Yeah, but I was thinking about the the idea that left means wanting a big government with high taxes and much regulation while right wanting a small government with low taxes and little to no regulation. That scale doesnt accomodate anarchists very well.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which presidential candidate are you voting for in the 2012 election and why?
- Thread starter Mr. Skittles
- Start date
I am voting for Mitt Romney because this election should be about the economy and who is best qualified to get folks back to work and put a little scratch In our pocket.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It is strange, but in the UK the Conservatives are the party of "Business"
However businesses always do better under Labour.
People do better under labour.
Only international corporations and money men do better under the conservatives as they largely manage to avoid paying taxes...
However businesses always do better under Labour.
People do better under labour.
Only international corporations and money men do better under the conservatives as they largely manage to avoid paying taxes...
Yeah same boat all around. Though i might vote obama if its close in my district.
I've never quite understood throw-away protest votes. The implication (in this case) seems to be that who ends up in the White House is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Perhaps you weren't here to see the improvement when we switched from Carter to Reagan.
I'd much prefer Romney to Obama, but I also want to advance the Libertarian Party.
I'm still torn, because Obama's policies are wrecking the economy, & I doubt that he's even aware of it.
... or that it's less relevant than it is to send a message to the law-makers that one particular set of positions really matters to you.
For many people, I think the hope is that, for instance, the Democrats will look at the results and say "hey! Look at all those people voting for the Greens! If we strengthened our environmental position, we might be able to get them to vote for us!" ... and in the process, you might be able to influence governmental policy more than just voting for the Democrats in the first place.
Also, I think a fair number of people are thinking long-term, voting for a party that they know won't win this election in the hope that their support will help the party build to that "critical mass" when other voters will see them as real contenders and vote for them instead of voting strategically.
Edit: also, I've been in the situation before where one candidate was a virtual lock and no other candidate had a realistic chance of winning. In these cases, voting for the second-place candidate wouldn't do anything to change the results, so I just vote for the party whose policies I most closely agree with.
Edit 2: another reason, though I'm not sure if this works with American rules: in some places, a party gets benefits based on how many votes they receive regardless of whether they win. Up here in Canada, I've known many people who have voted for fringe parties and candidates specifically to help them get to the threshold where they receive government funding.
Last edited:
That's often the case here in MI, which is an electoral college winner-take-all state.
It's rather discouraging when one side (usually Dem) has a lock on the win, so my vote cannot matter.
Which presidential candidate are you voting for in the 2012 election and why?
I will vote for Mitt Romney because Mr. Romney, like me, believes that free market capitalism is the road to prosperity amd economic health for rhe U.S. This is in stark contrast to Mr. Obama who is an anti-capitalist and seeks to remodel the U.S. in the image of European style social democracy. He is an enemy of individual liberty and the U.S. Constitution. He said so himself. In the internationsl arena we need a president who does not insult and alienate friendly nations and try to schmooz with our enemies and go around making apologies for America. Four more years of Mr. Obama will turn the U.S. into an economic basket case ala Greece, Italy, Portigal, etc, etc.
I will vote for Mitt Romney because Mr. Romney, like me, believes that free market capitalism is the road to prosperity amd economic health for rhe U.S. This is in stark contrast to Mr. Obama who is an anti-capitalist and seeks to remodel the U.S. in the image of European style social democracy. He is an enemy of individual liberty and the U.S. Constitution. He said so himself. In the internationsl arena we need a president who does not insult and alienate friendly nations and try to schmooz with our enemies and go around making apologies for America. Four more years of Mr. Obama will turn the U.S. into an economic basket case ala Greece, Italy, Portigal, etc, etc.
I find this interesting, seeing how Romney's trip to London for the Olympics ended up with him getting the new nickname "the American Borat".
I think that's a valid point. I just think that "less relevant" is rarely the case and very often one can find more responsible ways to send the message.
This makes sense only when voting for the Greens does not result in the victory of a candidate that is less environmentally friendly than the Democrats.
While perhaps reasonable in countries where new yet viable parties come and go all the time, but when has that worked in the US?
Interesting points. Thanks.
America has nothing for which to apologize? Dang we're good!
Do you have any proof that republican policies tend to do that? The trend seems to show the opposite to me.
1998, when Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota while running for the Reform Party.
Third party candidates were elected to the US House of Representatives right up until the early 50s.
There are two independents sitting in the US Senate right now.
Also, you can look to other countries to see what's possible. When they realize in the US what was realized in Canada - that first-past-the-post systems favour small parties when those parties are strongly regional - you may very well see American equivalents to the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party (the Canadian one, which was largely Alberta-based in its support).
Yes, we are good; not perfect but pretty darn good. Ask yourself a question: Whenever there's trouble anywhere in the world like earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, etc, who's the first on the scene with medicine, food, blankets, doctors, amd all sorts of relief? Is it China? Russia? Saudia Arabia? Syria? England? France? No? Give up?
How does doing good things absolve one from apologizing when one does bad things?
Yes, it's true; Romney committed a gaffe. Do you know what a gaffe is? A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.
And what horrible bad things have we done that need apologizing for? (Let him who is without sin cast the first stone).
Look at the history of the world over the last 100 years or so. Any place where socialism, Marxism or any of its variations have been tried and the result is wealth destruction, economic ruin, poverty and misery. On tbe other hand where free market capitalism has been the rule, prosperity has been the result. The Republican party is supposed to favor free market capitalism. True, they strayed from the course during the Bush, Jr. years. Hopefully they've learned from that mistake. Obama, on the other hand, is an inflexible leftist who believes that the answer to every problem is to raise taxes on the rich. I do agree that if Obama has his way, the disparity between rich and poor will be eliminated; just as it's been eliminated in Cuba and North Korea where everyone is dirt poor. Oh yes, they get free medical care...........but they have nothing to eat!!!