What percentage of US users on this site will vote for Obama even though this recession has hurt video game companies revenue because of declining game sales and a weak dollar? My guess is 85% at least.

Edited April 23, 201213 yr by Roxas Illini

What I'm saying is that if you vote you have a chance of changing things to how you would like them. Refusing to vote and complaining about politics is like turning down lottery winnings and complaining that you are poor.

 

Ehhh everything no matter what it was that people voted for messes something up ><

No, it's more like turning down lottery winnings that can be spent in a specific categories while losing out on other categories, and complaining that the way things are done aren't right.

 

A person has value just by existing, choosing not to do things does not exclude you from them. That's not fair, because ignoring things doesn't stop them from affecting your world. You shouldn't be morally penalized for choosing not to settle for something, if given the choice. This argument is as airtight as saying a person has no right to complain about music they don't like, because they didn't work to have that type of music exiled from their state/country.

 

It's a completely different matter when voting though. By refusing to vote, you are essentially refusing to take action. Every vote counts. Look at it this way. Say only one person votes, obviously that candidate is going to win. Wouldn't it be silly if the other people start complaining about who wins when they could of had a good chance at changing the tide of the election by simply voting?

 

Ehhh everything no matter what it was that people voted for messes something up ><

 

You have a better chance at teaching a dolphin Latin than finding a person that doesn't make mistakes.

It's a completely different matter when voting though. By refusing to vote, you are essentially refusing to take action. Every vote counts. Look at it this way. Say only one person votes, obviously that candidate is going to win. Wouldn't it be silly if the other people start complaining about who wins when they could of had a good chance at changing the tide of the election by simply voting?

 

That's all well and good if the person complains that another person won, and they want somebody else in, but what about people who don't want any of the potential candidates in? When it comes down to it, there are generally three possible elects, which eventually get narrowed to two (Usually because one is ESPECIALLY incompetent that year) if you agree with neither, being forced to vote for one is no longer expressing your opinion.

Yet if they choose to vote for one of the other, 'minor' parties, people will say you threw your vote away, or that you might as well have not voted.

So then you basically end up with this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvvYuO6zHM

they both suck

What I'm really sick of is the idea of how we vote. Why are there only a handful of 'real' parties?

 

It's mostly a money issue

to give you an idea:

http://askville.amazon.com/Average-cost-run-President/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=319221

What I personality want is a more moderate party instead of the two extreme parties that we have right now.

 

What I'm saying is that if you vote you have a chance of changing things to how you would like them. Refusing to vote and complaining about politics is like turning down lottery winnings and complaining that you are poor.

 

Thank you

 

Who here thinks we need to get some new people in the congress and get rid of lobbyist.

Thank you

 

Who here thinks we need to get some new people in the congress and get rid of lobbyist.

 

Ha ha, I remember back in 2008 Obama said he wanted to have a more transparent government and get rid of lobbyist. Two days after he got inaugurated, he met with a Lobbyist.

 

Though the idea sounds fantastic, I don't think we can ever get rid of lobbyist. They're too powerful and affluent.

Ha ha, I remember back in 2008 Obama said he wanted to have a more transparent government and get rid of lobbyist. Two days after he got inaugurated, he met with a Lobbyist.

 

Though the idea sounds fantastic, I don't think we can ever get rid of lobbyist. They're too powerful and affluent.

 

I'm well aware it's a pipe dream ^^; after all I don't think politicians would willing give up a good source of income.

I believe that less than 70% of users of these forums will vote for Obama because I believe that less than 70% of the users of these forums are even old enough to vote.

Even if everyone here was old enough to vote then my guess is that Obama still won't even come close to 70% of the people here (or 70% of people in any form of even remotely-distributed poll (i.e. not a disproportional amount of black people or of democrats))

 

As for who I'm voting for... I vote against Obama. Personally I support Ron Paul, and that's who I voted for in the primary. However, he will not win the primary (at this point does he even have a possibility of winning or has Romney already gained enough delegates?)

Since Ron Paul did not win the candidacy then I am forced to vote for Romney (as much as I don;t like Romney). Writing-in Ron Paul or voting for any third-party candidate is just throwing the vote away and will do little more than help Obama.

 

As for why I am against Obama... quite a few reasons actually.

One main issue is the abortion issue. I'm pro-life and Obama is the most pro-choice President in the entire history of the United States. Unfortunately for me, Romney isn't much better. Romney claims to be "pro-life"... but he really isn't, as can be seen by his voting record. He flip-flops every few years... seemingly only to gain votes. Even so, he's more "pro-life" than Obama.

Another issue is Obamacare... which I'm against. And again, unfortunately Romney has his own program called "Romneycare" which sounds just as bad as Obamacare.

Then there's the issue with that HHS contraception mandate (not sure if people here have heard about it or not... recently the liberal media has been... not reporting... various lawsuits against the mandate).

Basically he is forcing every employer to pay health insurance companies to provide their employees with free contraception. This is a huge violation of religious liberty, as Catholics (and some other religions as well) are opposed to some or all of the drugs covered by this mandate and the government forcing them to violate their beliefs and pay for this stuff anyway is prohibited by the first amendment. Yes, there is an "exemption" for certain Catholic organizations... but the exemption is so narrow / so specific in its criteria that most Catholic organizations are not exempted at all. If the government can violate freedom of religion in this instance, what's to stop them from doing so again (on a separate religious issue)? This is not just an issue for Catholics but an issue for every religion. And if the government can violate freedom of religion... then what's to stop them from violating another right... say freedom of speech? No longer is it a religious concern but a concern of constitutional rights / freedoms in general.

And even ignoring the constitutional aspect... I don't like the idea of forcing an employer to pay for anything at all. That is unnecessary government involvement in a company's business affairs.

And on top of all that, even if I thought it was okay for the government to require employers to pay for healthcare... contraception is not heathcare. It's a preventative action for a certain recreational activity (i.e. sex not used for reproductive purposes). Healthcare does not cover other such things... like paying for peoples's expensive sporting equipment which could prevent the user against injury (the possible injury is health-related, so why not?). As a matter of fact, heath insurance doesn't even fully cover a lot of actual health problems as it is.

 

As for the economy... I haven't noticed Obama doing anything to improve it (not that he caused the recession... which I don't believe. I also don't believe Bush caused it... I believe that it just happened. It was a direct result of banks loaning people too much money). But how to make it better? I follow the conservative theory behind economics (minimize government spending and minimize taxes) vs. the democrat one (keep government spending the same / increase it and tax the citizens more to cover the debt). Since Romney is more conservative then I'll assume he'll use a more conservative method.

Edited May 25, 201213 yr by Xenidal

I believe that less than 70% of users of these forums will vote for Obama because I believe that less than 70% of the users of these forums are even old enough to vote.

 

More like 70% if the users are from Australia.

Or one of the British Commonwealth, at least

More like 70% if the users are from Australia.

Or one of the British Commonwealth, at least

 

Yeah... that too.

I meant 70% of this board's American users probably aren't old enough to vote. No idea if that's true or not... but I figure probably at least half aren't... it could very well be 70%.

I spent two weeks listening to all of the political stuff at my grandfathers house and actually had an opinion about political stuff for once.

 

Then I came home and forgot it. I don't like anyone enough right now to vote for them.

Edited May 25, 201213 yr by AnsemTheWise

Vote Ron Paul- He will catch them all.