• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

For or Against?

Are you voting for a presidential candidate or against one.. or both?

  • I'm voting FOR the Republican nominee

  • I'm voting AGAINST Obama

  • I'm voting FOR Obama

  • I'm voting AGAINST the Republican nominee

  • I'm voting AGAINST both Obama and the Republican nominee

Results are only viewable after voting.
zsdersw

zsdersw

Lifer
With regards to the presidential race, are you voting for a candidate or against one?

.. or against both candidates?
 
Why did you leave a third party out?

I vote straight line Libertarian party. When a Libertarian is on the ballot, that is who I vote for.
 
I'll be waiting to see who the Republican nominee is. So far it is looking like I will vote 3rd party if a viable candidate emerges. Otherwise I may skip voting for President for the first time since I turned 18.
 
Seems nowadays most people are voting against the other candidate rather than for their guy, pretty sad. As much as I hate Obama, at least people voted for him, and not so much against McCan't, of course then you get a lot of voters voting with their emotions instead of brains, which is almost equally as sad.
 
Part of the problem with the US, people "think" they "have" to vote for the two major parties.

If you want real change in government, then vote like it.
 
Texashiker said:
Why did you leave a third party out?

I vote straight line Libertarian party. When a Libertarian is on the ballot, that is who I vote for.
Click to expand...

That's what was implied in the last poll option; voting against both Obama and the Republican nominee.
 
I voted "against obama" but there are qualifications. First I am against both parties and their selection process and how they've become more about themselves than anything else. Even so there are other considerations, especially SCOTUS nominations. I believe that the picks by obama would be less likely to adhere to the meaning of the constitution. Considering that hes lamented because that document limits his power I'd target he didn't get to pick like minded judges. If Romney is his opposition and wins he is less likely to nominate those Obama would without selecting someone too extreme on the other side. If santorum wins then that is another matter and I'll stay home.
 
I'm voting FOR whoever makes the most sense in the general. I will NOT vote for Santorum under any circumstances. If Santorum wins, I WILL vote for Obama. CAPS! caPS! cAPs! CAps!
 
Voting "for" Obama. Hoping that he keeps up the good work turning the economy around, overhauling the HC system, and making progress for gay rights.
 
Blackjack200 said:
Voting "for" Obama. Hoping that he keeps up the good work turning the economy around, overhauling the HC system, and making progress for gay rights.
Click to expand...

That is the only thing I give him credit for. Given everything else, however, I cannot vote for him.

I also cannot vote for any Republican presidential candidate because all of them are either openly hostile to gay rights or wouldn't advance them... and the Republican nominee will be just as big of a spender and regulator as Obama.
 
I'm voting for Obama. It's impossible to find a president who does everything I want, how I want it, but he's been pretty good on the whole. He's been surprisingly pragmatic (except in his expectations of compromise) and has handled a rather tumultuous time in our history quite well. He reminds me a lot of Clinton, but with a better family life and sharper foreign policy mind.
 
Depends - if it looks like the Senate will fall to the Republicans then I will vote for Obama. If it looks the dems will hold it then I'll vote for the Republican. Either way I want the government stalemated so nothing really bad gets passed while we wait for some new players to arrive and hopefully turn the mess around.
 
zsdersw said:
That is the only thing I give him credit for. Given everything else, however, I cannot vote for him.

I also cannot vote for any Republican presidential candidate because all of them are either openly hostile to gay rights or wouldn't advance them... and the Republican nominee will be just as big of a spender and regulator as Obama.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, did Romney come out against gays? He seems like the type who would say "let the states decide".
 
Not President Obamas biggest fan. That being said, after witnessing the batshit craziness of the frontrunner "R" candidates, im now leaning towards voting for the current President. I honestly havent made up my mind (and probably wont for a while) yet so I didnt vote.
 
cybrsage said:
Out of curiosity, did Romney come out against gays? He seems like the type who would say "let the states decide".
Click to expand...

It's impossible to determine what Romney would do, since he panders to whomever's support he needs on any given day.

That fact about Romney, alone, gives me pause.
 
cybrsage said:
Out of curiosity, did Romney come out against gays? He seems like the type who would say "let the states decide".
Click to expand...

That's essentially coming out against gays. Just like "states rights" was a slogan for racists during the civil rights era.

FWIW, I don't think Romney is actually homophobic, he strikes me as a smarter guy than that, but he will pander to to the homophobes in his party, so it really doesn't matter.
 
Texashiker said:
Part of the problem with the US, people "think" they "have" to vote for the two major parties.

If you want real change in government, then vote like it.
Click to expand...

Give me a viable third party candidate and I'll vote for that person. Unfortunately, most third party candidates are extremists, whether left, right or libertarian. That is an additional reason why the 2 party system sticks in this country. We could use a centrist third party here, and one with decent funding. Perot so far was as close as we've come to that in recent memory, and he did succeed in doing far better than any other third party candidate since, what, Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party?
 
None of your poll options fit how I feel currently.
Not voting >>>>> Mitt Romney > Barack Obama >>> 3rd party candidate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newt Gingrich >>> Rick Santorum.


To borrow a line from Steve Jobs...
"I'm hell bent on destroying Rick Santorum." I will vote for Obama if I have to(which I won't have to because Maryland is an easy win for him).
Maryland, a battleground state it is not.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I haven't decided yet...but I'm tempted to give the Dems 4 more years of "bliss".
Click to expand...



I won't vote if Ron Paul not On ticket. But it wouldn't bother me one bit if obama wins in 2012 . I would preferr to see tricky ricky win . As I am sure he can beat or Tie Obummmer on the harm he brings to Americans . But I won't vote for any of these treasonious pigs. IF America goes down so be it . Not that there will be an election in 2012.
 
much like 2008, I don't really feel like I have a horse in the race.

my POTUS vote will probably be third party since it doesn't matter in my state.
 
I`m voting for Obama.....after all he walks on water...
he caused the blind to see.....
he raised from the dead.....
he turned the water into wine.......
he said peace be still and the wind and seas were still......
his father created Adan and Eve........
Obama has performed miracles wherever he has traveled.....
.......................................
 
zsdersw said:
It's impossible to determine what Romney would do, since he panders to whomever's support he needs on any given day.

That fact about Romney, alone, gives me pause.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Obama is doing the same thing (and did the same thing during his election campaign 4 years ago). I do not like it in any candidate...but it seems to be the new norm.

This is one positive about Santorum - you KNOW where he stands on the issues. You may vehemently disagree, but there is no doubt.

Blackjack200 said:
That's essentially coming out against gays. Just like "states rights" was a slogan for racists during the civil rights era.

FWIW, I don't think Romney is actually homophobic, he strikes me as a smarter guy than that, but he will pander to to the homophobes in his party, so it really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I think he is pandering to the base right now, since that is what you must do to win the primaries. Once he does, he will quickly shift to being a moderate.
 
cybrsage said:
Agreed. Obama is doing the same thing (and did the same thing during his election campaign 4 years ago). I do not like it in any candidate...but it seems to be the new norm.

This is one positive about Santorum - you KNOW where he stands on the issues. You may vehemently disagree, but there is no doubt.
Click to expand...
I dunno... given the choice between the guy who's going to stick to his wrong convictions all the way off a cliff versus the guy who's going to do whatever 50%+1 of the population want him to do, I'd pick the panderer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top