible manner.



How can a candidate be "undesirable" if more people vote for him than the other guy? Sad to say, but Obama's in office because more people voted for him than for McCain. However, he's ALSO in office because way too many Republicans sat on their cans instead of heading to the polls last election. Their votes were wasted, as were the ones cast for write-ins.

At the RNC, only one candidate will be chosen. If you want to throw your vote away on a non-candidate, that's your right, but it makes about as much sense burning your money so no one else can get their hands on it.

Disagree, and the game republicans and democrats that you are wasting your vote if you vote your conscience is a terrible game that has swayed and helped us get unconstitutional president after unconstitutional president.

But history has shown your theory isn't always true, Harding had less percentage of delegates before the brokered convention than Ron Paul, Harding ran on limited government and letting people be and he won.


“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

John Quincy Adams
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
This thread is blatant fishing for attention. Beretta92FSLady has found a ready and willing audience, here, to give her the attention and drama she craves. Don't feed the beast. Just ignore her.

This thread is straight-up, I outlined why I am likely voting for President Obama, again. Since when is admitting the truth fishing for attention? I just thought I would start an honest conversation here.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
This thread is straight-up, I outlined why I am likely voting for President Obama, again. Since when is admitting the truth fishing for attention? I just thought I would start an honest conversation here.

Come, come. Your thread title is a dead giveaway. You're baiting. You may try to throw some discussion points in, but you've already had all of those discussions on these forums numerous times, and the clear motivation of this thread is to draw people in again because you're bored, are starved for attention, or are in drama withdrawal. Plead innocence all you like; you are transparent.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
This thread is straight-up, I outlined why I am likely voting for President Obama, again. Since when is admitting the truth fishing for attention? I just thought I would start an honest conversation here.

But you also said that if Paul ran third-party, you would vote for him. Seeing as they are polar opposites on every issue, you are either suffering from delusions, or you are deliberately lying. Which is it?
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
But you also said that if Paul ran third-party, you would vote for him. Seeing as they are polar opposites on every issue, you are either suffering from delusions, or you are deliberately lying. Which is it?

If those are my only two options, then I choose: Suffering From Delusions.

You are correct, they (Paul and Obama) are polar opposite; but Romney, and President Obama occupy the same coin--so it's back to the 'lesser of two evils'.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Boehner's interesting comment...

""I would say that there is a two-in-three chance that we win control of the House again," Boehner said during a Fox News interview Monday night, "but there's a one-in-three chance that we could lose and I'm being myself, frank.""
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ons-democrats-one-three-chance-140010726.html

Normally I would think that politicians would state that they are going to take the House, or the Senate, or the White House. But Boehner on the other hand, well, he thinks there is merely a 66% chance Democrats can take the House.

For the terrible job President Obama is doing, you would think their chances would be greater.

But I think part of the reason Boehner is not as confident is because he, like the Democrats, realize that there are many of us who know both Party's occupy the same coin.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
..... Try re-reading what you quoted. What was it Barbie said?


I didn't mis-read it, I mistyped it; sorry about that. I am trying to do more than one thing at once. Thanks for pointing it out.

I still stand by my view that Boehner is lacking confidence in the outcome of this next election.
 
Last edited:

RockerFor2A

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Lemon Grove, CA
You may consider it throwing a vote away but I like to think of it as being true to myself and what I believe in and not being a sheep being led to slaughter.

I vote my who I believe in and not for who others tell me to vote for, if more people did that then we wouldn't have this two party system that brings in two crooks.

Yeah, I did that once for Ross Perot. I helped give us Bill Clinton (who compared to Obama is an arch conservative). Never again.
 
Top