Right now, I feel that both big-party candidates are jokes. They will both increase the size, power, and cost of government - something I definitely oppose. Neither shares my view on social issues, so it doesn't even make sense to vote on the basis of USSC justice nominations. I see both of them as very poor choices. However, I have to pick someone. Convince me why your candidate should get my vote. I live in a swing state, so this is a chance to make your thoughts count for something, especially if you live in a die-hard red/blue state.
Why should I vote for your candidate?
- Thread starter CycloWizard
- Start date
The candidates differ greatly on tax plans and health care. IMO, pick the one who closest fits your views.
based on your assessment of the candidates you should vote third party. You should have convinced yourself with your post.
TheSlamma: Yes, I know about write-in votes. They are a waste of time unless I can convince a hundred million or so of my closest friends to write in the same person.
Dave: I've always been a registered independent. I have never liked Bush. However, your retarded party can't seem to do any better and left me very little choice.
Robor: Both of their tax and healthcare plans suck. The magnitude of the suck is so large in both cases that I can't differentiate.
Dissipate: I have to pick someone to vote for because anarchocapitalism is the wet dream of spoiled rich uber-conservatives rather than any system which would be feasible in reality.
gar3555: I don't care for any of the third party candidates I've heard about, though I haven't investigated any of them to a great extent at this point.
Out of all of the seemingly die-hard McCain/Obama/Paul supporters in this forum, surely someone has to be knowledgeable enough to tell me why they are voting for their candidate. Right?
Dave: I've always been a registered independent. I have never liked Bush. However, your retarded party can't seem to do any better and left me very little choice.
Robor: Both of their tax and healthcare plans suck. The magnitude of the suck is so large in both cases that I can't differentiate.
Dissipate: I have to pick someone to vote for because anarchocapitalism is the wet dream of spoiled rich uber-conservatives rather than any system which would be feasible in reality.
gar3555: I don't care for any of the third party candidates I've heard about, though I haven't investigated any of them to a great extent at this point.
Out of all of the seemingly die-hard McCain/Obama/Paul supporters in this forum, surely someone has to be knowledgeable enough to tell me why they are voting for their candidate. Right?
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Who said anything about anarcho-capitalism? That's a red herring.
I was curious as to what your reasoning is as to why voting isn't a complete waste of time. Even if you live in a swing state the probability of your vote determining the election is minuscule and statistically insignificant.
Well, if that's your take, you probably wanna pick McCain just so you have some check and balances in the government. If both legislative and executive branch are democrats, it will only make it easy for them do to whatever they want.
Based on your posting history here, I couldn't imagine any other reason for your statement.
Whether or not my vote determines the election is a very minimal consideration for me. I have to vote because I have principles. If I don't vote based on those principles, then my principles are worth nothing because I have forsaken them out of sheer laziness. It's incorrect to say that any vote is statistically insignificant, since each contributes equally; only in the aggregate are any votes meaningful.
That's actually the best reason I've heard so far. I'm not sure how much checking they will actually do, but it's better than nothing I suppose.
Here's my take.
Obama will cut my taxes, I don't make 250K a year, not even half that.
McCain wants more tax cuts for corporations, even though their effective tax rate is very low already.
60% of our economy revolves around consumer spending, thus we are a trickle up rather than a trickle down economy.
Obama has a much better approach to foreign policy, McCain is Bush 2.0 in this aspect, that cannot be disputed. We have lost so much as a result of our belligerent, arrogant, and foolish stances on any number of world issues.
I can't say that I'm excited about either McCain or Obama's healthcare plan. I'm pretty happy with my employer based insurance currently. But, McCain's plan is an absolute disaster as pretty much everyone who's examined it says.
McCain isn't going to do dick for education and just the other night proposed spending freezes on everything except military spending. That doesn't fly with me.
Those are my feelings on major policy choices.
Obama will cut my taxes, I don't make 250K a year, not even half that.
McCain wants more tax cuts for corporations, even though their effective tax rate is very low already.
60% of our economy revolves around consumer spending, thus we are a trickle up rather than a trickle down economy.
Obama has a much better approach to foreign policy, McCain is Bush 2.0 in this aspect, that cannot be disputed. We have lost so much as a result of our belligerent, arrogant, and foolish stances on any number of world issues.
I can't say that I'm excited about either McCain or Obama's healthcare plan. I'm pretty happy with my employer based insurance currently. But, McCain's plan is an absolute disaster as pretty much everyone who's examined it says.
McCain isn't going to do dick for education and just the other night proposed spending freezes on everything except military spending. That doesn't fly with me.
Those are my feelings on major policy choices.
I would agree with that and that Dems wants the government to be the countries mother, basically babysitting everyone and doing everythign for them.
Either way the political system in this country needs to change but everyone is just happy bitching about the 2 parties, but never changing their votes. Makes no sense at all.
Sounds like something you got in your inbox from Obama's campaign this morning rather than any thoughts you developed on your own. Maybe you could explain why you feel Obama's policies are better instead of relying on the appeal to popularity. Every issue you listed (besides foreign policy) is a legislative issue. I'm trying to pick an executive, which may be my problem when trying to pick between legislators.
I think you should vote against the Republicans (note: I didn't say FOR the Democrats), because the Republicans are typically anti-science and I know that science and the funding of scientific research is an important issue for you personally.
Did you see the special on CNN when 5 Former Secretaries of State talked to Christiane Amanpour about what the next president Needs to do? You should watch it and see which candidates Foreign policy plans more similarly match the Groups overall consensus.
DM: This is why I was slightly leaning towards Obama. I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason to vote for him though, especially when I disagree with virtually every other policy he supports. And again, the funding of science is truly a legislative responsibility, not something that should be the basis of my vote for an executive official.
Nope, didn't see that, though I would definitely be interested in it. There is at least one person in that group of five that I probably would support for president (Albright), though she would never run.
Reality is the assumptions we make about it and we have been making them from the day we were born. Many of our deepest held were established before we could even think properly. Reality, your reality, is, therefore, irrational and does not exist.
Ergo, when you ask a question, such as how you should vote, that does not mean you are functionally capable of understanding a real answer. You do not live in the real world and do not see it. You live in the world created by your assumptions of which so many are irrational. You are the matrix.
I do not necessarily make the same assumptions that you do. I may be able to go places, do things, and see what you cannot and visa versa. You were doubtlessly taught that to be forgiven requires that you die to yourself. The 'yourself' in question here, I believe, is your assumptions.
It is why the Zen master has nothing for those who cannot empty their cup.
It is why the Sufis say you can't cross the river with your thousand pounds of cabbage.
To enter the river of life you have to let go.
Can you let go of everything? The only real freedom is the lack of attachment, no?
Ergo, when you ask a question, such as how you should vote, that does not mean you are functionally capable of understanding a real answer. You do not live in the real world and do not see it. You live in the world created by your assumptions of which so many are irrational. You are the matrix.
I do not necessarily make the same assumptions that you do. I may be able to go places, do things, and see what you cannot and visa versa. You were doubtlessly taught that to be forgiven requires that you die to yourself. The 'yourself' in question here, I believe, is your assumptions.
It is why the Zen master has nothing for those who cannot empty their cup.
It is why the Sufis say you can't cross the river with your thousand pounds of cabbage.
To enter the river of life you have to let go.
Can you let go of everything? The only real freedom is the lack of attachment, no?
I just explained it, these are MY THOUGHTS, these aren't talking points. You ask why vote for XXX, well we have to vote based on THEIR platform.
You asked for input and I gave mine, you don't like my answers, that's on you.
The bottom line is that both options suck. In some ways one sucks more and the other, and in other ways the opposite, but the grand total is that both are going to enlarge the government on our dime and waste more money.
Given that, my choice is pretty simple: having a R president will be much more effective in containing government stupidity and growth than having a D in the white house along with the senate and house control. Bottom line, vote McCain, it's the only way to keep the fringe in check.
Given that, my choice is pretty simple: having a R president will be much more effective in containing government stupidity and growth than having a D in the white house along with the senate and house control. Bottom line, vote McCain, it's the only way to keep the fringe in check.
I know you don't have a lot of ammo left, but this "ZOMG Obama will be a dictator" argument is the weakest sauce in the bunch.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Aren't the two inextricably linked? If Senator Obama becomes your next president, his election also indicates that the country would like him to lead your legislative branches in a particular direction.
I think one reason that your President Bush has been such an abject failure is that his use of the presidential veto was slim to none (until the Democrats gained a slim majority in Congress). He refused to rein in the excesses of Congress. Now, would a President Obama be more responsible in that role? Would a President McCain? I think either man is capable of acting in what he himself believes are the best interests of the nation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter