• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

United States Election: Nov 6, 2012 |OT| - Barack Obama Re-elected

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwRYzSccCmNHJ.gif

How have I never seen this one before!?
KuGsj.gif
 
What was it he compared homosexuality with?

Bestiality. He also said the average gay man had 500 sexual partners etc. Scum, basically.

On-topic, I'm really hoping enough of you Yanks have the sense to vote back in Obama. It must be embarrassing having half your country siding with someone like Romney...
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Those forum members who have stated their intentions to vote third party are imaginary? These kinds of opinions exist.

You're changing the conversation. The conversation started not about who people should vote for, but rather the statement that the two majority party candidates are equally vile. I argued that this was reductionist, simplistic, and inaccurate, and prodded the user who said so to examine issues more closely. You presented an issue profile for which you argued it was true that both candidates were equally vile. I responded that such an issue profile was unlikely, but that the conclusion was false regardless. I was not responding to every third party voter here, although I've responded to several in this thread.


You're trying to make a point about Obama and in so doing ignoring the actual conversation we're having.

These are the points I were making, in no particular order:

The mindset behind single issue voting is the same kind of thinking that can lead to a third party vote.

Everyone has their own personal reasons for voting the way they do, and it's their right to do so.

These points are not germane to the actual conversation we were having, which was that a user claimed both major parties are "equally vile".

Everyone has the right to vote how they want for any reasons including nonsensical ones. But others have a right, as part of the discussion, to critically reflect on, first of all, whether or not those reasons are externally coherent and make sense and reflect positively on the person making the decision, and second of all, whether or not those reasons are internally coherent and lead to the choice that best represents the values the person has. I choose not to engage with people on their external coherence, but I will engage with them on internal coherence.

Voting your conscience in a non-swing state isn't gonna make a lick of difference anyway.

I responded to this point earlier on in the thread when I talked about the importance of legitimacy and the basis on which losing vote in a swing state (either for a major party or a third party) might play out.

Yes, "Obama has disappointed many people and has insufficiently improved on some problems we had with Bush", but that was just one example of what could push a particular voter to vote for a third party, nobody, or even Romney. It's basically what Adams described as a "firing offense".

Again, this is not the conversation we're having. The conversation we're having is on the hypothetical that both parties are "equally vile". If a person believes the standard of behaviour for an incumbent president is higher than for a challenger and that Obama has not met that standard (IE he is a firing offence) then they do not believe that both parties are "equally vile".

If a person chooses not to vote because they legitimately believe that no candidate deserves a vote, that's fine and it's their right, but unless they actually believe all parties are "equally vile", that vote could be EV- depending on their location and the eventual result.
 
Back from voting. Went with Obama this time, whereas I went with Nader for the last two elections. If Republicans didn't choose such an obnoxious candidate, I probably wouldn't have bothered voting this time since there was no independent party candidate, but they've been talking and pulling too much shit these past four years for me to sit idly by. So in conclusion, I voted out of pure spite.
 
On the third party issue - US voting is a two-party system, much better to not vote in Presidential ballots at all and get engaged personally in politics to push for a multi-voting system.

At least something fairer.
Mind you I don't think its that difficult to chose between these two candidates, but that doesn't mean the system is right for a democracy. imo.
 
Watching MSNBC, can't believe how biased they are. Basically embarrassing Romney and telling people to go for Obama. Makes Fox News seem fair and balanced.
 
Back from voting. Went with Obama this time, whereas I went with Nader for the last two elections. If Republicans didn't choose such an obnoxious candidate, I probably wouldn't have bothered voting this time since there was no independent party candidate, but they've been talking and pulling too much shit these past four years for me to sit idly by. So in conclusion, I voted out of pure spite.


nicholsonyes_zps1149ce1b.gif
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Back from voting. Went with Obama this time, whereas I went with Nader for the last two elections. If Republicans didn't choose such an obnoxious candidate, I probably wouldn't have bothered voting this time since there was no independent party candidate, but they've been talking and pulling too much shit these past four years for me to sit idly by. So in conclusion, I voted out of pure spite.

If you feel pretty strongly about the kind of issues Nader voted, it'd probably be productive to take just a few dollars of your money and donate it to interest groups that you favour (maybe even the Green Party USA if you feel they are good stewards of your money). That goes for the future too. If you feel like you don't want to vote because you don't support the candidates, that doesn't mean there's no way to contribute to society :)

Edit: That being said, if your support for Nader was based on his consumer advocacy, I hope you voted down-ticket for Democrats. This next four years will determine whether or not the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be funded and empowered, or shut down. Even if the people you're voting for are otherwise problematic to you, this particular issue is highly salient if you were a Nader supporter.
 

h1nch

Member
Good luck to all of the states who have educated themselves and are creating progressive change for the future: WA, OR, CO, AR, NY, OH, Il, PA, and MA.

184838_10151135936315698_1326739675_n.jpg

+1

Regardless of the result, I just want to see this fight continue on until the rest of the nation (and world really) comes to its senses.
 
Good luck to all of the states who have educated themselves and are creating progressive change for the future: WA, OR, CO, AR, NY, OH, Il, PA, and MA.

184838_10151135936315698_1326739675_n.jpg

North Dakota would have been there, but the dumbasses who were collecting signatures for the measure apparently committed fraud.
 
Just got back from voting in Ohio. The machine said it had less than 200 votes in it, but I live in the middle of Bumfuck, Nowhere, so I don't think there is a turnout problem. Am I allowed to bitch about how the ballot was laid out, or is that against the law?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom