Decision 2008

[Leprucky Cougar]

Any Americans on here registered to vote or want to discuss the election, post here. Who are you guys voting for? Why? Any undecided voters? Any party switches, etc? I want to know what you guys are thinking. :)

[GorePhobia]

I am registering in the next few days. I am from NJ and have until October 14th to register.

I will be voting for Obama.

[Vodstok]

Registered.
Obama.
Probably for the same reasons most other peopel are, and not just because Palin is a moron.

[La Chat Noire]

Assuming I get my absentee ballot on time for this election, I'll be voting for Obama.

[pinkfloyd45769]

I'm still not sure who i'm voting for,i'm leaning towards Obama.I jusy can't wait for change and i'm hoping things get better soon after we get a new president.I would like to have been able to have Hillary in there and i actually thought she would make it.

[pinkfloyd45769]

Noire,i love your sig!Its so very true!:)

[Freak]

Registered and voting for Obama becasue I think McCain is a douche.

[La Chat Noire]

Noire,i love your sig!Its so very true!:)

Thanks :) I always liked yours too. Where's it from?

And I originally favored Hillary too. My family nearly disowned me for it :-P

[Leprucky Cougar]

I'm still not sure who i'm voting for,i'm leaning towards Obama.I jusy can't wait for change and i'm hoping things get better soon after we get a new president.I would like to have been able to have Hillary in there and i actually thought she would make it.

Awesome responses guys. And from my intro you all know I am a democrat and support Obama. Not a registered voter though, I don't turn 18 til 4.5 weeks after the eletion. However, if and when Obama is president I plan on writing a letter either to him or congress itself; asking them to ammendment the clause in the constitution for voting requirements. I think the election process should be like the olympics. You shouldn't be 18 by November 4th but by the election year. The way the olympics works is that the youngest age to compete is 16. However if you eventually turn 16 in that olympic year you can compete at 16. I think the same should apply here. If you turn 18 in the election year (as I do), it shouldn't matter if you turn 18 by the election date. You should still be allowed to vote--whether it be supplement or absentee ballot.

Because you have to think about all of those people born between November 5th and December 31st 1990--all of which probably are decided, know what they want, know who represents them. But because of a rather ambiguous age clause are not allowed to. That's millions of willing, yet underprivledged voters who could potentially help their parties, but instead have to wait four more years to try to help what was already corupted the past eight.

If I ever become a politician, (which I really hope happens) these are some issues and viewpoints I would want to stress in my campaign. Focusing on the meticulous issues, not just the broad and "normal" points every four years gets debated on National Television. They're all equally important and are things that we all should be cognizant of. :)

[Vodstok]

Good luck on your political future, and if you ever try to pass legislation to ban any media (aside from anything exploiting kids). i'll push you down the stairs :D

[Papillon Noir]

I know I am in the minority here, but I am voting for McCain.

[ChronoGrl]

I'm still not sure who i'm voting for,i'm leaning towards Obama.I jusy can't wait for change and i'm hoping things get better soon after we get a new president.I would like to have been able to have Hillary in there and i actually thought she would make it.

Hillary is FINALLY on the Obama band wagon. If you were going to vote for her, you should probably throw your vote his way. In our glorious bipartisan government, the individual mostly winds up voting along party lines as opposed to for the particular political figure they are most aligned with... Obama is more simpatico to Hillary than McCain is. If you truly support Hillary, then you should vote Obama. This is a pretty important election. Don't exclude yourself because Hillary's out.

Awesome responses guys. And from my intro you all know I am a democrat and support Obama. Not a registered voter though, I don't turn 18 til 4.5 weeks after the eletion. However, if and when Obama is president I plan on writing a letter either to him or congress itself; asking them to ammendment the clause in the constitution for voting requirements. I think the election process should be like the olympics. You shouldn't be 18 by November 4th but by the election year. The way the olympics works is that the youngest age to compete is 16. However if you eventually turn 16 in that olympic year you can compete at 16. I think the same should apply here. If you turn 18 in the election year (as I do), it shouldn't matter if you turn 18 by the election date. You should still be allowed to vote--whether it be supplement or absentee ballot.

Because you have to think about all of those people born between November 5th and December 31st 1990--all of which probably are decided, know what they want, know who represents them. But because of a rather ambiguous age clause are not allowed to. That's millions of willing, yet underprivledged voters who could potentially help their parties, but instead have to wait four more years to try to help what was already corupted the past eight.

If I ever become a politician, (which I really hope happens) these are some issues and viewpoints I would want to stress in my campaign. Focusing on the meticulous issues, not just the broad and "normal" points every four years gets debated on National Television. They're all equally important and are things that we all should be cognizant of. :)

Right.

Social issues. National Defense. War. Struggling Economy. Universal Healthcare. Education bills.

...

Changing the legislation around voting age.

...

;)

...

But snarkiness aside, I wouldn't necessarily go after changing the age limit rule. I think that people should have to have a license to vote. You need a license to drive, a license to own a gun... You should have a license to vote.

Case in point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaxECcTjCuw

Good GOD that makes me very VERY sad to be an American.

I have NO qualms in taking the vote from the masses and putting it in the hands of the few... as long as I can choose the few.

...

But anyway. Vote Obama.

[neverending]

At times it's attractive to think of reasons to restrict voting on this or that grounds- intelligence being one of them. However, it's a slippery slope, and it's the very reason this country was founded- to escape from the priveliged classes who kept representation from the majority.

One person - one vote. Even with flaws, it's the ideal.

[Vodstok]

I love the video... Its nice the banjo boy from deliverance got a dog and grew his hair out, but he shouldnt use the N word, he's hanging with the wrong crowd.

[ChronoGrl]

At times it's attractive to think of reasons to restrict voting on this or that grounds- intelligence being one of them. However, it's a slippery slope, and it's the very reason this country was founded- to escape from the priveliged classes who kept representation from the majority.

One person - one vote. Even with flaws, it's the ideal.

I am perfectly fine with that slippery slope - As long as I am the one controlling its trajectory.

Don't worry, NE. I have no plans to dispose of you when I take over the world.


I love the video... Its nice the banjo boy from deliverance got a dog and grew his hair out, but he shouldnt use the N word, he's hanging with the wrong crowd.

LOL! Seriously!

By the way - Do you listen to Toucher and Rich, too (3 - 7, weekday afternoons, WBCN)? I know you're an O&A fan... T&R are my afternoon guilty pleasure. I got the video from their show.

[novakru]

I watched the running mates last night. I listened, and for brief moments wished what they had to say could be done.
If they had the power to actually do what they wanted to set things right with America- we would be pretty good no matter with side we voted for.

McCain is brilliant but could be crazy.
Obama- ditto.
Although I think a black man as President could do a shitload of good for the racial issues we have.
Their running mates are very intelligent and seem like interesting people in their own right.

But.

I do not believe a word that comes out of a politician's mouth.
I am jaded beyond belief about our government.

[Vodstok]

I am perfectly fine with that slippery slope - As long as I am the one controlling its trajectory.

Don't worry, NE. I have no plans to dispose of you when I take over the world.




LOL! Seriously!

By the way - Do you listen to Toucher and Rich, too (3 - 7, weekday afternoons, WBCN)? I know you're an O&A fan... T&R are my afternoon guilty pleasure. I got the video from their show.
O&A in the morning, T&R in the afternoon. I have them streaming into my head for the duration of their shows :D

I get home from work at about 5:30, so anythign after that i miss... And i guess i missed this one.

I live for the Video Dating segments...

[Vodstok]

I do not believe a word that comes out of a politician's mouth.
I am jaded beyond belief about our government.
The past 100 years has gone a long way to do this to most people, but the last 8 have done the most damage.

[Leprucky Cougar]

Hillary is FINALLY on the Obama band wagon. If you were going to vote for her, you should probably throw your vote his way. In our glorious bipartisan government, the individual mostly winds up voting along party lines as opposed to for the particular political figure they are most aligned with... Obama is more simpatico to Hillary than McCain is. If you truly support Hillary, then you should vote Obama. This is a pretty important election. Don't exclude yourself because Hillary's out.



Right.

Social issues. National Defense. War. Struggling Economy. Universal Healthcare. Education bills.

...

Changing the legislation around voting age.

...

;)

...

But snarkiness aside, I wouldn't necessarily go after changing the age limit rule. I think that people should have to have a license to vote. You need a license to drive, a license to own a gun... You should have a license to vote.

Case in point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaxECcTjCuw

Good GOD that makes me very VERY sad to be an American.

I have NO qualms in taking the vote from the masses and putting it in the hands of the few... as long as I can choose the few.

...

But anyway. Vote Obama.

Oh no no no no. I wasn't proposing "changing the age limit" of voting, just adding a clause to it. I think it is justifiable to set a precedent of a voting age for 18. However, in considering those with LATE BIRTHS whom still who turn 18 during that election, they as well I believe should be granted the opportunity to access that right. They shouldn't have to wait another four years. I'm not talking about those whom turn 18 the next year or year after. I'm talking about the people who are currently 18 (or are suppose to be) were born in 1990. I was born in 1990--December of 1990. So I'll too, be 18 then. My point is just because I don't turn the 18 until four weeks after the election shouldn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to vote; because I turned 18 in the ELECTION YEAR. My proposal, should I become a legislator is not to"change" the election "age limit," again it is to revise it. :) The Framers and fourfathers when constructing the constitution weren't thinking in the best interest of
20th and 21st century scenarios. That's why we have so many cases testified in Supreme Court to verify the constitutionality of the predicaments. :eek: They weren't cognizant that sometimes rules can't be generalized because some things are a case by case basis. :) My proposal would allow any one whom functionally turns 18 in that election year will be able to cast their votes.


As for the way an election works in our country, I don't exactly agree with that. I believe it's a fundamental right, not just privledge to cast your vote. However, I'm not a big fan of the electoral college--especially the way it operates for the republican party. :(

[Leprucky Cougar]

I watched the running mates last night. I listened, and for brief moments wished what they had to say could be done.
If they had the power to actually do what they wanted to set things right with America- we would be pretty good no matter with side we voted for.

McCain is brilliant but could be crazy.
Obama- ditto.
Although I think a black man as President could do a shitload of good for the racial issues we have.
Their running mates are very intelligent and seem like interesting people in their own right.

But.

I do not believe a word that comes out of a politician's mouth.
I am jaded beyond belief about our government.


I've noticed Americans have a love-hate relationship with their delegates. We say how much we disbelieve in their trust, yet take part in electing them. Then maybe something goes wrong in the state or country as a whole and "we don't care," so we decide to stop voting. Then when things like Katrina and the economy happen, we complain about how politicians aren't doing their job. Well I say this : For every one of you that is ready to give up on your country and thinks your 1 vote doesn't matter, multiply that X 300 million people that live in the US....that's a lot of votes. So you do matter. But every one of you that gets all pessimistic when things get rough "the corrupted politicians" are ready to pounce. They want you to stay in that mindset so they can stay and keep their lobbyists in the White House. So let's all pull together on this one and defeat the enemy instead generalizing all politicans as a whole--because that isn't entirely fair. Remember just because you're president you can't do everything you want. You have to work with Congress and Supreme Court. There's no one emminent leader. It's not a dictatorship--at least that wasn't the intention--it's a democracy. So ever bill that a president signs to make a law, isn't neccessarily his policy, perhaps it's a compromise because of bipartisanhip and perhaps his proposal was dropped in the Senate.

The moral of the story: let's not give up. It's a complicated, rough, but not impossible. And in the end, just as Obama has said: "There shouldn't really be red states or blue states. Black or White America. But one United States of America. " They're not just beautiful words...it was once a beautiful reality...but what happened? We lost hold grip of ourselves during the Bush Adminstration and morally gave up on our own country. Let's not continue the Saga.....KEEP HOPE ALIVE!!!:) :)

[Leprucky Cougar]

Good luck on your political future, and if you ever try to pass legislation to ban any media (aside from anything exploiting kids). i'll push you down the stairs :D

Thanks. I'll make a note of that.

[ChronoGrl]

Oh no no no no. I wasn't proposing "changing the age limit" of voting, just adding a clause to it. I think it is justifiable to set a precedent of a voting age for 18. However, in considering those with LATE BIRTHS whom still who turn 18 during that election, they as well I believe should be granted the opportunity to access that right. They shouldn't have to wait another four years. I'm not talking about those whom turn 18 the next year or year after. I'm talking about the people who are currently 18 (or are suppose to be) were born in 1990. I was born in 1990--December of 1990. So I'll too, be 18 then. My point is just because I don't turn the 18 until four weeks after the election shouldn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to vote; because I turned 18 in the ELECTION YEAR. My proposal, should I become a legislator is not to"change" the election "age limit," again it is to revise it. :) The Framers and fourfathers when constructing the constitution weren't thinking in the best interest of
20th and 21st century scenarios. That's why we have so many cases testified in Supreme Court to verify the constitutionality of the predicaments. :eek: They weren't cognizant that sometimes rules can't be generalized because some things are a case by case basis. :) My proposal would allow any one whom functionally turns 18 in that election year will be able to cast their votes.

Oh, I understand. I was just making the point that if one were to write a letter to Obama to make a significant legislative change, there are more serious issues one could address.

Just joking. But anyway.


As for the way an election works in our country, I don't exactly agree with that. I believe it's a fundamental right, not just privledge to cast your vote. However, I'm not a big fan of the electoral college--especially the way it operates for the republican party. :(

...

People take me too seriously.

...

But anyway. If we're going to go back to the point of American suffrage, while I whole-heartedly enjoy making glib remarks about turning our democratic system into an oligarchy powered by the intellectually elite, the fact of the matter is, we already are powered by an elitist oligarchy (as you mentioned - the Electoral College). If the 2004 election taught us anything, it's that the vote of the individual does not count and our elections are truly dictated by the few.

So, really - What sort of difference would license-based voting make? ;)

[newb]

Palin's gotta show more cleavage...she does that and they get my vote.

[Leprucky Cougar]

Oh, I understand. I was just making the point that if one were to write a letter to Obama to make a significant legislative change, there are more serious issues one could address.

Just joking. But anyway.




...

People take me too seriously.

...

But anyway. If we're going to go back to the point of American suffrage, while I whole-heartedly enjoy making glib remarks about turning our democratic system into an oligarchy powered by the intellectually elite, the fact of the matter is, we already are powered by an elitist oligarchy (as you mentioned - the Electoral College). If the 2004 election taught us anything, it's that the vote of the individual does not count and our elections are truly dictated by the few.

So, really - What sort of difference would license-based voting make? ;)


I see your point--in reference to my claim of the Electoral college. However in the 2004 campaign--it wasn't really an impact of "our votes didn't count." The 2004 was a horrible disaster in terms of the Voter Countout. The 18-30 group let Kerry down. Huge numbers of these groups didn't vote and when polled on reasons why results included: people "forgeting" voting day and times, "forgot or had issues" with absentee ballots, "didn't feel like it", "were sick", had "bad weather." Many celebs were pressuring young groups about voting and to their suprise it was all a dream. They didn't go out to the polls. Remember P. Diddy's infamous : "Vote or Die" campaign?

Suprisingly though, Bush got way more support from his party during re-election than before. He also got high voter turnout for the 65 and older age group. And besides young voters turning their backs on Kerry, he made a couple of futile, not so strategic moves. Much of what McCain is doing with Obama, Kerry talked alot about how he was a "war hero" and his "purple heart" (not that I'm questioning his patriotism--I commend any one who's in the armed forces), talked about how he was an Ivy grad (not that I'm dissing his intelligence--you'd have to be pretty smart to win congressional seat after congressional seat) but perhaps the biggest flaw was him "overbashing his opponent." In 2004, Kerry talked a lot about how "Bush screwed up" and his flaws, but we never really knew John Kerry's stance on anything. All we knew was that he said he "disagreed" with Bush's policies. There was no detail about his reform. Now though I reluctantly supported John Kerry because I am a democrat (and I tend to be partial to my party, I'll admit) my supporting of him was mostly because of his VP choice--I really like Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Kerry wasn't as "liberal" enough --for me, mostly conservative on a lot of things. And this wasn't really a direction the party wanted at the time. For any other political analysists out there, I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say another failure of the Kerry/Edwards ticket. During the 2004 election, just 2.5 years after the 9/11 attacks and 1 .5 years after invading Iraq--clearly with majority of Americans dissatisifaction, Democrats were definitely planning on using this as bait to set up a great campaign to recclain the White House. However, Democrats following the Clinton Adminstration were loosing their touch in terms of identity; there was no longer a defintive line between if you were on or not. Joe Lieberman (Connnecticut Senator) over the past 5-10 was wishy-washy in terms of party affiliations. He was a one point a democrat, then slightly swerved the republican direction. He now supports McCain and declares himself a liberal. Shortlly after him the democratic party spilt. You had your liberal and conservative democrats. Meanwhile, the republicans noticed this and although some of them jumped to the democratic side, many with the help of the "Maverick" John McCain (which I respect him for) led his party back in unity to support thier party and Bush as they sought to making especially foreign policy a big deal with the war--in an effort to defeat the democrats in the 2004 elections. And their strategy, combined with the poor voter turnout from the young groups made that a success.

Thankfully, in 2006 the democrats learned from their mistakes two years prior, united and even made history--where not only did they take Congress back, they inducted the first female as the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (a Baltimore Native and democrat of California. Hopefully with this year's election they will continue--especially since they are starting to more clearly define the "direction" they want to go into. :)

[ChronoGrl]

I see your point--in reference to my claim of the Electoral college. However in the 2004 campaign--it wasn't really an impact of "our votes didn't count." The 2004 was a horrible disaster in terms of the Voter Countout. The 18-30 group let Kerry down. Huge numbers of these groups didn't vote and when polled on reasons why results included: people "forgeting" voting day and times, "forgot or had issues" with absentee ballots, "didn't feel like it", "were sick", had "bad weather." Many celebs were pressuring young groups about voting and to their suprise it was all a dream. They didn't go out to the polls. Remember P. Diddy's infamous : "Vote or Die" campaign?

Suprisingly though, Bush got way more support from his party during re-election than before. He also got high voter turnout for the 65 and older age group. And besides young voters turning their backs on Kerry, he made a couple of futile, not so strategic moves. Much of what McCain is doing with Obama, Kerry talked alot about how he was a "war hero" and his "purple heart" (not that I'm questioning his patriotism--I commend any one who's in the armed forces), talked about how he was an Ivy grad (not that I'm dissing his intelligence--you'd have to be pretty smart to win congressional seat after congressional seat) but perhaps the biggest flaw was him "overbashing his opponent." In 2004, Kerry talked a lot about how "Bush screwed up" and his flaws, but we never really knew John Kerry's stance on anything. All we knew was that he said he "disagreed" with Bush's policies. There was no detail about his reform. Now though I reluctantly supported John Kerry because I am a democrat (and I tend to be partial to my party, I'll admit) my supporting of him was mostly because of his VP choice--I really like Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Kerry wasn't as "liberal" enough --for me, mostly conservative on a lot of things. And this wasn't really a direction the party wanted at the time. For any other political analysists out there, I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say another failure of the Kerry/Edwards ticket. During the 2004 election, just 2.5 years after the 9/11 attacks and 1 .5 years after invading Iraq--clearly with majority of Americans dissatisifaction, Democrats were definitely planning on using this as bait to set up a great campaign to recclain the White House. However, Democrats following the Clinton Adminstration were loosing their touch in terms of identity; there was no longer a defintive line between if you were on or not. Joe Lieberman (Connnecticut Senator) over the past 5-10 was wishy-washy in terms of party affiliations. He was a one point a democrat, then slightly swerved the republican direction. He now supports McCain and declares himself a liberal. Shortlly after him the democratic party spilt. You had your liberal and conservative democrats. Meanwhile, the republicans noticed this and although some of them jumped to the democratic side, many with the help of the "Maverick" John McCain (which I respect him for) led his party back in unity to support thier party and Bush as they sought to making especially foreign policy a big deal with the war--in an effort to defeat the democrats in the 2004 elections. And their strategy, combined with the poor voter turnout from the young groups made that a success.

Thankfully, in 2006 the democrats learned from their mistakes two years prior, united and even made history--where not only did they take Congress back, they inducted the first female as the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (a Baltimore Native and democrat of California. Hopefully with this year's election they will continue--especially since they are starting to more clearly define the "direction" they want to go into. :)

Mea culpa. I actually meant the 2000 Election in terms of the disenfranchised voter, not the 2004 Election.

Of the many issues that lead to the Democrats losing in 2004, disenfranchisement wasn't one of the major ones.

To that topic, though, I think the statement "the 18-30 group let Kerry down" is an incredible oversimplification and an oversight of the bigger issues at hand at the time - Quite frankly, John Kerry wasn't a particularly strong candidate for office. Take that weakness coupled with the fact that the Democrats had been essentially made impotent by the aftermath of 9/11 and the incredibly well-implemented spin campaign generated by the Bush administration - The Democrats were essentially fighting a losing battle.

But that was 2004.

Disenfranchisement was 2000.

But, regardless, the individual is still disenfranchised by the electoral college system. I'd like to believe that there truly is One Person, One Vote, but that simply isn't the case. And, in fact, that's intentional. The electoral college was built as a system of governmental checks and balances over the masses.

[Leprucky Cougar]

Mea culpa. I actually meant the 2000 Election in terms of the disenfranchised voter, not the 2004 Election.

Of the many issues that lead to the Democrats losing in 2004, disenfranchisement wasn't one of the major ones.

To that topic, though, I think the statement "the 18-30 group let Kerry down" is an incredible oversimplification and an oversight of the bigger issues at hand at the time - Quite frankly, John Kerry wasn't a particularly strong candidate for office. Take that weakness coupled with the fact that the Democrats had been essentially made impotent by the aftermath of 9/11 and the incredibly well-implemented spin campaign generated by the Bush administration - The Democrats were essentially fighting a losing battle.

But that was 2004.

Disenfranchisement was 2000.

But, regardless, the individual is still disenfranchised by the electoral college system. I'd like to believe that there truly is One Person, One Vote, but that simply isn't the case. And, in fact, that's intentional. The electoral college was built as a system of governmental checks and balances over the masses.

The one person, one vote thing is applicable to the House however. When we vote for HOR-we elect them directly--it's solely population vote. And I'm certainly not saying the "oversimplication of the JK let down" was the pinnacle of it all...not by a long shot. I was just saying this + the lack of democratic unity & repulican's winning a lot of people over with the post 9/11 events as you and I both reference.

[ChronoGrl]

The one person, one vote thing is applicable to the House however. When we vote for HOR-we elect them directly--it's solely population vote. And I'm certainly not saying the "oversimplication of the JK let down" was the pinnacle of it all...not by a long shot. I was just saying this + the lack of democratic unity & repulican's winning a lot of people over with the post 9/11 events as you and I both reference.

See, you're significantly more diplomatic and sympathetic than I am.

I consider the Liberal Left to be a bunch of pussies and I'm embarrassed to identify myself as one sometimes.

[Leprucky Cougar]

See, you're significantly more diplomatic and sympathetic than I am.

I consider the Liberal Left to be a bunch of pussies and I'm embarrassed to identify myself as one sometimes.

Yeah---I try to be as diplomatic and sympathetic as much as I can.

And I understand your point. I have plenty of freinds whom were liberal but decided the association with liberals and democrats shouldn't be in the same category. So they decided to identify themselves as radicals. They understand that liberal logic is usually with democrats but people like Carter, Kerry and a few others weren't "liberal" enough...not for the new more modern visions America is in, and on the verge of going.

But in the end, we should, I think try to find a lesser of two evils. It gets hard though to show you "libby" colors if your a dem prez that the Gop is the opposite party. So compromisng so much when Congress is in session, could make you appear to being "soft" or as you like to say "a pussy". See what I mean?