NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I'm torn on who to vote for this November. Like more than a few of you, I threw my vote away and voted for RP in the primary, and i'm having a hard time committing to any one candidate. Who are you voting for?

I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich in November.

I will relectuantly be voting for john mccain. =/
I don't like my choices. Can we mulligan our candidates?

I'm leaning Barr, but his history and change-of-heart have me worried.

Maraque: Is Kucinich even running?

Sorry, I voted in this poll but didn't vote for the waste of oxygen named Ron Paul. That aside, I'm torn with this election. Get kicked in the left nut or the right one. Well, I live in Texas and McCain is going to win here so I'll just stay home. I would plug my nose and vote for him if I were to vote. It's sad that it's come to the choice once again of "Democrat or Communist"

I simply will not vote this year. Let America screw itself over. <_<

I don't understand - someone on the internet told me that Ron Paul had millions of supporters and was going to win the nomination. Surely they weren't talking rubbish?

I can't vote in the US of A, but I'd probably support Barr.

well i wish mckenny and nader had real chances, i'd almost certainly vote green if i though they did. as it is, obama it will just have to be. now if everyone who DOESN'T vote, because they believe, rightly or wrongly that their doing so doesn't count, voted for the 'third party' of their choice, i think that would be very interesting and something i'd like to see. if all third parties togather, were to capture fully a third of the vote, or more, then i would feel that i could actually vote for whoever came clossest to my own possition on issues that are what i care about.

i just wish there wasn't such a low least common denominator obama has to appeal to in order to get elected.

Is Nader really Natural Law Party, them of the yogic flying?

I'd be voting for Bob Barr.

Is Nader really Natural Law Party, them of the yogic flying?
Even weirder, they once endorsed Dennis Kucinich.

well i wish mckenny and nader had real chances, i'd almost certainly vote green if i though they did. as it is, obama it will just have to be. now if everyone who DOESN'T vote, because they believe, rightly or wrongly that their doing so doesn't count, voted for the 'third party' of their choice, i think that would be very interesting and something i'd like to see. if all third parties togather, were to capture fully a third of the vote, or more, then i would feel that i could actually vote for whoever came clossest to my own possition on issues that are what i care about.

i just wish there wasn't such a low least common denominator obama has to appeal to in order to get elected.
There's something more than just 'having a chance' that goes into your vote for something like the Green party. First of all, if everyone who felt they were the better choice but self selected out of voting for them, they'd be a lot more viable.

Second, and this goes especially for someone like you who lives in a fairly 'safe' location, in that it is more than likely going to go for Obama almost regardless. If the Green party reaches a threshold, I believe it's 15% of the vote, they become eligible for federal funds and then have the same kind of money to compete as the major parties. If you think they're the better choice, or you just want more choices, you have to vote for them.

Is Nader really Natural Law Party, them of the yogic flying?

Nope, but he has got two influential punks rockers on his side. That's got to count for something.

There's something more than just 'having a chance' that goes into your vote for something like the Green party. First of all, if everyone who felt they were the better choice but self selected out of voting for them, they'd be a lot more viable.

Second, and this goes especially for someone like you who lives in a fairly 'safe' location, in that it is more than likely going to go for Obama almost regardless. If the Green party reaches a threshold, I believe it's 15% of the vote, they become eligible for federal funds and then have the same kind of money to compete as the major parties. If you think they're the better choice, or you just want more choices, you have to vote for them.

I totally agree. Your vote doesn't matter in context, the reason you should vote is because it's the right thing to do. And if you're doing it because it's the right thing to do, you should go with what you believe is the best option. Maybe you might make an exception for very localised voting where it may come down to a few votes but otherwise tactical voting that entails trying to bridge a gap of a 100,000 with one vote doesn't seem very tactical.

well i wish mckenny and nader had real chances, i'd almost certainly vote green if i though they did. as it is, obama it will just have to be.

Why are you voting for the "winner?" While we as humans don't like to be wrong, if you like McKenny/Nader more than the Obamarama, why not vote for McKenny/Nader? The point of an election isn't to be right or wrong, its to vote for who you like the most. Shit, if I wanted to vote for the winner in the primaries, I wouldn't have voted for RP!

Maraque: Is Kucinich even running?He dropped out, but I'm writing his name in.

I intend to vote for Wayne Allyn Root.

The point of an election isn't to be right or wrong, its to vote for who you like the most.
That's the ideal, but sometimes the need to field an opposition arises. If the most popular candidate in an election stated that they would start a nuclear war soon after appointment, and you didn't want a nuclear war, wouldn't it be reasonable to vote for the second-most popular candidate to reduce the chances of that event coming to pass?

John McCain and Sarah Palin all the way! Very please with McCain's choice.

McCain by a long shot.

VOTE! If you dislike the major parties as much as I do, it's even more important to get out and vote for a third-party candidate. We won't get real change if we keep deciding between D, R, or not voting. I will vote for Baldwin.

So i'm kinda curious; why are you former RP voters voting for you are? Isn't McCain a neocon warhawk imperialist? Isn't Obama going to raise taxes and build the largest government bureaucracy in history?

Well, I'm torn on who to vote for this November. Like more than a few of you, I threw my vote away and voted for RP in the primary, and i'm having a hard time committing to any one candidate. Who are you voting for?

I'm voting for the one candidate who is flexable on the issues. GUMBY and his VP running mate, Pokey!

There's no choice. Obama is a quasi-commie who rarely takes a break from worshiping USSR to try copy-pasting it by bits to USA, and McCain is a warmongering fascist, dreaming to go the way of Kohr-Ah, his past matching.

If it were possible, I'd vote for expulsion of Washington, D.C. out of the United States, since that would be the least evil (come on, state governments can manage). Sadly, none of these quasi-commies is even a real communist, since communism at least has positive traits to it; USSR-style fake socialism doesn't. Currently, it's really a choice between Soviet warmongers and Soviet socialists... well, basically a choice between USSR and USSR.

If I liked either of these two, I'd be long living in Cuba.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm really torn on this issue. The Obama ticket seems to be better on social issues, but McCain has a stronger economic platform. Of course, further compounding matters is that Obama is too liberal on abortion for me and McCain too conservative on gay rights...

I think I may have to classify myself as "undecided" instead.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm really torn on this issue. The Obama ticket seems to be better on social issues, but McCain has a stronger economic platform. Of course, further compounding matters is that Obama is too liberal on abortion for me and McCain too conservative on gay rights...

I think I may have to classify myself as "undecided" instead.
Wait wait wait wait wait.

What kind of Libertarian reckons that the government should have jurisdiction over the actions of the human body?

Wait wait wait wait wait.

What kind of Libertarian reckons that the government should have jurisdiction over the actions of the human body?

Not all ;ibertarians support abolishing all state control over everything; there are as many different stripes of the concept of "libertarianism" as there are any other political ideology. There's a world of difference between personal freedom and anarchy, and as a result of that I feel that there are certain ethical lines that have to be drawn on abortion. The issue is where those lines are to be drawn, not whether they should exist or not.

Remember, Ron Paul was staunchly anti-abortion and felt it should be left up to the states, not completely left alone.

but McCain has a stronger economic platform.

that's not true even according to capitalism apologist economists

There's no choice. Obama is a quasi-commie who rarely takes a break from worshiping USSR to try copy-pasting it by bits to USA, and McCain is a warmongering fascist, dreaming to go the way of Kohr-Ah, his past matching.

If it were possible, I'd vote for expulsion of Washington, D.C. out of the United States, since that would be the least evil (come on, state governments can manage). Sadly, none of these quasi-commies is even a real communist, since communism at least has positive traits to it; USSR-style fake socialism doesn't. Currently, it's really a choice between Soviet warmongers and Soviet socialists... well, basically a choice between USSR and USSR.

If I liked either of these two, I'd be long living in Cuba.What a remarkably misguided summary of the current options.

Isn't Obama going to raise taxes and build the largest government bureaucracy in history?

Bush already has the "largest government bureaucracy in history" part covered, only rather than taxing to pay for it he just figures somebody will pick up the bill later.

What a remarkably misguided summary of the current options.
Nay. A bit of an exaggeration, that's it. Obama will have his photo in future books about commies, and McCain has expressed content with expansionism.


Bush already has the "largest government bureaucracy in history" part covered, only rather than taxing to pay for it he just figures somebody will pick up the bill later.
Or run the printers.

(come on, state governments can manage).

Does Wyoming even have a government?

Yeah, it does. It also has a proper size - the size U.S. Government should be.

But...there's no one there.

Remember, Ron Paul was staunchly anti-abortion and felt it should be left up to the states, not completely left alone.
How ironic it is that self-proclaimed libertarians defend the rights of states rather than individuals.

How ironic it is that self-proclaimed libertarians defend the rights of states rather than individuals.
Quite.

"The state is bad for everything other than its use as a scapegoat to cover my views which have little to do with freedom"

How ironic it is that self-proclaimed libertarians defend the rights of states rather than individuals.

Psst. Ron Paul was a Republican. :eek2:

Mccain. the only question is should i move to Florida or Ohio for the election.

Bush already has the "largest government bureaucracy in history" part covered, only rather than taxing to pay for it he just figures somebody will pick up the bill later.

That's Our Bush!

Always running a business into the ground, then taking off so others can clean up the shit he leaves behind.

How ironic it is that self-proclaimed libertarians defend the rights of states rather than individuals.

or perhaps he was defending the rights of unborn children.
a complicated issue like abortion should not be painted so black and white.

I will be voting for either Ron Paul or Bob Barr, I haven't decided which yet.

But that's IF - and it's a BIG if - I even vote, which I may very well not.

Definitely not for John "Tear down our borders RIGHT NOW!" McBush or Barack "Sorry, you've reached your income limit, you have to give the rest to the government" Osama.

How ironic it is that self-proclaimed libertarians defend the rights of states rather than individuals.

My primary concern is, as always, the simple fact that state legislatures are capable of far more extreme decisions than those possible at the federal level. I see the federal government as necessary a balance on the power of the states as the states are on the federal government.

Wait wait wait wait wait.

What kind of Libertarian reckons that the government should have jurisdiction over the actions of the human body?

The kind that doesn't understand what the word means.

Remember, Ron Paul was staunchly anti-abortion and felt it should be left up to the states, not completely left alone.

Ron Paul is as much a libertarian as the Democratic Republic of East Germany was a democratic republic.

or perhaps he was defending the rights of unborn children.


Since when does a fetus have a right that an adult human doesn't?

I simply will not vote this year. Let America screw itself over. <_<

If you are a Ron Paul voter, pick the candadite that most closely reflects his views. Don't just cast a vote away unless you beleive that every candadite would be a terrible choice, as opposed to merely an imperfect one. The day people stop participating in the democratic process is the day it finally dies. Even a throwaway on an independent/third party is better than sitting out an election at such a crucial time in American history.

But if you value civil liberties, don't vote McCain. His pro-water boarding, for one, is disturbing, and I'm willing to bet there are other ways he swings close to the party line on protecting the rights of citizens, or lack thereof.

But if you value civil liberties, don't vote McCain.

And don't vote Obama either. IDK why does a party that is pro-ban on half the issues call itself liberal, but it does.

And don't vote Obama either. IDK why does a party that is pro-ban on half the issues call itself liberal, but it does.

I must admit that I was somewhat disturbed by Obama's support for imunity for wiretapping. Its worth bearing in mind however that that bill may have contained other sections which Obama wanted, requiring a level of compromise. But I guess you could say as much for McCain.

I still trust Obama more on these things though. McCain does identify himself with the party that has severly eroded checks on the Executive Branch's power, spied on its citizens, blocked Congressional investigation at every turn, and argued for legal torture. People are judged by the company they keep, and also of course the votes they cast.

Well, this is a lose-lose situation, as I've said. So, in the end, I would prefer to excuse myself with the knowledge that I've voted for the right guys (Ron, Barr), but they didn't pass, rather than go for the slightly lesser evil and think "You wanted it yourself!" (no, I didn't).

From the purely practical standpoint, due to my profession and current job, I'd be much better off with a Republican being in power, though, even if it's McCain. But the biblical Cain would still do better.

Ron Paul is as much a libertarian as the Democratic Republic of East Germany was a democratic republic.

That's one reason why he lost my support. The more I realized his "libertarianism" was in many ways tantamount to a dictatorship of the states, it lost a lot of his luster. I support freedom, not moving political power from the comparative moderation of the federal level to the extremism of individual states.

Not to mention on the economic side that rather ridiculous gold standard stuff put me off a bit, although I do think the monetarist thinking ultimately underlying those motivations is sound.

Since when does a fetus have a right that an adult human doesn't?
They have the right to be kept alive by government decree.

but McCain has a stronger economic platform.

I was wondering why you think this.

At this point I would consider voting for Obama just to keep McCain out.

I was wondering why you think this.

At this point I would consider voting for Obama just to keep McCain out.

Obama's tax plan doesn't make sense; treating everyone who earns $250,000 and above exactly the same is nonsensical and unfair. In addition, he seems to be proposing hikes on capital gains taxes, something extremely unwise given the fact that almost all Americans with retirement savings other than Social Security are participants in 401k and IRA plans, both of which would be negatively impacted by any hikes in capital gains. He has also failed to propose any real reforms for Social Security, which is utterly unsustainable in its current form and needs to be changed to actually make it a viable investment rather than just a waste of money. The upper middle class is America's most professional and best educated segment of the population, and lumping them in with billionaires is downright unfair and will do nothing but stifle new investment and imperil the very gains he wants to produce.

Plus, he's opposed to reforming the AMT, which is another move necessary to prevent dragging down the upper middle class and widening the wealth gap between the superwealthy and everyone else. That being said, I do believe the return to PayGo is absolutely necessary to stop further fiscal hemorrhaging, but he's not attacking the spending side of the issue and instead is proposing new taxes that target the upper middle class unfairly. He takes a stance on taxes that is admirable for its fiscal discipline but takes a dangerously paleoliberal approach to reforming the broken entitlement system.

He needs to seriously make it clear that only the wealthy will pay more taxes, and that's a lot higher than the $250,000 baseline he's proposing for new taxes.

I must admit that I was somewhat disturbed by Obama's support for imunity for wiretapping. Its worth bearing in mind however that that bill may have contained other sections which Obama wanted, requiring a level of compromise. But I guess you could say as much for McCain.

As you seem to hint at Obama didn't support the immunity for wiretapping but it was a price he was willing to pay to get more of what he wanted in the bill.


In addition, he seems to be proposing hikes on capital gains taxes, something extremely unwise given the fact that almost all Americans with retirement savings other than Social Security are participants in 401k and IRA plans, both of which would be negatively impacted by any hikes in capital gains.

401K and IRA plans aren't subject to the capital gains tax. They are subject to income taxes when withdrawn, but they pay not a penny until then.

My primary concern is, as always, the simple fact that state legislatures are capable of far more extreme decisions than those possible at the federal level. I see the federal government as necessary a balance on the power of the states as the states are on the federal government.
Surely exhaustive Bills of Rights at both the Federal and State levels of government offer better protection of individual liberties than the division of legislative power between the State and Federal levels of government. The States and Congress both have the power to create law, but aside from the US Bill of Rights and the Equal Protection Clause, don't have the power to veto or nullify it on grounds of individual rights. A small federal government is therefore really no good to man nor beast, on libertarian terms, if it decides to stop protecting individual liberties and freedoms and allows the States to override them.

Which is why I see people like Ron Paul and most fo the US Libertarian Party as conservatives, not libertarians. They have no problem with a powerful government, they are just more choosy as to which government does it.

But then, I'm not a libertarian, so who am I to say that?:wink:

or perhaps he was defending the rights of unborn children.
a complicated issue like abortion should not be painted so black and white.
Anyone who can make such a blanket statement as "defending the rights of unborn children" should, in my opinion, not be qualified to assert that anyone is painting anything as black and white. The fact that it isn't black and white is exactly why is juristictions where it is legal the right to an abortion is limited to when the foetus is not considered a whole living being, and even where a woman can get an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, like Canada, late term abortions are extremely rare.

Surely exhaustive Bills of Rights at both the Federal and State levels of government offer better protection of individual liberties than the division of legislative power between the State and Federal levels of government. The States and Congress both have the power to create law, but aside from the US Bill of Rights and the Equal Protection Clause, don't have the power to veto or nullify it on grounds of individual rights. A small federal government is therefore really no good to man nor beast, on libertarian terms, if it decides to stop protecting individual liberties and freedoms and allows the States to override them.

Which is why I see people like Ron Paul and most fo the US Libertarian Party as conservatives, not libertarians. They have no problem with a powerful government, they are just more choosy as to which government does it.

But then, I'm not a libertarian, so who am I to say that?:wink:

i think that you may be conflating a couple of things here: libertarian and constitutionalist. ron paul is both, as are many american libertarians.

i don't believe that ron paul was in favor of more state power, v. less federal power BECAUSE he is a libertarian. i think he was in favor of that because he's a strict constitutionalist, and he really believes that such is what the constitution says. he believes the american people are presently breaking a contract with themselves by exercising powers via the federal mechanism that they had reserved for the states via the tenth amendment. were the united state(s) a unitary governmental system, rather than a federal one---by constitution---he would presumably be in favor of implementing all of his political principles on a national level. instead, he believes there is contractual limit on that scope.

i think that he wants the federal government AND all of the states to be 100% libertarian, but that these are not inherently directly related. were he running for the position of governor of the state of texas, i have no doubt that his platform would include an intention to sue the federal government for encroaching on the sovereignty of that state (but only that state) while also trying to implement a fully libertarian government WITHIN that state---and then suing the federal government again, whenever it was in the way of his doing that.

it's even possible to a libertarian absolute monarchist, in my view---and still be a libertarian. there is a difference, i think, between the principles of the means and the principles of the ends. for ron paul, the principles of the ends are libertarian, while the principles of the means are constitutionalist---and, therefore, in his reading of the document, more strictly federalized than at present (i.e., more fully honoring the sovereignty of the individual states).

i do agree with you, however, that r.p. and most american libertarians are also conservatives (but still libertarians!). i think that is yet another axis for evaluating these things. most american libertarians are right of center. there are some libertarians that are more "center"---like georgists (geolibertatrians), for instance (imo)---and some that are "left" (like noam chomsky, who is far more libertarian than the mainstream american left, and who identifies himself as a "libertarian socialist with anarcho-sydicalist tendencies).

in short, ron paul is THREE DISTINCT things, politically (which, i grant you, are tending to coincide to some degree in america): 1) a libertarian, 2) a constitutionalist, and 3) a (strict fiscal) conservative (which has economic implications that the other two do not).

thanks for reading; looking forward to your thoughts.

and, yes---by the by---i AM a libertarian; but what do ANY of us know, REALLY? :wink:

peace.

I was wondering why you think this.

At this point I would consider voting for Obama just to keep McCain out.

Please do. History will thank you.

Seriously, McCain has admitted to lack of economic knowledge, sold out to pander to the Christian Right, backed the President on a number of failed policies, and shown terrible judgement in choice of such an inexperienced VP, and great hypocrisy after blasting Obama for his supposed inexperience. This woman had to be told what the Vice President does. Obama was a Constitutional Lawyer who taught law and actually has experiance in national politics.

At best, Obama might actually be able to unite enough supporters to make some real changes. At worst, he'll be a moderately experienced man with out an executive background, but surrounded by highly experienced advisors.

401K and IRA plans aren't subject to the capital gains tax. They are subject to income taxes when withdrawn, but they pay not a penny until then.

Yes, I misspoke when I wrote that. It would be a pretty bad sign if I forgot that, even if my particular focus in accounting isn't personal taxation. ;)

What I meant was I thought Obama was planning to alter the way traditional 401k and IRA plans were taxed, which would mean paying capital gains tax on the gains in addition to regular income taxes at withdrawal. The same capital gains taxes would presumably apply to Roth 401k and IRA accounts. The result would of course be a far higher tax burden on private retirement savings. Of course, given that most Americans use those plans and almost none rely on pensions anymore, it seems rather odd for him to propose that. My guess is it was just a rumor or confusing different aspects of his tax plan.

Hearsay and rumor seem to be rampant right now.

Since when does a fetus have a right that an adult human doesn't?
you mean adult humans are denied a chance at life ?

i don't believe that ron paul was in favor of more state power, v. less federal power BECAUSE he is a libertarian. i think he was in favor of that because he's a strict constitutionalist, and he really believes that such is what the constitution says.

So instead of being a hypocrite, he's just stupid. And also still a hypocrite because he's still advocating, say, a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

you mean adult humans are denied a chance at life ?

When they need a kidney and no one is willing to donate, yes.

When they need a kidney and no one is willing to donate, yes.
Having a kidney is kinda a legitimate right.

But I think out of 6 billion people, there might be some that will part with their kidney for a large sum of money. It just needs to be put on mass rails, like the old "Food for Oil" program.

I marked other in the poll, and I'm actually contemplating writing in other on my ballot.

I will relectuantly be voting for john mccain. =/
I don't like my choices. Can we mulligan our candidates?

You get:
Baron Sengir (Aristocratic Party)
Eladamri (Fanatically Green Party)
Gerrard (FatM - Fly above the Mud)
Jaya Ballard (BEAA - Burn Everything Anarchic Alliance)
Leshrac (FFfEL - Front of Freedom for Entrapped Liches)
Orim (WaH - Welfare and Health)
Urza (Industrialist Party)