Made my decision for President, using a rationale that is distressing

[nextJin]

This is pretty much what I expected and why I asked. Those aren't principles, they are opinions on certain issues. Principles aren't about specific issues, they are general rules you live by.

You said that one has principles and one doesn't. But that is not what you indicated upon follow up. They both have principles. I don't think either candidate has changed their principles at all.

This doesn't change the validity of your decision one bit, however.

Ones policies are directly related to their principles. I can NOT be a Republican but have the principles of being pro abortion, wealth distribution, higher taxes, universal health care, gay rights, etc.

Opinions are the same way in politics, you can't change your opinion on everything and stand there and say you have solid principles you won't sway from. If Mitt Romney had the same principles he had 5 years ago or the same opinions he couldn't get it be running for president because he would be a Democrat.

Santorum = principles (insane as they may be)
Christie = principles
Paul = principles
Johnson = principles

Those guys have very different beliefs on conservatism yet they hold the same stances and have generally stayed with them.

You can not, and it has been shown here numerous times show Romney having even a few things here and has not changed his mind on. It's factually not possible as sad as that may be.

Vote for whom ever you want, but the simple fact is that he has absolutely no history of being principled other than his faith.

 

[NoStateofMind]

This has to be the worst pair of candidates in my voting lifetime. I don't think either candidate is presidential material. Obama won't hesitate to expand government and pander to foreign leaders, both of which weaken the nation, and has not fulfilled promises he made that he COULD have fulfilled (transparent administration, e.g.). He let the bankers call the shots during the financial crisis. Romney cannot even acknowledge it might be OK to raise taxes on the very wealthy even just a little, although I am encouraged that he has a fiscal conservative as a running mate.

In cases like this, when both candidates are lacking, I think the best option is to replace the current guy. A change in administration disrupts things and it eliminates momentum that would lead to more of the same.

Obama has not earned another term, and that above all is the reason I will vote for his opponent. The more turnover, the more that elected officials respect the average citizen and will act more appropriately. The middle class is shrinking, is suffering, and yet they keep re-electing the same people over and over. There needs to be more turnover.

This should apply at every level. People who do not deserve re-election should not be re-elected even if the opponent is not particularly appealing.

The establishment thanks you for your continued support!

 

[Jaskalas]

Romney cannot even acknowledge it might be OK to raise taxes on the very wealthy even just a little, although I am encouraged that he has a fiscal conservative as a running mate.

Heads will explode over that notion. Fiscal conservative VP, a good sign for raising taxes?

Sorry, not happening.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's a foggy quiet morning

I'm drinking a cup of coffee

I can hear the frig motor purring

Outside my window olives litter the ground

A red light blinks on my phone.

 

[diesbudt]

I will applaud any person who goes and votes, even if that vote is "lost" in the EC system. If you don't put your X on the ballot, you have zero right to complain. If you put in your vote and the system is a little wonky, you have a right to complain.

Yes choosing to not to vote, is in itself voting. Thus not voting is voting for no one, because none of them are up to ones standards, meaning it is completely fine if those that choose that option complain.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I will applaud any person who goes and votes, even if that vote is "lost" in the EC system. If you don't put your X on the ballot, you have zero right to complain. If you put in your vote and the system is a little wonky, you have a right to complain.

Yeah thats horseshit. By voting you endorse the establishments ongoing abuses of not only your freedom but also the freedom of others. The invasion of other countries for little or no reason at all. Murder of civilians in foreign lands, the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial or jury of their peers and up to and including presidential hit lists. But you go ahead and sign off on all that with your vote just like millions of others because its your "Right". That Right has us where we are now and no amount of voting will change the corporate greed nor its grip on Washington. Go ahead and celebrate your new masters inauguration. Nothing changes but the name of the puppet.

 

[xBiffx]

I can NOT be a Republican but have the principles of being pro abortion, wealth distribution, higher taxes, universal health care, gay rights, etc.

Stopped reading right there. You are a complete idiot.

 

[yllus]

I think the most frightening and significant aspect to vote upon for the U.S. presidential election is who has the most realistic plan to steer the country away from insolvency. The complete lack of details and pie in the sky notions put forward by Mr. Romney are far more distressing than the "back to the '90s tax rates" plan of Mr. Obama.

As extrajudicial as President Obama has been overseas, he's exercised good judgement in doing so to date. With Mr. Ryan refusing to commit to no ground troops in Syria or Iran during his debate, I'd be again more alarmed at the foreign policy of a Republican administration over the devil you know of the Obama administration.

 

[nextJin]

Stopped reading right there. You are a complete idiot.

Show me a Conservative who has those values, principles or beliefs. You can't, that's my point and it is why we have parties in the first place. Romney has been all over the map, and I am a little r conservative.

I don't believe anyone here Republican or Democrat would disagree with me other than the fringe. Calling me an "idiot" when I am calling out simple truth does nothing for your cause whatever it may be.

You can't back up Romneys history on solid principles, period. If you try you will be crushed by an onslaught of articles, youtube videos and general commentary dating back decades to yesterday of which would likely crash these forums.

 

[kranky]

After reading the replies, I guess I should have simply said that I don't feel the current President has earned another term and when that is the case, I think the right thing to do is un-elect him, even if the alternative is not appealing. That was my main point anyway, not debating whether my opinion is valid, as I do not debate yours.

I do not accept that you can weigh 4 years of actual performance against what someone new might or might not do or claim they might do. I think we can agree that they all say whatever they think is necessary to get elected. And they don't do what they said they would do anyway. And as I said originally, a new guy has to start from scratch and that only makes it take longer to get going - to me that's a plus. Less is usually better.

It's not about political parties. When the incumbent has not earned another term, get someone new. Elected officials should understand if they do not perform, they are out.

Our city and county leans heavily towards one party. You have multiple generations of families winning office because they are ingrained with the favored party. As long as they have the right last name, they get to start small and move up the ladder to bigger offices as if they only need to file to get their name on the ballot. And while the citizens keep complaining about poor services, higher taxes, corruption, etc., they keep electing the same people. No wonder the elected officials are poor performers - what's to be concerned about? They keep winning reelection anyway.

 

[quest55720]

I won't vote for either of these guys. Both are big spenders and will do nothing to fix the problems of this country. One wants to spend on tax cuts for the rich and the military. The other wants to spend on the military, green energy and welfare programs. Now if I could only vote for 1 I would vote Obama would rather have his spending than Romney's. Just a shame the GOP is just so crazy right now. I would of voted for a guy like huntsman in a second.

Gary Johnson will get my support I can not vote for anyone who wants to either keep military spending the same or increase it. I may only be 1 vote but I can not vote for a candidates who would raid Medicare and SS to be world police and pay for the defense of south Korea, japan and Europe.

 

[jackstar7]

Stopped reading right there. You are a complete idiot.

Good thinking. Heck, you should probably start using that ignore list.

 

[Blackjack200]

Our city and county leans heavily towards one party. You have multiple generations of families winning office because they are ingrained with the favored party. As long as they have the right last name, they get to start small and move up the ladder to bigger offices as if they only need to file to get their name on the ballot. And while the citizens keep complaining about poor services, higher taxes, corruption, etc., they keep electing the same people. No wonder the elected officials are poor performers - what's to be concerned about? They keep winning reelection anyway.

Local politics are very very different from national level politics.

 

[randomrogue]

OP your logic is what I'm hearing from family and friends that are casting Romney votes. I'm not onboard with it but that's your right. At least you're voting.

I think voting for a 3rd party candidate or a write in would be far better than getting stuck in the "giant douche or turd sandwich" debate.

Like you said, they're both terrible. Why would you vote for any of them then?

 

[ivwshane]

After reading the replies, I guess I should have simply said that I don't feel the current President has earned another term and when that is the case, I think the right thing to do is un-elect him, even if the alternative is not appealing. That was my main point anyway, not debating whether my opinion is valid, as I do not debate yours.

I do not accept that you can weigh 4 years of actual performance against what someone new might or might not do or claim they might do. I think we can agree that they all say whatever they think is necessary to get elected. And they don't do what they said they would do anyway. And as I said originally, a new guy has to start from scratch and that only makes it take longer to get going - to me that's a plus. Less is usually better.

It's not about political parties. When the incumbent has not earned another term, get someone new. Elected officials should understand if they do not perform, they are out.

Our city and county leans heavily towards one party. You have multiple generations of families winning office because they are ingrained with the favored party. As long as they have the right last name, they get to start small and move up the ladder to bigger offices as if they only need to file to get their name on the ballot. And while the citizens keep complaining about poor services, higher taxes, corruption, etc., they keep electing the same people. No wonder the elected officials are poor performers - what's to be concerned about? They keep winning reelection anyway.

We heard you the first time, your decision was based on incorrect facts and gut feelings. We get it, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Agent11]

The problem is the Republican controlled house and the filibustering Republican minority in the senate.

They have been making it their mission to cripple congress' ability to do anything substantive.

 

[xBiffx]

Good thinking. Heck, you should probably start using that ignore list.

Nah, ignore lists are for pussies.

 

[SheHateMe]

After reading the replies, I guess I should have simply said that I don't feel the current President has earned another term and when that is the case, I think the right thing to do is un-elect him, even if the alternative is not appealing. That was my main point anyway, not debating whether my opinion is valid, as I do not debate yours.

I do not accept that you can weigh 4 years of actual performance against what someone new might or might not do or claim they might do. I think we can agree that they all say whatever they think is necessary to get elected. And they don't do what they said they would do anyway. And as I said originally, a new guy has to start from scratch and that only makes it take longer to get going - to me that's a plus. Less is usually better.

It's not about political parties. When the incumbent has not earned another term, get someone new. Elected officials should understand if they do not perform, they are out.

Our city and county leans heavily towards one party. You have multiple generations of families winning office because they are ingrained with the favored party. As long as they have the right last name, they get to start small and move up the ladder to bigger offices as if they only need to file to get their name on the ballot. And while the citizens keep complaining about poor services, higher taxes, corruption, etc., they keep electing the same people. No wonder the elected officials are poor performers - what's to be concerned about? They keep winning reelection anyway.

So you said in the OP that you don't like Romney and you seem unsure that he will do much of anything...yet, you will vote for him because...well you don't really seem to know, hence why you made this thread.

You are obviously looking for someone to make you feel alright about your decision. Congrats, you brought out the AT Republicans. Feel better about your vote now?

 

[nextJin]

Nah, ignore lists are for pussies.

Not in the case of Nemisis. I'm all for owning Republicans and Democrats but when it is not obvious trolling (spidey) and they honest to god are insane/stupid or what have you I have to draw the line. Reading your posts, spidey's, 420's or dcowen is entertaining but trying to comprehend Nemesis's babble makes me want to powerslam babies through concrete.

 

[xBiffx]

....trying to comprehend Nemesis's babble makes me want to powerslam babies through concrete.

sigable (if that is a word).

 

[Nemesis 1]

I talking wife intto retiring this year . Get her SS. and welfare ass. Screw this productivity stuff . I want the good life no taxes Food in the pantry and a Paid for roof over my head . I will never pay taxes again with out stealing back what I give that a fact.

 

[Hacp]

How has Obama pandered to foreign leaders?

Nobel Prize?

 

[hal2kilo]

Nobel Prize?

Now there's some logic.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

I'm in Texas; it doesn't matter if I vote or not so I don't intend to. The straight-ticket Republican masses will turn out by the millions to vote against the kenyan muslim who wants to take their guns away.

We should have a system of proportional representation like other developed nations.

<<

x2 for Arizona.

 

[Zxian]

Yes choosing to not to vote, is in itself voting. Thus not voting is voting for no one, because none of them are up to ones standards, meaning it is completely fine if those that choose that option complain.

...

Then you're suggesting that "nobody" should be in office. The POTUS is a position that needs to be filled by someone. It is up to you to decide who fills it. Some places actually offer a "None of the Above" vote (Nevada for example) on ballots. People still have to go and place an X on the ballot for that to count though. Sadly, there's no way of distinguishing between NOTA votes (which is what you two are suggesting) and lazy people unless that option is on the ballot. In the absence, I'm still of the opinion that placing a vote is better than placing no vote.