CheeseForSteeze

Figured it'd be good to have on consolidated place to put random stuff regarding this years election. On that note, does anyone even give a shit? I think the definition of the Presidential Election has become choosing a new knucklehead that will continue the policies of the last knuckleheaad. The bullshit about presidential elections has been fed to us since we were children in gradeschool: Your vote counts! ... as long as it's for one of these two.

ShredLife

i don't vote for national shit anymore. they're all fucking criminals and the electoral college system makes it pointless - your vote counts less than ever.

__________________
get the hell off my lawn.

Donutz

I give a shit, because during US election years TV programming goes totally to hell. They keep pre-empting perfectly good reality shows for this crap.

__________________

Illegitimi non carborundum

Mountain Days: 30

snowklinger

I've always objected to the politics and participation but there are 2 reasons I have for registering/voting this year:

1. I remember what happened the last time a clueless Republican used the planet as their own personal gameboy. I could give a shit less about Obama but I'll go to the trouble of voting to avoid Romney.

2. Colorado has Marijuana legalization on the ballot.

__________________
is it late october yet?

kctahoe

I dont give a shit. Comes down to the lesser of the two evils, once again. I beleive untill we stop voting for the lesser of two evils nothing will change. If Romney wins, he will continue everything that was wrong with Bush and Obama and more. If obama wins, he will continue with what hes doing and more, doesnt have to worry about reelection anymore, hes free to do as he pleases.

jdang307

Fuck the Presidential race. As long as we keep electing fucking idiots into the House and Senate not much will change.

When Corrupt democrats like Murtha (until he died), Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi keep getting elected term after term you know we're fucked. Rangel and Waters are both accused or determined to be corrupt, yet they are still in there. How is that possible? Would any of us keep our job if we were caught stealing there? NO. But they are.

There are corrupt Republicans as well but they tend to get driven out of office. Corrupt Democrats tend to stay. Bachus is a GOP'er who has ties to corruption but still holds office. But for the most part Democrats have that crown.

Then the DOJ sends a hit squad over to Alaskan Republican Ted Stevens on a bogus charge and he loses his election, and none of the attorneys involved get punished?

I'd vote against Obama just because he's too dumb to fire Eric Holder, another corrupt asshole who should be thrown in jail for perjury for his testimony on Fast and Furious. Because of his organization an American border patrol agent is dead. Yet he stonewalls Congress. Most transparent administration indeed.

Obama himself I don't find corrupt, just incompetent.

Romney is 10x more qualified then Obama was when he took office so I personally don't find that argument compelling, but that is why we all have our own votes we can agree to disagree. Unlike Obama Romney has executive experience, which is why Obama can't make a decision for the life of him and relies so heavily on Valerie Jarrett who controls his every move.

Obama is incompetent. If he didn't have so much power he'd be harmless. He has no clue how to fix the economy and isn't even trying. He blames republicans for everything as if He's the first ever President to have one of the legislative bodies controlled by the opposite party.

I'm not saying Romney is great. In fact, he's my last choice for a candidate. It's just that, Obama is worse. Romney has had success as an executive, whether it'd be at Bain, fixing the Winter Olympics or as governor of Massachusetts.

Obama has a record as a mediocre President and a two year Senator where he campaigned for President mostly and as a state senator where he voted "Present" for fear of latching himself onto a position. NO thanks.

jdang307

That said if you ask me who I think wins, I think it's Obama unless the economy takes a huge dive. Last two incumbents to lose were Carter and H.W. Bush both due to economic issues in my opinion.

Everything that happens from now until Sept/Oct is worthless. I think that's why McCain lost by such a huge margin. At the end of the day, gay marriage, immigration, etc. don't mean shit. As James Carville said, The Economy Stupid.

If the economy shows signs of growth Obama wins. If it deteriorates quickly Romney should win.

jdang307

I'm shocked!



Agreed 100%. He is Bush Lite, in some situations he's Bush on steroids. He did indeed make the Patriot Act stronger, and it took Congressional republicans to actually prevent the wiretap law from being renewed. Ooh what a turn of events.

And that is where we get back to disagreeing. Is Romney a douche? Probably hah, I liken him to the GOP version of John Kerry. But Romney's done some good and he has a track record. Obama is an empty suit. We need someone in there with conviction.

I know you're a socialist and understand your position. I am a capitalist but ... I'm not a laissez-faire proponent. I think sometimes the two get lumped together and that's not right. I'm a pragmatic capitalist which means I still think private sector economy is still key, and that govt. should be strong enough to prevent abuse, fraud but not so big it drags the regular economy down. I know you've given examples of some European nations (I think Sweden and France?) of examples of your market based Socialist system but I just disagree. Sweden is tiny so what may work there won't work elsewhere. France, no thanks.

CharkieKeaton

The only shit I care about is climate change- aka global warming vaporizing the already shitty east coast snow we had. Fuck them all, they should take mushrooms and breath. pricks.

Still feel ripped off about this past season...

jdang307

I think for most people their positions don't vary widely but the media and politicians do a great job driving that wedge between very reasonable Americans. It's more of a matter of degree usually. I don't agree with laissez-faire, although that's the hallmark of modern conservatism.

I will disagree with Goldwater being the father of modern conservatism. That should be William F Buckley who created National Review, and who's views, writings and activism shaped Goldwater and Reagan.

I guess they are both co-founders/fathers of the modern conservative movement, with Goldwater being the politician. I know why you liked him. He said it himself, he likes liberals and liberals are needed as a counterweight to balance conservatives. I think we can both agree, if one party were to disappear America would go to hell in a handbasket very quickly.