Who Will You Be Voting For This November

[tkthafm]

voting ?
 

 

[gg23]

To anyone who chooses to abstain from voting, why even bother living here? Go move to a country where you don't have that privilege and see how much more you like it.

I met a kid, an exchange student, from Iran who spent months fighting for a visa to study at my school and I asked him about all that personally went on there with Mir Hussain and Ahmadinejad. He said troves of people came out to vote for Mir but he wasn't put into power and its political system is really as backwards as the media makes it seems. On top of that, Ahmadinejad doesn't have much of a say in policy, the supreme leader does so Ahmadinejad is more of just a figurehead. But despite all of this, he said the situation here is worse and not because our government is as corrupt as some people make it seem, but because people have the ability to vote and be politically active here, but they choose not to. You have the ability to go out and change who is in power in our country if you don't like them, but you choose to abstain and then complain about the people in power. Grow up, do your part and go vote.

In terms of who has my vote, Obama. I can't #*%! with a party that wants to do away with funding for me to go to school, or the EPA, or woman's rights, or universal healthcare, or evolution, or social security, or medicare. If you give people an opportunity to thrive, they will and I don't believe conservative policies give anyone who isn't already thriving an opportunity to better themselves.

 

[amrcangangstr]

Originally Posted by FlipnKraut

Originally Posted by Essential1

The problem with a close election without an electoral college is it will be contested for months if not a year.. Electoral college allows for a closer examination of a state, not entire 100million + votes... If you have popular vote, and say it is as close as Bush v. Gore, you can contest individual voting districts anywhere in the country, so long as you can provide sufficient evidence... It would be an arduous task of !%++*!%+.. Districts where a republic won 75% of the vote, can be challenged, and recounted as winning only 74% of the vote, which every vote counts. The turn around from election to inauguration is 2 and a half months, so there is not even enough time to go through the procedural mess it would cause.

What the electoral college is... is 53 winner take all elections (including D.C., Nebraska and Maine each have a separate electoral vote for a single district), the winner of that state or 1 District wins the electoral votes... View it as 53 popular vote races, culminating in a weighed voting system (Electoral College), where the size of each state determines its importance. (It doesn't violate the "one-man, one-vote" provision of the Constitution, like the Board of Estimate in 1989, therefore it is legal)...

It has its flaws, but so does popular vote.. And where the flaws exist is the review process.

Except thats not true at all. Electoral votes are redistributed from the large states to the small states so that states that really should only get 1 vote get either 3 or 4 electoral votes. For example, Cali has 10 less votes than it should by size, and Texas has 6 less than it should, because those votes were given to smaller states like Wyoming. A person from Wyomings vote actually counts as much as 4 Texans votes because of this redistribution of votes.
And because of this, you can actually win an election, receiving 50.1% of the electoral vote, but only receiving something like 26% of the popular vote.

^ This.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by FlipnKraut

Originally Posted by Essential1

The problem with a close election without an electoral college is it will be contested for months if not a year.. Electoral college allows for a closer examination of a state, not entire 100million + votes... If you have popular vote, and say it is as close as Bush v. Gore, you can contest individual voting districts anywhere in the country, so long as you can provide sufficient evidence... It would be an arduous task of !%++*!%+.. Districts where a republic won 75% of the vote, can be challenged, and recounted as winning only 74% of the vote, which every vote counts. The turn around from election to inauguration is 2 and a half months, so there is not even enough time to go through the procedural mess it would cause.

What the electoral college is... is 53 winner take all elections (including D.C., Nebraska and Maine each have a separate electoral vote for a single district), the winner of that state or 1 District wins the electoral votes... View it as 53 popular vote races, culminating in a weighed voting system (Electoral College), where the size of each state determines its importance. (It doesn't violate the "one-man, one-vote" provision of the Constitution, like the Board of Estimate in 1989, therefore it is legal)...

It has its flaws, but so does popular vote.. And where the flaws exist is the review process.

Except thats not true at all. Electoral votes are redistributed from the large states to the small states so that states that really should only get 1 vote get either 3 or 4 electoral votes. For example, Cali has 10 less votes than it should by size, and Texas has 6 less than it should, because those votes were given to smaller states like Wyoming. A person from Wyomings vote actually counts as much as 4 Texans votes because of this redistribution of votes.
And because of this, you can actually win an election, receiving 50.1% of the electoral vote, but only receiving something like 26% of the popular vote.

Number of electoral votes is determined by # of senators  + # of House of Reps .

Each state has 2 senators.. So every state is equal..

Texas has 36 representative, Wyoming 1.

That's why Texas has 38 electoral votes, Wyoming 3.

And House of Reps amount per state... Is determined by..... Population because they are not allowed to represent a population over a certain size..

It is determined by population, you just like to find a technicality of it.

 

[amrcangangstr]

Originally Posted by GG23

To anyone who chooses to abstain from voting, why even bother living here? Go move to a country where you don't have that privilege and see how much more you like it.

I met a kid, an exchange student, from Iran who spent months fighting for a visa to study at my school and I asked him about all that personally went on there with Mir Hussain and Ahmadinejad. He said troves of people came out to vote for Mir but he wasn't put into power and its political system is really as backwards as the media makes it seems. On top of that, Ahmadinejad doesn't have much of a say in policy, the supreme leader does so Ahmadinejad is more of just a figurehead. But despite all of this, he said the situation here is worse and not because our government is as corrupt as some people make it seem, but because people have the ability to vote and be politically active here, but they choose not to. You have the ability to go out and change who is in power in our country if you don't like them, but you choose to abstain and then complain about the people in power. Grow up, do your part and go vote.

In terms of who has my vote, Obama. I can't #*%! with a party that wants to do away with funding for me to go to school, or the EPA, or woman's rights, or universal healthcare, or evolution, or social security, or medicare. If you give people an opportunity to thrive, they will and I don't believe conservative policies give anyone who isn't already thriving an opportunity to better themselves.

You are right. We do have a choice: Coke and Coke Zero.

Both parties have embraced neoliberalism.

 

[Peep Game]

Originally Posted by WhatsLosinLike

Originally Posted by heatking

If obama wins ...

deff wont be living in the USA any more.
his outlook on tax's is almost like a dictatorship. take from the rich and give to the poor **@%@@++.
i dont work my @+* off to stack paper to give it to the government.
poor people don't employ people, people with money employ people, so how we gonna employ more people when we struggling just to pay taxes

k bye

It's hilarious when people say stuff like that. I bet dude was one of those people who went and loaded up at the gun store when Obama came into office.

 

[an dee 51o]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRedStorm

Since our candidates are basically set, it looks like I'm leaning towards Mitt Romney unless Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate. I can't dig Obama's tax rules. They do absolutely nothing to help the deficit or spur economic growth. Plus he wants to raise the dividend tax and capital games. As a retail investor and middle class dweller I am appalled. Romney Reform 2012

JRS, c'mon dude.

Think about what would happen if all three executive branches were possibly run by the Republicans. I know you are open-minded, so I don't know why you'd vote for this guy. Rights and civil liberties... right out the window. I can imagine some V For Vendetta type stuff going on.

 

[flipnkraut]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by FlipnKraut

Originally Posted by Essential1

The problem with a close election without an electoral college is it will be contested for months if not a year.. Electoral college allows for a closer examination of a state, not entire 100million + votes... If you have popular vote, and say it is as close as Bush v. Gore, you can contest individual voting districts anywhere in the country, so long as you can provide sufficient evidence... It would be an arduous task of !%++*!%+.. Districts where a republic won 75% of the vote, can be challenged, and recounted as winning only 74% of the vote, which every vote counts. The turn around from election to inauguration is 2 and a half months, so there is not even enough time to go through the procedural mess it would cause.



What the electoral college is... is 53 winner take all elections (including D.C., Nebraska and Maine each have a separate electoral vote for a single district), the winner of that state or 1 District wins the electoral votes... View it as 53 popular vote races, culminating in a weighed voting system (Electoral College), where the size of each state determines its importance. (It doesn't violate the "one-man, one-vote" provision of the Constitution, like the Board of Estimate in 1989, therefore it is legal)...



It has its flaws, but so does popular vote.. And where the flaws exist is the review process.

Except thats not true at all. Electoral votes are redistributed from the large states to the small states so that states that really should only get 1 vote get either 3 or 4 electoral votes. For example, Cali has 10 less votes than it should by size, and Texas has 6 less than it should, because those votes were given to smaller states like Wyoming. A person from Wyomings vote actually counts as much as 4 Texans votes because of this redistribution of votes.

And because of this, you can actually win an election, receiving 50.1% of the electoral vote, but only receiving something like 26% of the popular vote.

Number of electoral votes is determined by # of senators  + # of House of Reps senators.

Each state has 2 senators.. So every state is equal..

Texas has 36 representative, Wyoming 1.

That's why Texas has 38 electoral votes, Wyoming 3.

And House of Reps amount per state... Is determined by..... Population because they are not allowed to represent a population over a certain size..

It is determined by population, you just like to find a technicality of it.

I dont see how that benefited your argument. You just proved mine.
Because of those 2 extra electoral votes, a voter from Wyoming has more voting power than a voter from Texas. Do the math.

 

[DrizzyNYC]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by jordan supreme

Romney.

I can't stand what Obama's trying to do with the new tax policies (especially when it comes to capital gains tax)
and his deficit spending has got us nowhere... our debt is out of control (which i don't solely blame Obama for) but
IMO Romney is much more of an expert when it comes to fixing the economy...

I also don't agree with Obama's healthcare policy at all

Ya'll talking this capital gains stuff like ya'll got real investments.  Capital gains aren't going to affect ya'll $1,000 Scottrade accounts.

This NTers know they don't got 250,000 in investments to be affected....

 

[deleted]

Originally Posted by GG23

To anyone who chooses to abstain from voting, why even bother living here? Go move to a country where you don't have that privilege and see how much more you like it.

Because I can.

If you don't like the fact that it's not required to vote why don't YOU move to a country with compulsory voting?

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

Originally Posted by heatking

Originally Posted by kdawg

Originally Posted by cguy610

You haven't made a clear argument for why you favor Romney.  You said that you don't think Obama's policies would cut the deficit or grow the economy.  Then you started talking about capital gains and dividend tax rates.

Is that the only thing your vote is based on, capital gains and dividend tax rates?

It is frightening how many people vote Republican in the hope that those tax policies will benefit them when they become rich - and even more so in the Southern States where a lot of those voters are poor. The Republicans don't even look out for the middle class - you have to make a lot more money than that for their policies to benefit you.

the tax policies apply to people who make 250k+ i believe.
250k aint @@*$ bro. 

Yet the avg yearly income in this country isn't even 40K.
Basically the vast majority of idiots voting for politicians who support these tax policies will NEVER see the benefits from them. 

 

[DrizzyNYC]

Originally Posted by Peep Game

Originally Posted by WhatsLosinLike

Originally Posted by heatking

If obama wins ...

deff wont be living in the USA any more.
his outlook on tax's is almost like a dictatorship. take from the rich and give to the poor **@%@@++.
i dont work my @+* off to stack paper to give it to the government.
poor people don't employ people, people with money employ people, so how we gonna employ more people when we struggling just to pay taxes

k bye

It's hilarious when people say stuff like that. I bet dude was one of those people who went and loaded up at the gun store when Obama came into office.

Worst part is people who be complaining about tax policies be making like 20k a year smh....

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by FlipnKraut

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by FlipnKraut



Except thats not true at all. Electoral votes are redistributed from the large states to the small states so that states that really should only get 1 vote get either 3 or 4 electoral votes. For example, Cali has 10 less votes than it should by size, and Texas has 6 less than it should, because those votes were given to smaller states like Wyoming. A person from Wyomings vote actually counts as much as 4 Texans votes because of this redistribution of votes.

And because of this, you can actually win an election, receiving 50.1% of the electoral vote, but only receiving something like 26% of the popular vote.

Number of electoral votes is determined by # of senators  + # of House of Reps senators.

Each state has 2 senators.. So every state is equal..

Texas has 36 representative, Wyoming 1.

That's why Texas has 38 electoral votes, Wyoming 3.

And House of Reps amount per state... Is determined by..... Population because they are not allowed to represent a population over a certain size..

It is determined by population, you just like to find a technicality of it.

I dont see how that benefited your argument. You just proved mine.
Because of those 2 extra electoral votes, a voter from Wyoming has more voting power than a voter from Texas. Do the math.

So since the U.S. Senate is wildly unrepresentative, what is your course of action...

The U.S. Senate  was created to keep states like Wyoming from being irrelevant in every way, and have a voice... The House of Representatives is "the people's house" because it is based broadly representation on population size.. And would be unconstitutional if it were not for the House of Reps being the check and balance... It goes to the House of Reps first so it is a more apt representation of the public.. And the Senate is then where it is up for debate where each vote is heard equally, because a state like Wyoming would have no say in the government if it only existed in the House of Reps, and not the Senate as well..

The Electoral College is the exact combination..

It is based on exact representation in the U.S. legislature...  And the larger states have power because of their larger EC vote size.. It is called proportional representation.

Your argument would be correct, if their wasn't a weighted voting system, determined by the addition of the House of Reps. seats per states.

But since it is so vastly unconstitutional to the "one man-one vote principle" of the 14th Amendment, go sue and bring it to the Supreme Court  like was done to the NYC Board of Estimates in the 1980s successfully..

 

[essential1]

Regardless, as the election sits today (which will UNDOUBTEDLY change).. Romney is running the same race as McCain..

Same states are up for grabs as were in 2008 (with the addition of Arizona, carried by Republicans)..

If Romney wants to win... HE BETTER PRAY this map is not similar to this at the end of October going into November. Because he will lose big, because it is too many states to run in, too much ground to make up..

Republicans would need to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virgina & Florida to win this year  if they give up Southwestern states like NM, NV, Colorado  and possibly Arizona.. And if that is predicament for Republicans (which seems likely because the Hispanic vote will swing the vote in the SW), the election is going to Obama.

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

Originally Posted by heatking

Originally Posted by kdawg



It is frightening how many people vote Republican in the hope that those tax policies will benefit them when they become rich - and even more so in the Southern States where a lot of those voters are poor. The Republicans don't even look out for the middle class - you have to make a lot more money than that for their policies to benefit you.

the tax policies apply to people who make 250k+ i believe.
250k aint @@*$ bro. 

Yet the avg yearly income in this country isn't even 40K.
Basically the vast majority of idiots voting for politicians who support these tax policies will NEVER see the benefits from them. 

Exactly. And I feel a bit sorry for anyone who thinks that 250k "aint @@*$".

 

[gg23]

Originally Posted by PLVN

Originally Posted by GG23

To anyone who chooses to abstain from voting, why even bother living here? Go move to a country where you don't have that privilege and see how much more you like it.

Because I can.

If you don't like the fact that it's not required to vote why don't YOU move to a country with compulsory voting?

People died so we can live in a country that has this freedom.  Personally, I think its naive to not vote, when they're people dying everyday for this right in other countries.  But fine, you can choose not vote, just don't be one of the people who complains how the government does you wrong when you know you have an opportunity to influence it.

 

[Senoj]

Originally Posted by thisizdray

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by jordan supreme

Romney.

I can't stand what Obama's trying to do with the new tax policies (especially when it comes to capital gains tax)
and his deficit spending has got us nowhere... our debt is out of control (which i don't solely blame Obama for) but
IMO Romney is much more of an expert when it comes to fixing the economy...

I also don't agree with Obama's healthcare policy at all

Ya'll talking this capital gains stuff like ya'll got real investments.  Capital gains aren't going to affect ya'll $1,000 Scottrade accounts.

This NTers know they don't got 250,000 in investments to be affected....

Seriously. Dude obviously needs to lay off the fox news. Taxes are the lowest they've been in many years. Americans, especially more wealthy ones have been spoiled these past 10 years. We've been in Iraq and Afghanistan and not one tax payer has felt the hurt in their wallet because we haven't had to pay for it. No one wants higher taxes but we all want our gov't to do something about the debt.

People are truly brainwashed by their party/media. Especially when they say things like 'Mitt Romney is an expert on the economy'.

Mitt Romney doesn't give a damn about you or anyone else who isn't one of his millionaire/billionaire donors. The fact that he says he agrees with the Ryan Budget Plan says a lot about him.

 

[bandit country]

Originally Posted by an dee 51o

Originally Posted by JohnnyRedStorm

Since our candidates are basically set, it looks like I'm leaning towards Mitt Romney unless Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate. I can't dig Obama's tax rules. They do absolutely nothing to help the deficit or spur economic growth. Plus he wants to raise the dividend tax and capital games. As a retail investor and middle class dweller I am appalled. Romney Reform 2012

JRS, c'mon dude.

Think about what would happen if all three executive branches were possibly run by the Republicans. I know you are open-minded, so I don't know why you'd vote for this guy. Rights and civil liberties... right out the window. I can imagine some V For Vendetta type stuff going on.

Uncle Barry has an appalling record on civil liberties. Chappelle was ahead of his time with that black Bush skit.

 

[Mark Antony]

C'MON NT, THIS IS A PERSONAL ISSUE, FALL BACK!!! So i'm %#!!#+* my wife in her !@@ right...

 

[winged wheel]

The people lose no matter who wins this election.

 

[remix]

why would anyone vote for romney...i dont understand

 

[taymane23]

JRS bruh I'm surprised that you would even be concerned with politics considering all the stuff you post in the mind blown thread.

 

[shaunhillftw49]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Regardless, as the election sits today (which will UNDOUBTEDLY change).. Romney is running the same race as McCain..

Same states are up for grabs as were in 2008 (with the addition of Arizona, carried by Republicans)..

If Romney wants to win... HE BETTER PRAY this map is not similar to this at the end of October going into November. Because he will lose big, because it is too many states to run in, too much ground to make up..

Republicans would need to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virgina & Florida to win this year  if they give up Southwestern states like NM, NV, Colorado  and possibly Arizona.. And if that is predicament for Republicans (which seems likely because the Hispanic vote will swing the vote in the SW), the election is going to Obama.

New Mexico and Nevada elected Hispanic Republican Gov's in 2010 so it's not entirely a valid argument.
Rubio could very well be a key player

 

[lilpro4u]

Not voting, and most likely never will again in a U.S. Presidential election.

 

[deleted]

Originally Posted by GG23

People died so we can live in a country that has this freedom.  Personally, I think its naive to not vote, when they're people dying everyday for this right in other countries.  But fine, you can choose not vote, just don't be one of the people who complains how the government does you wrong when you know you have an opportunity to influence it.

You're being hypocritical.

People died for my right to choose.

To me it's naive to think that if you're given an OPTION between 2 choices you should only choose one.