Jump to content

Photo

Presidential Election Poll


  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

Poll: Presidential Election/Unscientific Poll (42 member(s) have cast votes)

For those eligible, who are you voting for in November?

  1. Barack Obama (16 votes [39.02%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 39.02%

  2. Mitt Romney (16 votes [39.02%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 39.02%

  3. Other (8 votes [19.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.51%

  4. Eligible but not voting (1 votes [2.44%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.44%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,308 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:12 AM

You can say they weren't taxed twice but clearly they were. I believe the vast majority of people in finance and accounting would agree with that.

I uses neither vague nor indirect methods to show money is taxed twice. It's simply summed up in a few sentences and saying no doesn't make those sentences untrue.

Your savings is not an investment, you do not own part of the bank when you put money in a savings account. Your wages are not capital, they're income, completely different and not taxed at a corporate level first, they come funds before tax is paid.

Obviously further discussion is unnecessary, you will fail to understand or agree with these explanations as well but they're really intro level concepts.

clearly
  • 0

#62 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,801 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 12:41 PM

More dirty tricks by the Republicans to try to kick Johnson off the ballot in Pennsylvania.

I was told similar stories from half a dozen witnesses with whom I spoke over the telephone. All of these witnesses were paid petitioners or notaries. Each was approached by a man who only indentified himself by showing a badge and giving the implied or express impression that he was an FBI agent. This occurred in late August or early September. This man contacted the petitioners to discuss the signatures that they obtained. Most contacts were reported to be in person, without warning, although at least one person was contacted by telephone. This man, identified by some of the witnesses as Reynold Selvaggio, offered petitioners money (the sum reported by most witnesses was $2000) and other benefits to testify that they had falsified signatures. He also threatened the petitioners with prosecution if they did not testify to falsifying signatures.


The parties who claim they are bringing democracy to the Middle East are the same parties who will do just about anything to crush democracy here.

Edited by devilsfan26, 09 October 2012 - 12:43 PM.

  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#63 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,308 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 08:34 AM

More dirty tricks by the Republicans to try to kick Johnson off the ballot in Pennsylvania.



The parties who claim they are bringing democracy to the Middle East are the same parties who will do just about anything to crush democracy here.

I'm learning that Democracy is only ok if you vote for the guy they want you to vote for.
  • 0

#64 mouse

mouse

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,518 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:00 PM

@df26: I've been disgusted for awhile, but some of what you've had to say pushed me, and I started to think more about voting 3rd party. I will probably be voting Stein. I'm liberal as all hell, and I've been trying to defend Obama and, since it's gonna be him or Romney, I hope he wins, but I'm realizing more and more that I hated Bush. I think he was one of the worst presidents ever, but things are no better now than they were four years ago, and I think it has a lot more to do with the crap the 2 parties spew than any individual (good or bad). I agree with what Stein has to say, and I'm tired of making excuses. If I help someone I can get behind make some noise, I'll feel a little better about my vote than if I get someone I used to like, still think is a decent guy, but who has been hamstrung by a broken system, elected. Thanks for elevating this discussion and forcing me to reconsider some of my assumptions.
  • 0

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

 

sguq.jpg


#65 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,389 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:22 PM

Excellent. Vote for Stein, I agree.

Really, you "hated" Bush? I dislike Obama's policies cause they are killing a great country, but I sure don't "hate" him.
  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia

#66 mouse

mouse

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,518 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:33 PM

Excellent. Vote for Stein, I agree.

Really, you "hated" Bush? I dislike Obama's policies cause they are killing a great country, but I sure don't "hate" him.


By the end of his term, I did. I acknowledge it may be excessive. To my credit, I wanted him to succeed, because I care more about the country than my feelings, at least in an abstract, idealistic way.
  • 1

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

 

sguq.jpg


#67 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,389 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:08 AM

By the end of his term, I did. I acknowledge it may be excessive. To my credit, I wanted him to succeed, because I care more about the country than my feelings, at least in an abstract, idealistic way.

When Obama won in '08, I publicly declared here, that I hoped he would succeed.

Unfortunately he miserable failed us all.
  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia

#68 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,801 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:29 AM

@df26: I've been disgusted for awhile, but some of what you've had to say pushed me, and I started to think more about voting 3rd party. I will probably be voting Stein. I'm liberal as all hell, and I've been trying to defend Obama and, since it's gonna be him or Romney, I hope he wins, but I'm realizing more and more that I hated Bush. I think he was one of the worst presidents ever, but things are no better now than they were four years ago, and I think it has a lot more to do with the crap the 2 parties spew than any individual (good or bad). I agree with what Stein has to say, and I'm tired of making excuses. If I help someone I can get behind make some noise, I'll feel a little better about my vote than if I get someone I used to like, still think is a decent guy, but who has been hamstrung by a broken system, elected. Thanks for elevating this discussion and forcing me to reconsider some of my assumptions.

Cool, glad I could help out and thanks for the props. Every time someone considers voting outside the two-party stranglehold it gets us one step closer to fixing this country, whether you consider yourself a liberal or conservative there are far better options for whoever you are than the Democrats and Republicans.

Excellent. Vote for Stein, I agree.

Really, you "hated" Bush? I dislike Obama's policies cause they are killing a great country, but I sure don't "hate" him.

Have you checked out Gary Johnson's platform? Based on years of reading your posts I think you would like him a lot more than Romney.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#69 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,801 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:43 AM

Here's a very brief debate between Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party, with a short preface on the obstacles thrown in the way of third parties.

And remember, there is another debate hosted by a nonpartisan group on October 23rd. The top six candidates were invited, but of course Romney and Obama know they would get lambasted when up against real candidates so they agreed with each other that they wouldn't enter into debates with anyone other than each other.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#70 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,308 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:34 AM

When Obama won in '08, I publicly declared here, that I hoped he would succeed.

Unfortunately he miserable failed us all.

You also said if he kept us safe you would consider his presidency a success. I am sure you will try to point to several terrorist attacks during his tenure, but Obama's 4 years are better then any other presidents 4 years for the last 3 or 4 decades. So...
  • 0

#71 mouse

mouse

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,518 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:24 AM

When Obama won in '08, I publicly declared here, that I hoped he would succeed.


That wasn't meant to be a dig at you. Sorry if you interpreted it as such.
  • 0

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

 

sguq.jpg


#72 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,893 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:18 PM

FWIW, considering this thread is an informal poll, I'm still undecided (could end up going for Obama, Romney or Gary Johnson), will make my decision in the voting booth, and exercise my right to a secret ballot. Brief pros and cons for each candidate:

Obama: Despite recent events, he's been pretty good on foreign policy, although that represents a change in my attitude about how much the US can affect the worldview of people in foreign countries (not at all). He's been kind of close foreign policy-wise to Eisenhower in the "do no harm". Domestically, I'm fearful of what he has in store. He's manifestly anti-business, or at least anti-businesses that doesn't provide goods and services he approves of or that donate to his campaign. He clearly does not understand how capitalism works. He's not necessarily a socialist, but rather a technocrat that thinks its up to the government to control the economy. There's a role for that in the banking industry, but that won't do anything so long as he sees it as his role to inflate housing prices, and largely regulate things that had nothing to do with the financial crises (things like "predatory lending"). His philosophy, if not actual policy, on taxes is very frightening... basically amounting to, your income presumptively belongs to the government, which decides what you get to keep, as opposed to seeing taxes as a means to pay for government spending. And, as a general matter, liberals are just wrong about most Constitutional issues and the proper role of the judiciary. (Note, conservatives do it to, but just to a lesser extent).

Romney: Unncessarily belicose and neoconish foreign policy, but at least, so far as I'm concerned, recognizes who our real friends are. Domestically, understands how business works and what effect taxes and government regulations have on them, not just in the theoretical sense. My taxes will most likely end up being lower since I got hit with the AMT this year, which he's said that he'll eliminate without qualifications. Doesn't really have a serious proposal to cut spending in any meaningful way. Also a bit troubling that he's giving lip service to the idea of going back on the gold standard, and replacing Bernake, the one guy who you could really attribute the avoiding of a depression. (He's been praised by people who get economics on both sides of the isle, and did exactly what Milton Friedman said should have been done to stave off the Great Depression, i.e. increase the money supply). He'll also appoint better judges (at least from my point of view) that are more likely to further rein in the worst abuses of plaintiff's attorneys.

Gary Johnson: I don't consider voting for a third party as throwing my vote away. I like his instincts about the proper role of government, but, there are some things that the government does these days that are here to stay, which he doesn't seem to recognize. He's way too isolationaist and naive in foreign policy realm to the point of saying that our embassies are there solely to assist US tourists. Espouses the libertarian nutiness about the gold standard, etc. He would probably decriminalize drugs at the federal level. While I agree with this in principle, it won't really have that much of an effect on the overall picture of things, and we'd likely see a spike in the violent crime rate for reasons that I won't get into. Basically, if I vote for the guy, it'll be with the knowledge that I'll never have to live with seeing how libertarian policies will actually work out, which has a kind of feel good quality to it.

Since the election will almost certainly come down to my vote, feel free to try to persuade me one way or the other, or just using this a jumping off point for further random discussion.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#73 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,308 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:07 PM

Since the election will almost certainly come down to my vote, feel free to try to persuade me one way or the other, or just using this a jumping off point for further random discussion.

:lol: I think you should vote for kodos
  • 0

#74 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,389 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:43 PM

Since the election will almost certainly come down to my vote, feel free to try to persuade me one way or the other, or just using this a jumping off point for further random discussion.


lol.

Well written post. I will admit being naive about Johnson, but that is because I want Obama out, and I will not waste my vote.
  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia

#75 ghdi

ghdi

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,425 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:31 PM

Gary Johnson: I don't consider voting for a third party as throwing my vote away. I like his instincts about the proper role of government, but, there are some things that the government does these days that are here to stay, which he doesn't seem to recognize. He's way too isolationaist and naive in foreign policy realm to the point of saying that our embassies are there solely to assist US tourists. Espouses the libertarian nutiness about the gold standard, etc. He would probably decriminalize drugs at the federal level. While I agree with this in principle, it won't really have that much of an effect on the overall picture of things, and we'd likely see a spike in the violent crime rate for reasons that I won't get into. Basically, if I vote for the guy, it'll be with the knowledge that I'll never have to live with seeing how libertarian policies will actually work out, which has a kind of feel good quality to it.


For reasons you won't get into? That reads like a cop-out and flies in the face of most everything that is stated about decriminalizing certain drugs. The fact is, Johnson has only spoken about decriminalizing marijuana, not heroin, not cocaine. Mexico's #1 illegal export is marijuana (per Johnson's website) and it would absolutely lower the violent crime rate at the border. Obviously, drugs like heroin and cocaine would still be illegal and there would still be crime problems related to them, but those drugs enter through Florida and airports more than the Mexican border. It would also lessen the strain on our prison systems were people are in jail for non-violent offenses. "For reasons I won't get into" is a lame response to a widely held perspective in terms of pro-decriminalization. One of the main reasons people are for decriminalization is because of the fact that it would lessen crime in the case of certain substances because of the elimination of the black market for that substance.

The rest of what you say about Johnson I agree with for the most part. I would, however, like to see him allowed to debate. I would certainly consider voting for him if he stood a chance and the rest of the country was able to see what he had to offer, but I agree with Jimmy in the sense that I consider it a wasted vote and I do not want Romney in.

Edited by ghdi, 12 October 2012 - 06:58 PM.

  • 0

#76 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,885 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:51 PM

FWIW, considering this thread is an informal poll, I'm still undecided (could end up going for Obama, Romney or Gary Johnson), will make my decision in the voting booth, and exercise my right to a secret ballot. Brief pros and cons for each candidate:

Obama: Despite recent events, he's been pretty good on foreign policy, although that represents a change in my attitude about how much the US can affect the worldview of people in foreign countries (not at all). He's been kind of close foreign policy-wise to Eisenhower in the "do no harm". Domestically, I'm fearful of what he has in store. He's manifestly anti-business, or at least anti-businesses that doesn't provide goods and services he approves of or that donate to his campaign. He clearly does not understand how capitalism works. He's not necessarily a socialist, but rather a technocrat that thinks its up to the government to control the economy. There's a role for that in the banking industry, but that won't do anything so long as he sees it as his role to inflate housing prices, and largely regulate things that had nothing to do with the financial crises (things like "predatory lending"). His philosophy, if not actual policy, on taxes is very frightening... basically amounting to, your income presumptively belongs to the government, which decides what you get to keep, as opposed to seeing taxes as a means to pay for government spending. And, as a general matter, liberals are just wrong about most Constitutional issues and the proper role of the judiciary. (Note, conservatives do it to, but just to a lesser extent).

Romney: Unncessarily belicose and neoconish foreign policy, but at least, so far as I'm concerned, recognizes who our real friends are. Domestically, understands how business works and what effect taxes and government regulations have on them, not just in the theoretical sense. My taxes will most likely end up being lower since I got hit with the AMT this year, which he's said that he'll eliminate without qualifications. Doesn't really have a serious proposal to cut spending in any meaningful way. Also a bit troubling that he's giving lip service to the idea of going back on the gold standard, and replacing Bernake, the one guy who you could really attribute the avoiding of a depression. (He's been praised by people who get economics on both sides of the isle, and did exactly what Milton Friedman said should have been done to stave off the Great Depression, i.e. increase the money supply). He'll also appoint better judges (at least from my point of view) that are more likely to further rein in the worst abuses of plaintiff's attorneys.

Gary Johnson: I don't consider voting for a third party as throwing my vote away. I like his instincts about the proper role of government, but, there are some things that the government does these days that are here to stay, which he doesn't seem to recognize. He's way too isolationaist and naive in foreign policy realm to the point of saying that our embassies are there solely to assist US tourists. Espouses the libertarian nutiness about the gold standard, etc. He would probably decriminalize drugs at the federal level. While I agree with this in principle, it won't really have that much of an effect on the overall picture of things, and we'd likely see a spike in the violent crime rate for reasons that I won't get into. Basically, if I vote for the guy, it'll be with the knowledge that I'll never have to live with seeing how libertarian policies will actually work out, which has a kind of feel good quality to it.

Since the election will almost certainly come down to my vote, feel free to try to persuade me one way or the other, or just using this a jumping off point for further random discussion.

Great post, Daniel.

Could you get into the bolded though?
  • 0

#77 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,893 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:45 PM

Could you get into the bolded though?


Since people are asking, I'll explain my thinking. Just note though that it doesn't necessarily mean I'm in favor of the status quo re drug prohibition. If it were up to me, I'd decrimanlize marijuana, with the only restriction being that limited liability entities, directly or indirectly, would be prohibited from manufacturing or selling it. That takes care of the concern, fairly legitimate in my eyes, that you'll be able to buy weed at your local Seven-Eleven in large quantities. For all other things, possession wihout intent to sell would not be a crime and would not rejquire any sort of government mandated rehabilitation, absent some other circumstances that I can't really think of right now.

To the main point though, the dramatic drop in violent crime over the past 25 years (or however long it has been) is the direct result of two things, first, increased access to abortion, and second, and more importantly, increasing incarceration rates, which are primarily the result of stepped up enforcement of drug laws. There's almost a perfect correlation between the two. It isn't a product of increased wealth or poverty since there has not been a spike in violent crime nationwide since 2008, as a lot of people predicted.

While we hear a lot about incarceration of "nonviolent" drug offenders, in reality a great many number of them, not all of them of course, especially the ones that get long prison sentences, are indeed violent people, that just isn't necessarily what they were convicted of. If you don't believe that, just notice that the decline of the mafia is directly the result of too many of them getting involved in selling drugs. Technically a lot of those people who got nailed for drug dealing might be classified as "nonviolent" offenders, but we all know that's not the case in reality. That doesn't even include people like Henry Hill who got nailed for drug dealing, and ratted out multiple violent gangsters that spent the rest of their lives in jail.

Well then you say, look at all the violence in Mexico, isn't that a result of drug prohibition. It is and it isn't. Yes, the violence is between warring factions in the drug trade, but drugs have always been illegal both in Mexico and in the markets where the drugs end up. The violence is so out of control because Mexico isn't a wealthy enough country to incarcerate as many people as the US, same with Venezuela, one of the most violent countries in the world, and which (I think) does not have the powerful drug cartels that Mexico or Columbia has had.

Again, I stress that this is not necessarily an endorsement of drug prohibition. I don't love the idea of getting violent people off the street by nailing them for something else, but sometimes that's what the result is, whether it's intended or not.

ADDENDUM: A good test of my theory will be to see what happens in California over the next five or ten years. The federal courts recently issued a shocking order to California to release something like 30 percent of it's prison population. Many of the people who are getting out are supposedly "nonviolent" drug offenders. At the same time, California will not have the space or the money to incarcerate as many people. Pot is also de facto legal in California. My bet is that the violent crime rate will increase noticeably.

Edited by Daniel, 12 October 2012 - 11:15 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#78 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,389 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:33 PM

, but I agree with Jimmy in the sense that I consider it a wasted vote and I do not want Romney in.

...because you love the way Obama handles the economy?

You got kids?
  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia

#79 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,801 posts

Posted 13 October 2012 - 12:19 AM

but I agree with Jimmy in the sense that I consider it a wasted vote and I do not want Romney in.


I will admit being naive about Johnson, but that is because I want Obama out, and I will not waste my vote.


And this is exactly why we continue in a downward spiral. As a country we constantly vote for bad candidates just to keep the person we dislike the most from winning. Do you guys seriously think Romney and Obama are that different? People don't even care how bad the person they are voting for is, as long as he's not the other guy. As long as people refuse to vote for better candidates, we continue to permit them to run the country into the ground as their only concern is advancing their careers as politicians and helping out their corporate cronies. America deserves better.

Edited by devilsfan26, 13 October 2012 - 02:20 AM.

  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#80 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,389 posts

Posted 13 October 2012 - 10:27 PM

I understand your frustration and I was just being honest. But the more I listen to and watch Romney, I like him. I prefer Newt first, but I would honestly vote for a park bench over Obama.
  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users