Who'd you vote for?

[dtaqee88]

Being a young student I voted for Rocky because of his track record of giving a little more funds to education. Don't think it is good for the deficit but hey...I could use the extra money. I should say I don't believe in the President being nothing more than just a talking head following orders but despite the negatives of his tenure, some of the legislation passed while Rocky's been in office has definitely helped me. So, who'd you vote for?

[Disch]

I live in a blue state so it doesn't matter.

Electoral college is a joke.

EDIT:

Did you know that in many states, the Electoral College is not in any way obligated to vote according to the popular vote? It says so plain as day on the official site:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote.

It then proceeds to list the 26 states which are obligated (read: 52% of states, meaning 48% of states can legally throw away/ignore the popular vote entirely)

The federal election system is so far beyond broken it's overwhelmingly discouraging for me.

[LB]

I'm not eligible so it doesn't matter.

The election is a joke.


The nation is voting for the shiniest of two turds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc

The third party representation is stronger than normal but not enough.

I vote for the Alternative Vote! ...oh wait, I'm voting...

My History teacher is annoyed by our government and isn't voting as a sign of her protest.

[Disch]

I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama after he signed the NDAA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

And I wasn't about to vote for Romney.


Let's just say my vote wasn't significant ;P. But like I say, I'm in a blue state so it didn't matter anyway. My state had already decided it was going to vote for Obama.


EDIT: removed the implied insult to keep the thread civil. Sorry about that guys ^^

[ModShop]

The EC makes perfect sense. It was created as a protection layer against the uneducated and (still) uninformed masses (no, watching Fox news does not give you omniscient knowledge of world events, or any truth really) and the most power government position in the country. I do think that the "all or nothing" policy should be scrapped. How is it fair for a candidate to get 49% of the popular vote, but no electoral votes?

Secondly, on a tangent, political parties should be abolished altogether. George Washington himself advised against them, and correctly predicted the Civil War over 70 years before it happened based on the formation of parties.

I personally would have voted for Romney (if I lived in a place where it actually mattered, and if I was a few months older), but its really just the lesser of 2 evils, just like every other election for the past 20 years.

[LB]

The EC was created because back in the day before communication existed officials had to run from a region to carry the region's vote. It's not an ignorance layer.

And yes, political parties are incredibly stupid. It's like a curtain to hide the similarities between candidates.

[dtaqee88]

Weeellll....Rocky won...who knew..._wink

@Disch

Electoral Colleges are definitely a joke as America is supposed to be a democracy. As for the system being broken, I do not think it can get back on track. To quote Richard Epstein[Rocky's law professor], when you pile laws on top of laws to clear things up, things get even muddier. There's too many laws and not enough common sense from people. The more I learn about the history of the US and tactics used to win elections...histories of certain elected officials that ostensibly represent us....it can make you kind of cynical. But hey... what can you do?

@ L B

I honestly thought the third party candidate Ron Paul would take the election this time around but it looks like we have to work with the more dangerous of the two evils.

[firedraco]

America is supposed to be a democracy.

It's a republic. >_>

[Disch]

The EC makes perfect sense. It was created as a protection layer against the uneducated and (still) uninformed masses

The point of democracy is that everyone gets a say in who runs the government.

The main problems with the EC are:

1) There is no guarantee you actually get a say
2) Even if you do get a say, your vote may count for less than someone else's simply because of where you live.

The only [modern] arguments I've really heard in support of the EC is that "without it, places like New York and LA would control the vote". Note that this argument comes mainly from Republicans.

Aside from not being true at all (the GOP blatantly lying? I'm shocked!), it suggests they support inequality in voting, as that's what that implies. Why should Bob's vote be worth less than Bill's vote just because Bob lives in a more densely populated state? That doesn't make any sense.

I personally would have voted for Romney

I fail to see how he's the lesser of two evils.

Romney has what I call "rich white boy syndrome". He was born rich, he became a banker, and then got into politics through funding himself and getting funding from his banker friends. He's lived in his fantasy world for so long that he has no grip on reality.

The 47% video illustrated that perfectly. Not because he was bashing a portion of the population, but because it showed just how far removed he is from the lower class that he actually thinks that they're a bunch of free loaders.

Besides the fact that his (and the entire GOP's) economic plan is completely backwards. The idea of cutting restrictions on investors to promote job growth is ridiculous. Governmental regulations are the only things keeping big business at bay. If you take them away you're taking steps back towards the Industrial Revolution where a handful of companies controlled all the money and everyone else was basically a slave class.

Of course I'm not saying that if Romney were elected we'd become a slave class, I'm just using the Industrial Revolution as an example of how governmental regulations on business are critical.

For a less extreme example, we can just look back to the housing bubble of 2006/2007. Lack of regulation was one of the major contributors to the banks running out of control, which caused a horrific worldwide economic crash. That was only ~5 years ago.... have we really forgotten the lesson already?


Besides that... the trickle down system simply doesn't work. It's been tried again and again and it never works as advertised. When you put money in the hands of the upper class, it stays there. I mean it only makes sense. Investors are only going to invest in things that make them money. So what's the point in paying people to make money? (especially when they already have tons of money). And where is all this money coming from?


The GOP really needs to read a history book. Because all the things they tout have been done time and time again, and it consistently fails. I genuinely believe that for someone to vote Republican on a federal level, they kind of have to either be ignorant... or just pure evil. I really don't see any other explanation.

[firedraco]

I'm just using the Industrial Revolution as an example of how governmental regulations on business are critical.

Also something interesting on that note...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

[Cheraphy]

It's a republic. >_>

It's a federalist representative democracy. E.g. a hybrid.

Modshop wrote:

..its really just the lesser of 2 evils, just like every other election for the past 20 years.

I fail to see how Clinton or Al Gore would have ever been considered a candidate in a 2-evil race.


edit: On the topic of the thread...

I moved about 4 hours away from my parents house this spring and applied for a change in address back in June. I realized I never got a confirmation about it or an address for where I go to vote. After calling the county clerk I found that my application was never filed in the first place. I never got the chance to file an absentee ballot, so I didn't get to vote. But I live in a red state so my vote would'a been a toss anyways.

[ResidentBiscuit]

I live in a strictly red state, it hasn't voted blue since the 60's.

[Stewbond]

I've never been able to vote (Canadian) because I've been overseas for the past 3 elections.

[ModShop]

Disch wrote:

Besides the fact that his (and the entire GOP's) economic plan is completely backwards. The idea of cutting restrictions on investors to promote job growth is ridiculous. Governmental regulations are the only things keeping big business at bay. If you take them away you're taking steps back towards the Industrial Revolution where a handful of companies controlled all the money and everyone else was basically a slave class.

And the complete domination of labor unions over employers and the government is so much better. Neither answer is right, there needs to be a middle road. Complete regulation is bad, and will restrict growth, but complete freedom is too risky and could lead to more crisis.

Disch wrote:

The GOP really needs to read a history book. Because all the things they tout have been done time and time again, and it consistently fails.

And so do liberals. Time and time again we see socialism implemented, shortly followed by a downward spiral of that country. Why then do we embrace it now? Because the mindset of the population has become one of entitlement, not of working hard, to get what you want. I'm not just talking about people who abuse the welfare system, or the health care system, or anything really, I'm referring to the country as a whole. They elected Obama because he is socialist (I don't care what you say, taxing the rich to help fund increased spending on welfare programs for the poor is socialism, he takes it to extremes) and as such they stand to gain from him being president, even f it means the country as a whole loses.

Disch wrote:

Besides that... the trickle down system simply doesn't work.

You know who disagrees with you? Alex Hamilton, founding father and first Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington himself. At the time, there was no Federal Reserve (or Central Bank, as it would have been called then), so paper money was virtually worthless. As such, many farmers and average people bought gold/silver from large companies in exchange for paper money. Hamilton (really a brilliant man) knew that the big companies were going to drive the economy, so he chartered the first Central Bank to stabilize and increase the value of paper money, essentially giving money to the big companies. I believe the way the trickle down system is implemented now is broken, but nothing works when you use it wrong. As a whole, the theory works, we're just doing it wrong.

As for the EC not being an ignorance layer, I disagree. During the Constitutional Convention, one of the founding fathers (i cannot for the life of me remember exactly who it was, but Thomas Paine rings a bell) or at least a significant person of the time, talked about "the folly of democracy" when determining the new president. Two main views existed, popular vote or election by the state governors. The EC was a compromise between the two (the entire Constitution is essentially a compromise, reminiscent of the issue of slavery that they had to deal with) and has been in place since. I think that they either need to scrap it and use the popular vote directly, or scrap the "winner takes all" approach to casting the votes. It is surely nothing close to dictatorship however, no matter what any radical says.

[LB]

Mistakes were made by people who did amazing things. Don't take it personally when we point it out.

[Disch]

Thank you for the exellent counter-post, ModShop. =)

And the complete domination of labor unions over employers and the government is so much better. Neither answer is right, there needs to be a middle road. Complete regulation is bad, and will restrict growth, but complete freedom is too risky and could lead to more crisis.

I agree. It has to be done in balance. My industrial revolution example was obviously the extreme end of that, and I tried to temper that with my following paragraph using the recent housing bubble as a more realistic example.

The economic changes Romney was proposing would have effectively undone the corrections put in place in response to the crash and would have put us in a position for it to be possible to happen all over again.

Obama's economic policies are working. Maybe not as fast as people would like... but they are working. Unemployment rates have been going down consistently since he took office. Again -- it's nowhere near his projected estimate, but it's still progress.

So to me it becomes a question of do we go with "slow and steady"? Or take a gamble on something that might work faster, but had just exploded in our face no more than 5 years ago?

Time and time again we see socialism implemented, shortly followed by a downward spiral of that country. Why then do we embrace it now?

The US has been a capitalist/socialist hybrid for nearly 100 years. I don't know what your timetable for "shortly" is, but I wouldn't say the US fits your description. It has gone up and down throughout that timeframe.

Because the mindset of the population has become one of entitlement, not of working hard, to get what you want

I can tell you what my mindset is:

If you work 40 hours a week, you should be able to afford the basic necessities of life. This includes, food, housing, utilities, and medical expenses.

Currently, there are many families where the providers are working much more than that (2 or maybe 3 jobs... 70+ hrs), and are barely able to make ends meet.

Those people should be entitled. It's not a matter of them not working hard enough. They're already working plenty hard. Maybe even too hard. It's a matter of providing fundamental care to the populous.

We need the government to step in and act as a balancer. Yes, that's a form of socialism... yes it's a form of wealth distribution... but IMO it's also common decency.

taxing the rich to help fund increased spending on welfare programs for the poor is socialism,

So you think the rich pay enough taxes currently?

I'm curious to see where the tax is being payed from. I can't really do research into this now, but I'll try to remember to check later. If you have any links on the subject and are willing to share, I would be very interested in reading them.

I believe the way the trickle down system is implemented now is broken, but nothing works when you use it wrong. As a whole, the theory works, we're just doing it wrong

My thought is... why stimulate banks to stimulate small business growth? Why not cut out the middle man and simply stimulate small business growth directly?

I would be all in favor of a centralized government-run bank as Hamilton described. But that's not what we have now. The current banking system is entirely privatized, and it has been a tremendous cause for grief. I see no need to exacerbate it further.

[BHX]

I voted to sit at home and take care of my wife and son while programming a simple game.

[ModShop]

Disch wrote:

So you think the rich pay enough taxes currently?

I don't think the rich pay enough taxes as it is now, but taxing them exclusively while giving more breaks to the "middle class" and anyone else who is self-sufficient is also not fair and not the solution. I think taxes should be consistent across the board, with breaks given for certain situations, such as struggling families and people who are already having trouble.

Disch wrote:

I can tell you what my mindset is:

If you work 40 hours a week, you should be able to afford the basic necessities of life. This includes, food, housing, utilities, and medical expenses.

Currently, there are many families where the providers are working much more than that (2 or maybe 3 jobs... 70+ hrs), and are barely able to make ends meet.

Those people should be entitled. It's not a matter of them not working hard enough. They're already working plenty hard. Maybe even too hard. It's a matter of providing fundamental care to the populous.

We need the government to step in and act as a balancer. Yes, that's a form of socialism... yes it's a form of wealth distribution... but IMO it's also common decency.

I agree with you about that part of entitlement, although hardworking families were not what I was referring to. I was referring to the ever growing number of people under the so called "poverty level" (which is the equivalent of many other countries middle class) who are unemployed, and yet have the nerve to not take certain jobs because they consider those jobs beneath them. Then they blame immigrants for coming and taking those very same jobs. They see themselves as victims of situation, not of their own irresponsibility and high horses. Welfare is great when used for its intended purpose as you described, but I despise any who would take advantage of the system so they can be lazy and victimize themselves instead of taking an initiative in their own success.

Disch wrote:

The US has been a capitalist/socialist hybrid for nearly 100 years. I don't know what your timetable for "shortly" is, but I wouldn't say the US fits your description. It has gone up and down throughout that timeframe.

I am aware that we are a hybrid, but so was the Soviet Union. A pattern can be observed; countries that leaned towards capitalism instead of socialism had stronger economies, and when socialist leaning nations implemented capitalist reforms, their economies improved. Take the later years of the Soviet Union and Gorbachev's policies of glasnost and perestroika, the Soviet economy saw much improvement then. Same thing happened when China began allowing elements of capitalism into itself. Now it seems as though we are beginning to lean more towards socialism, and the economy shows it.

Disch wrote:

Obama's economic policies are working. Maybe not as fast as people would like... but they are working. Unemployment rates have been going down consistently since he took office. Again -- it's nowhere near his projected estimate, but it's still progress.

That is debatable, and highly dependent on the person and their demographic. Maybe they are working, I sure hope so. I would love to be proved wrong and see the country begin to thrive in the next 4 years, but based on his policies in the last 4 years, I fear that it is in vain that I hope.

Disch wrote:

My thought is... why stimulate banks to stimulate small business growth? Why not cut out the middle man and simply stimulate small business growth directly?

I agree, although many liberals I have talked to consider stimulating small business to be trickle down. I guess it depends on who you ask.

Disch wrote:

I agree. It has to be done in balance. My industrial revolution example was obviously the extreme end of that

Labor unions are the extreme opposite end of corporate tyranny, and vice versa. The standards of political correctness we hold ourselves to today is also and extreme opposite end compared to where we came from. Our culture today is riddled with overreaction to the problems of yesterday, much like the Articles of Confederation was an overreaction to strong central government. All of this shows that the middle road is the best option, something Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha) figured out a long time ago.

Disch wrote:

Thank you for the exellent counter-post, ModShop. =)

And I thank you for the excellent and intelligent discussion. It is good to debate; that way you see others points of view, extend your own knowledge, stimulate your mind and find where you truly stand (I also enjoy making constant references to history, btw "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana). 9/10 Obama supporters I talked to today couldn't actually answer the question "Why do you like him?" without talking in circles. Ignorance bothers me. I don't care who you support, if it is done out of ignorance, you have lost my respect, if not, you have my respect even if I disagree.

[BHX]

ModShop wrote:

9/10 Obama supporters I talked to today couldn't actually answer the question "Why do you like him?" without talking in circles.

They talk in circles because they don't like him. Most voters vote democrat or republican and will vote for complete dumbasses just because they are in their preferred party due to the party appealing to the voter's ideals.

ModShop wrote:

Ignorance bothers me. I don't care who you support, if it is done out of ignorance, you have lost my respect, if not, you have my respect even if I disagree.

You are assuming that someone cares if they have your respect. Respect is earned and it seems that your measure of respect seems lower than most.

As for entitlement, we are entitled to live, die, and have an opinion. This country is owned by the big companies and the election is just for the citizens to have a falsehood that they actually have a say in this country. If we had more control over the companies and government then gas prices would still be around $1.60 a gallon, because if you look the price of the barrels has raised only a minute amount and yet gas has jumped ridiculously high.

I use to think George Carlin was a conspiracy nut, but the past years have made me realize he may have been right. (Tried my best to censor it.)

George Carlin wrote:

I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The sh*t they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a f*cking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.

George Carlin wrote:

There's a reason for this, there's a reason education sucks, and it's the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It's never going to get any better. Don't look for it. Be happy with what you've got... because the owners of this country don’t want that. I'm talking about the real owners now... the real owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you.' They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. 'They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting f***ed by a system that threw them overboard 30 f***in’ years ago. They don’t want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your f***in' retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later 'cause they own this f***in' place. It’s a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good, honest, hard-working people: white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good, honest, hard-working people continue — these are people of modest means — continue to elect these rich c*cks***ers who don’t give a f**k about them. They don’t give a f**k about you. They don’t give a f**k about you. They don’t care about you at all! At all! At all! And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue d**k that’s being jammed up their a****les every day, because the owners of this country know the truth. It’s called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it.

George Carlin wrote:

Now, to balance the scale, I'd like to talk about some things that bring us together, things that point out our similarities instead of our differences. 'Cause that's all you ever hear about in this country. It's our differences. That's all the media and the politicians are ever talking about--the things that separate us, things that make us different from one another. That's the way the ruling class operates in any society. They try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other so that they, the rich, can run off with all the f***ing money! Fairly simple thing. Happens to work. You know? Anything different--that's what they're gonna talk about--race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality, anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank! You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs.

[ModShop]

I respect your opinion if you have a solid basis for it, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I agree that the country is run by big business, its not conspiracy, its happening in plain daylight. I wouldn't take it as far as that nut (no offense) but it is definitely there.

This entire debate just shows how silly parties are. They're there so the radicals on each side (read: small minority of people) can accuse the other side of the party line of doing X instead of Y, and keep the moderates thinking that they are so drastically different from the other side. Truth is, we are more similar than radicals on both sides would want us to believe, it is the party system that blinds us. It turns out we only have minor disagreements here and there (at least me and Disch) but generally agree on more points than not. Either way, I'm moving to Australia :p