By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Election time, who did you vote for?

 

Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

Barack Obama 356 55.89%
 
Mitt Romney 137 21.51%
 
Gary Johnson 38 5.97%
 
Jill Stein 15 2.35%
 
Somebody else 87 13.66%
 
Total:633
dsgrue3 on 25 October 2012

Why should minimum wage keep up with inflation when salaries haven't recently?



Around the Network
gergroy on 25 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Why should minimum wage keep up with inflation when salaries haven't recently?


that is part of romneys modification to his position.  However, under normal circumstances, the two would probably mirror each other. increasing at similar rates.  



chocoloco on 25 October 2012

 

By the way, the popular vote still shows a lead for Romney. That does not matter as swing state polls are continually favoring Obama.



TheShape31 on 25 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
TheShape31 said:
@gergroy

I agree, this year none of the 3rd party candidates have a chance to win. But why do you think that is? A defeatist attitude has a little to do with it, but it's much more problematic than that. Think about the one and only time that a 3rd party candidate was allowed into the presidential debate. It was Ross Perot, the billionaire. If you can BUY yourself into the election then you have a chance. What does that say about the top two, who will only allow you to compete on the main stage if you're one of the richest 1%? What does that say about most of the country that votes for one of those two people? It shows a lack of credibility, honesty, and wisdom. I'll let you think about who owns each of those attributes.


To be fair.. Ross Perot was alowed into the debate because at one point he was actually freaking leading the national polls.


That's why he was allowed into the debates.


Yes, he was doing that well in the polls.  And what set him apart from any other 3rd party candidate since then?  Maybe it was the fact that he was a billionaire and was able to use that money to become publicly visible.  Money buys advertising, TV, and radio time.  Name one poor person (not raised poor, but poor during election time) that was in the running for president in U.S. history.  Elections = money.



gergroy on 25 October 2012
chocoloco said:

 

By the way, the popular vote still shows a lead for Romney. That does not matter as swing state polls are continually favoring Obama.

very true.  do you want my prediction of what will happen on election day?  electoral college speaking?

Obama 281 Romney 257

 

Romney will take florida, North carolina, Virginia, colorado, and every other red or lean red states.

Obama will take nevada, iowa, wisconsin, michigan, ohio, pensylvania, new hampshire, and ever other blue or lean blue state.  



Around the Network
GameOver22 on 25 October 2012
gergroy said:
richardhutnik said:
gergroy said:
I have been undecided mostly because i dislike all the choices. However, I have decided I am going to be one of those people that votes against somebody instead of for them. So i have decided to vote for Mitt Romney.

My reasons mostly stem from the early portion of Obamas term when he had a super majority in congress. The economy was in the tank and instead of working on that, he pushed for healthcare that ultimately ends up being a large tax on small businesses. He also didnt bother with bipartisan efforts during this time either.

Basically, I dont like how obama handled his term, and im not a fan of Romney, but I think it I would rather see somebody else get a chance then another term of Obama.

A little caveat here, I live in Utah so my vote doesnt actually matter. Utah will go for romney by over 70%...

You do realize Obama had a super majority in congress less than 90 days, right?


I am aware that he had only about 5 months in the senate, yes.  two years in the house though.  During those 5 months, what did Obama do?  Affordable care act, one of the worst bills that could have possibly been signed in the middle of a recession.  Followed up the next year with Dodd-Frank (which while good intentioned, was poorly written and ended up hurting way more than helping).  

Like I said, I really did not like the way Obama handled the time when he had the supermajority.  

I think he's responding to your claim earlier that Obama had two years in which he could ignore republican filibusters:

"Ok, you must not understand how a supermajority works.  You see, democrats had enough members in congress to ignore republican fillibusters.  Obama had two years of that when our economy was at its worst and what did he do?  He passed a healthcare plan that ends up being a huge tax on small business.  That is not how you get out of an economic mess, that is how you make it worse."

Filibusters happen in the Senate, not the House, so a House supermajority will not stop a filibuster.



chocoloco on 25 October 2012
gergroy said:
chocoloco said:

 

By the way, the popular vote still shows a lead for Romney. That does not matter as swing state polls are continually favoring Obama.

very true.  do you want my prediction of what will happen on election day?  electoral college speaking?

Obama 281 Romney 257

 

Romney will take florida, North carolina, Virginia, colorado, and every other red or lean red states.

Obama will take nevada, iowa, wisconsin, michigan, ohio, pensylvania, new hampshire, and ever other blue or lean blue state.  

Seems like a fair estimate. Virginia and Colorado are really the biggest question marks. I simply have seen nothing, but positive news concerning Obama and Ohio. Since Ohio is quite simply almost the path to victory I do not see Romney winning. Obama's main goal will be to win the midwest and almost everything shows he will be doing it.

Anyways, I will keep the polls coming good or bad. I am not here to debate or argue, rather to inform.



GameOver22 on 25 October 2012
TheShape31 said:
Kasz216 said:
TheShape31 said:
@gergroy

I agree, this year none of the 3rd party candidates have a chance to win. But why do you think that is? A defeatist attitude has a little to do with it, but it's much more problematic than that. Think about the one and only time that a 3rd party candidate was allowed into the presidential debate. It was Ross Perot, the billionaire. If you can BUY yourself into the election then you have a chance. What does that say about the top two, who will only allow you to compete on the main stage if you're one of the richest 1%? What does that say about most of the country that votes for one of those two people? It shows a lack of credibility, honesty, and wisdom. I'll let you think about who owns each of those attributes.


To be fair.. Ross Perot was alowed into the debate because at one point he was actually freaking leading the national polls.


That's why he was allowed into the debates.


Yes, he was doing that well in the polls.  And what set him apart from any other 3rd party candidate since then?  Maybe it was the fact that he was a billionaire and was able to use that money to become publicly visible.  Money buys advertising, TV, and radio time.  Name one poor person (not raised poor, but poor during election time) that was in the running for president in U.S. history.  Elections = money.

Sadly, there's some truth to that. WIthout money, a campaign is never going to get off the ground, and third parties are not going to be able to generate the donations to make a viable run at the presidency. The only way a third party would have a chance is if the candidate had huge amounts of personal money.

Needless to say, Perot's candidacy was strange. I mean, he essentially dropped out of the race for the whole summer.



gergroy on 25 October 2012
TheShape31 said:
Kasz216 said:
TheShape31 said:
@gergroy

I agree, this year none of the 3rd party candidates have a chance to win. But why do you think that is? A defeatist attitude has a little to do with it, but it's much more problematic than that. Think about the one and only time that a 3rd party candidate was allowed into the presidential debate. It was Ross Perot, the billionaire. If you can BUY yourself into the election then you have a chance. What does that say about the top two, who will only allow you to compete on the main stage if you're one of the richest 1%? What does that say about most of the country that votes for one of those two people? It shows a lack of credibility, honesty, and wisdom. I'll let you think about who owns each of those attributes.


To be fair.. Ross Perot was alowed into the debate because at one point he was actually freaking leading the national polls.


That's why he was allowed into the debates.


Yes, he was doing that well in the polls.  And what set him apart from any other 3rd party candidate since then?  Maybe it was the fact that he was a billionaire and was able to use that money to become publicly visible.  Money buys advertising, TV, and radio time.  Name one poor person (not raised poor, but poor during election time) that was in the running for president in U.S. history.  Elections = money.

that would make sense if that is what Perot did.  At the end of the day, perot only used about 12 million of his own money.  Perot was a popular candidate who aquired the support based on his own ideas and platform.  



chocoloco on 25 October 2012

Fox News VA
Romney 46
Obama 44