5 ms·

Wrong. I voted for Obama the first time. Then, when I learned he had no clue, lied about everything, did not do as promised, plunged us into more debt, is a to

Wrong. I voted for Obama the first time. Then, when I learned he had no clue, lied about everything, did not do as promised, plunged us into more debt, is a total union whore, etc, I voted for Romney. I am a true independent in the full sense of the word. To be fair, our system is based on political parties. If these were abolished and politicians had to run without party affiliation then one could vote outside clans. I want an intellectually honest limited government that is fiscally conservative and socially, well, gets the fuck out of our lives. As an atheist it pains me to sometimes have to vote for uber-religious Republicans. Sometimes I have to choose between social and fiscal policies. Obama promised he would deal with all of it, and here we are we have wasted four years and are about to waste four more. None of the extreme's are good. Extreme left, right and yes, extreme Libertarians are deranged and delusional lunatics who ought to be nowhere near our government. As an example, I love Ron Paul but some of his foreign policy ideas were nutty. I still think we need to quickly shift into something that is closer to a moderate Libertarian concept. Beyond that, we need major structural changes in order to have a shot at recovering in FIFTY YEARS. Yes folks, do the math, recovery will take twenty five to fifty years. We've done a lot of damage to our country --all from the inside. Unions, entitlement programs, patents, tax code, Obamacare, IRS, Patriot act, NSA, EDUCATION, spending, political whore politicians, ignorant voters, budgets, OSHA, etc.

d23 13y ago
> Wrong. I voted for Obama the first time. Then, when I learned he had no clue, lied about everything, did not do as promised, plunged us into more debt, is a total union whore, etc, I voted for Romney. > I want an intellectually honest limited government that is fiscally conservative and socially, well, gets the fuck out of our lives. So you voted for a guy who ran on a platform that was the opposite? That government has a positive role to play in peoples lives and believed in progressive social causes? > I am a true independent in the full sense of the word. Oh, in the sense that you're not informed? I believe the term is "low-information voter". You might want to try that instead of "independent".
- robomartin 13y ago
  Voting within a system where you know, almost without a doubt, that only a Democrat or a Republican can win is really difficult. As an independent or libertarian you sometimes have to be pragmatic and vote for someone who might be aligned with some of what you think is important and hope to do some good. The alternative is to either waste your vote on someone who will not get elected or refrain from voting at all. This isn't a simple problem. There are very few choices that actually make a difference. I used my presidential voting record merely to point out that I truly don't follow party lines. Voting at all levels is important, not just for president.
Alex3917 13y ago
So because Obama lied too much, you instead voted for the guy who probably told more lies than any politician in U.S. presidential history? And rather than voting for the libertarian who was running, you voted for the guy who campaigned on sending people to jail for getting abortions, using drugs, etc.?
bhauer 13y ago
Interesting voting pattern. To my mind, that pattern is another argument in favor of score voting (sometimes called "range voting") [1]. I'd vastly prefer score voting to our present plurality voting for all elections, and of course most importantly, national elections. This would have allowed me and you to score Obama, Romney, and Gary Johnson according to how well they match our ideals. I grow increasingly weary of either "choosing the lesser of two evils" or "throwing my vote away." [1] http://btf.io/362 http://btf.io/362
- robomartin 13y ago
  I agree with you. The problem is that at one point you have to face the reality that the candidate you really care for can't win. How do you choose then? Do you not vote or try to mitigate damage by, yes, choosing the lesser evil?
  - rooshdi 13y ago
    Let's be real. This president versus that president isn't going to change a thing if most of their constituents just don't care.
kunai 13y ago
> I voted for Romney You are part of the problem. When someone is a fucking idiot, you don't vote for the slightly less idiotic idiot, you vote third-party. You are not independent, and it's an embarrassment to say you are if you only vote for the lesser of two evils, and not one that cares about our country, like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > it's an embarrassment to say you are if you only vote for the lesser of two evils, and not one that cares about our country, like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Its quite possible to think that, of Obama and Romney, Romney is the lesser of two evils, and to think that for any X in (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein), Romney would still be the lesser of two evils when considering Romney vs. X. Its also quite possible to believe that Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein would be better than Romney who is in turn better than Obama but that, based on the information available at the time you go into the voting booth, that the plausible effects of voting for any of the third party candidates instead of Romney are, in declining order or probability: 1. No effect on the election outcome, 2. Increasing the probability of an Obama win 3. There is no #3 Based on this, it would be counterproductive to vote third party, and the responsible thing would be to vote for Romney. (Note that none of this should be taken as indicating anything of my actual preferences among any of those candidates.)
  - kunai 13y ago
    > Based on this, it would be counterproductive to vote third party, and the responsible thing would be to vote for Romney. This only stands if you want it to be counterproductive. A third-party candidate vote is never counterproductive. Even if it did increase the probability of an Obama win, or even if it did have no effect on the election outcome, why would it be a wasted vote? What you're effectively doing is raising publicity for the cause. Just because you'll have to suffer 4 more years of struggle doesn't mean it's all for nought.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
jaekwon 13y ago
You think voting for Romney shows that you learned anything? Shame on you.

d23 13y ago

> Wrong. I voted for Obama the first time. Then, when I learned he had no clue, lied about everything, did not do as promised, plunged us into more debt, is a total union whore, etc, I voted for Romney. > I want an intellectually honest limited government that is fiscally conservative and socially, well, gets the fuck out of our lives. So you voted for a guy who ran on a platform that was the opposite? That government has a positive role to play in peoples lives and believed in progressive social causes? > I am a true independent in the full sense of the word. Oh, in the sense that you're not informed? I believe the term is "low-information voter". You might want to try that instead of "independent".

robomartin 13y ago
Voting within a system where you know, almost without a doubt, that only a Democrat or a Republican can win is really difficult. As an independent or libertarian you sometimes have to be pragmatic and vote for someone who might be aligned with some of what you think is important and hope to do some good. The alternative is to either waste your vote on someone who will not get elected or refrain from voting at all. This isn't a simple problem. There are very few choices that actually make a difference. I used my presidential voting record merely to point out that I truly don't follow party lines. Voting at all levels is important, not just for president.

Alex3917 13y ago

So because Obama lied too much, you instead voted for the guy who probably told more lies than any politician in U.S. presidential history? And rather than voting for the libertarian who was running, you voted for the guy who campaigned on sending people to jail for getting abortions, using drugs, etc.?

bhauer 13y ago

Interesting voting pattern. To my mind, that pattern is another argument in favor of score voting (sometimes called "range voting") [1]. I'd vastly prefer score voting to our present plurality voting for all elections, and of course most importantly, national elections. This would have allowed me and you to score Obama, Romney, and Gary Johnson according to how well they match our ideals. I grow increasingly weary of either "choosing the lesser of two evils" or "throwing my vote away." [1] http://btf.io/362 http://btf.io/362

robomartin 13y ago
I agree with you. The problem is that at one point you have to face the reality that the candidate you really care for can't win. How do you choose then? Do you not vote or try to mitigate damage by, yes, choosing the lesser evil?
- rooshdi 13y ago
  Let's be real. This president versus that president isn't going to change a thing if most of their constituents just don't care.

kunai 13y ago

> I voted for Romney You are part of the problem. When someone is a fucking idiot, you don't vote for the slightly less idiotic idiot, you vote third-party. You are not independent, and it's an embarrassment to say you are if you only vote for the lesser of two evils, and not one that cares about our country, like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> it's an embarrassment to say you are if you only vote for the lesser of two evils, and not one that cares about our country, like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Its quite possible to think that, of Obama and Romney, Romney is the lesser of two evils, and to think that for any X in (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein), Romney would still be the lesser of two evils when considering Romney vs. X. Its also quite possible to believe that Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein would be better than Romney who is in turn better than Obama but that, based on the information available at the time you go into the voting booth, that the plausible effects of voting for any of the third party candidates instead of Romney are, in declining order or probability: 1. No effect on the election outcome, 2. Increasing the probability of an Obama win 3. There is no #3 Based on this, it would be counterproductive to vote third party, and the responsible thing would be to vote for Romney. (Note that none of this should be taken as indicating anything of my actual preferences among any of those candidates.)
- kunai 13y ago
  > Based on this, it would be counterproductive to vote third party, and the responsible thing would be to vote for Romney. This only stands if you want it to be counterproductive. A third-party candidate vote is never counterproductive. Even if it did increase the probability of an Obama win, or even if it did have no effect on the election outcome, why would it be a wasted vote? What you're effectively doing is raising publicity for the cause. Just because you'll have to suffer 4 more years of struggle doesn't mean it's all for nought.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago

jaekwon 13y ago

You think voting for Romney shows that you learned anything? Shame on you.