Who are you voting for, McCain or Obama?

No political talk, there's already a thread for that. Let's only talk about voting experiences and the like.

Third party

I voted in Canada.

Early voted for McCain a couple weeks ago.

McCain. I wonder how my state (FL) will hit the news this year...

Early voted for Obama.

Waited for ~45min. Didn't even need any form of ID. They just looked me up in the computer and gave me a ballot.

Already voted for Obama.

[quote73a5dec0f9="YourGiftsFree"]McCain. I wonder how my state (FL) will hit the news this year...[/quote73a5dec0f9]

Probably something about old people being confused about something.

If I could vote, I'd for Obama, but I won't taint the scientific data that this poll will produce by doing so.

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbjBHkKiS4c

Obama

I early voted for Bob Barr.

My vote is locked in for Obama.

No need to early vote in my area, so I'll be voting on November 4th.

Obama on my birthday. D

Obama all the wayyyyyyyy

[quotebaf471cba2="h3x"]My vote is locked in for Obama.

No need to early vote in my area, so I'll be voting on November 4th.[/quotebaf471cba2]

Really? Aren't you pretty conservative?

Yeah I thought you were a Republican, h3x.

early voted for McCain, was going to vote for Ron Paul, but I didn't know how to write in and the workers were already pretty pissed so I picked my next best choice

[quote9ffa88edd9="tylerc"]Really? Aren't you pretty conservative?[/quote9ffa88edd9]

Yeah... I would say I'm conservative. But I suppose that is up to the eye of the beholder.

[quote9ffa88edd9="theysayjump"]Yeah I thought you were a Republican, h3x.[/quote9ffa88edd9]

I've never registered with a party nor would I blindly follow one. I've always been "Undeclared" and I always give both sides a fair chance.

Look at the list of Republicans and independent conservatives that have endorsed Obama.

To name a few

- Susan Eisenhower (Granddaughter of President Eisenhower)
- Colin Powell (Retired General and Secretary General under Bush)
- CC Goldwater (Granddaughter of Barry Goldwater)
- Christopher Buckley (Son of William F. Buckley)
- William Weld (Former governor of Massachusetts)
- Arne Carlson (Former governor of Minnesota)
- Lowell Weicker (Former governor of Connecticut)
- Linwood Holton (Former governor of Virginia)
- Bill Ruckelshaus (Served in the Nixon and Reagan administrations)
- Ken Adelman - (Served in the Ford administration)

http//www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341

Voting McCain,,,, may early vote.

at 14/16, it almost reflects the polls w/ the standard deviation. This is going to be a tight race I think.

[quote5772dfd243="Iloveipods2"]at 14/16, it almost reflects the polls w/ the standard deviation. This is going to be a tight race I think.[/quote5772dfd243]

I think obama will win quite easily...

Surely you've heard of the Bradley Effect? Or forget when Bush was down by double digits right before the election and still won?

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

[quote4f7b12210a="tylerc"]Surely you've heard of the Bradley Effect? Or forget when Bush was down by double digits right before the election and still won?

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect[/quote4f7b12210a]

Bush probably didn't even win, that election was so fucked up...

[quoted20f0f3e96="Iloveipods2"]at 14/16, it almost reflects the polls w/ the standard deviation. This is going to be a tight race I think.[/quoted20f0f3e96]

LOL - this poll is by no means scientific, nor does the populaiton here represent a proper cross-section of the U.S.

For proof of this, check out the poll results from 2004

[code1d20f0f3e96]Who are you voting for?
John Kerry 45% [ 18 ]
George Bush 35% [ 14 ]
Ralph Nader 2% [ 1 ]
Other 5% [ 2 ]
Fuck Voting 12% [ 5 ][/code1d20f0f3e96]

http//forum.freeipodguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=29

I'm talking about 2004.

[quotea888d25c15="tylerc"]Surely you've heard of the Bradley Effect? Or forget when Bush was down by double digits right before the election and still won?

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect[/quotea888d25c15]
While I'm sure it might apply to a few voters, I don't give the Bradley Effect nearly as much influence these days. As a society we fortunately tend to be a bit more enlightened than that. In 1982 (when the Bradley Effect was coined) the racial acceptance factor for high profile politicians was much different than today.

As far as my vote, well, I'm still not sure. Six months ago, or even three months ago, it was McCain without hesitation. Since then however he (or his campaign managers) have done everything they can to sink his chances. While I believe his turn of character is artificial and temporary, one carefully choreographed to appeal to a right-wing base that never wanted to support McCain in the first place, it has compromised his major character strengths for which he was so well known and respected integrity, moderation, and bi-partisanship. He's not running like the McCain I've respected for so long, he's like a different person -- almost certainly due to the stakes and this likely being his last shot -- and it's a bitter pill for me to swallow. I think he should have pandered to the independent and moderate base rather than the right-wing, but they do hold a tremendous amount of power (as does the left-wing base). I so hate a two party system...

Still, while I am impressed with Obama on some points, I have major heartburn with some of his extremely socialistic ideas and his utter disregard for the 2nd Amendment. So I'll probably throw my vote away and vote for McCain. They do call McCain the Comeback Kid and I would love to see that happen, but at this point my optimism has faded.

[quote9860835222="tylerc"]I'm talking about 2004.[/quote9860835222]

I can't find a single poll from the general election period (Labor Day to Election Day) that has Bush 43 down by more than 2 points.

You can find a nice summary here[=http//poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/69/5/642/T1]summary here, in this [i9860835222]Public Opinion Quarterly Journal [/i9860835222][=http//poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/642][i9860835222]Public Opinion Quarterly Journal [/i9860835222]article.

[quote8bf21a8757="dmorris68"]His utter disregard for the 2nd Amendment.[/quote8bf21a8757]

He is for moderate gun control (which I am against), but he isn't going to take our guns away. Yes, he did/does support a community's right to pass a handgun ban if they feel it is necessary, but he would never do this at the federal level and he has said that numerous times.

The worst he'll do is reinstate the Assault Weapons ban, possibly enforce a mandatory waiting period for background checks, and enforce a law that would prevent mentally deranged individuals from obtaining weapons (individuals such as that Virginia Tech killer).

I'm a law-abiding citizen and I can wait a few days for a background check, and I have no intentions on ever owning what is classified as an "Assault Weapon". So this issue doesn't really affect me personally. I'll admit it's an inconvenience, but there are much more important issues at stake than this.

[quote0bb36abf1a="h3x"]I'm a law-abiding citizen and I can wait a few days for a background check, and I have no intentions on ever owning what is classified as an "Assault Weapon". So this issue doesn't really affect me personally. I'll admit it's an inconvenience, but there are much more important issues at stake than this.[/quote0bb36abf1a]

The problem I have with that is once the AWB is reinstated, then you can start pushing for banning high capacity magazines (which some states already do. One of my guns is legal in California, the 10rd mag is legal there, but my 12 rd mag is not). Then you can push for banning semi-autos altogether. Allowing the government to even chip away at the Bill of Rights a little bit opens the door for bigger problems later.

That said, I do agree that there are more important issues on the table. However, the second amendment stance is a pretty big issue to me - especially something like a city-wide gun ban. I am fine with stricter background checks and strict requirements for buying a gun. For example, the Michigan requirements for obtaining a CPL would be fine for general gun ownership to me - essentially you can't have any felonies, certain misdemeanors, or be mentally ill (http//www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html).

You Americans certainly do love your guns.

But no discussion!

[quotecb7c1a844b="theysayjump"]You Americans certainly do love your guns.[/quotecb7c1a844b]

We sure do. )

[quotecb7c1a844b="CollidgeGraduit"]That said, I do agree that there are more important issues on the table. However, the second amendment stance is a pretty big issue to me[/quotecb7c1a844b]

The second amendment is also a very important issue to me, but I will say that I'm comfortable with Obama being President despite some of his views regarding Gun Control.

OK... No more discussion. ;)

[quote23ea0933f2="h3x"][quote23ea0933f2="dmorris68"]His utter disregard for the 2nd Amendment.[/quote23ea0933f2]

He is for moderate gun control (which I am against), but he isn't going to take our guns away. Yes, he did/does support a community's right to pass a handgun ban if they feel it is necessary, but he would never do this at the federal level and he has said that numerous times.

The worst he'll do is reinstate the Assault Weapons ban, possibly enforce a mandatory waiting period for background checks, and enforce a law that would prevent mentally deranged individuals from obtaining weapons (individuals such as that Virginia Tech killer).

I'm a law-abiding citizen and I can wait a few days for a background check, and I have no intentions on ever owning what is classified as an "Assault Weapon". So this issue doesn't really affect me personally. I'll admit it's an inconvenience, but there are much more important issues at stake than this.[/quote23ea0933f2]
Let me first clarify I'm not one of those "gun nuts" who feel that there should be a free-for-all when it comes to arms, and that nothing should be restricted. I also agree that it isn't the biggest issue facing our society, which is why I still give Obama credibility -- if it were our biggest issue, I would have already discounted him. I'm much more concerned about his socialist policies. But since we're talking 2A, and you seem to think he isn't very anti-gun, I'll comment further on that.

Unlike a lot of 2A purists, I don't think the sky will fall if Obama is elected, or that we will all lose all of our guns. Not for his lack of wanting it, but simply because there will be too many more pressing issues to work on, at least at first. And he can't do ANYTHING by himself -- he needs Congressional and Supreme Court support to make any drastic changes stick.

I'm an NRA member but do not subscribe to all of their propaganda any more than I subscribe to that of any other. I do and have always supported reasonable gun control laws -- the very same laws we've had for years. I don't have a problem with background checks, I do have a minor problem with waiting periods or quotas. In my state I can buy any gun without a background check, because I have a concealed carry permit which exempts me (the background check for a CCW permit is far more in depth than for a simple purchase).

Despite comments he has made to appease would-be voters, particularly in gun-friendly states, that he "believes in the 2nd Amendment," his actions and words to the contrary ring much louder. Obama has made it clear that he is about as anti-gun as any politician, and certainly any Presidential candidate with a shot at winning, has ever been. That includes the Clintons (plural).

[list23ea0933f2][li23ea0933f2]He opposes concealed carry laws. Obama said “I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” (Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004). As a concealed carry licensee myself, I would be greatly concerned if he attempts to push federal laws restricting CCW.
[li23ea0933f2]He supports renewing and extending the AWB, which was a farce. True assault weapons are already NFA restricted -- most of the arms covered by the Clinton/Brady AWB merely [i23ea0933f2]resembled[/i23ea0933f2] assault weapons, but yet were functionally [b23ea0933f2]identical[/b23ea0933f2] to common sporting/hunting arms. It didn't matter if it had the same caliber and rate of fire as a hunting rifle, if it had a certain physical profile, such as a pistol grip or a flash suppressor, it was "an assault weapon" and somehow more dangerous than a hunting rifle. To ban something strictly for its appearance is just stupid. Worse, they also caught up many weapons that didn't ever resembled assault weapons. High capacity handgun magazines, for instance. Anybody with combat experience, whether civilian or military, will attest to there being nothing about handguns that qualify them as assault weapons, no matter their capacity. And no, I don't own any real or "imaginary" assault weapons, all of my firearms are and would continue to be legal under the AWB. Even the magazines, as the largest I have are 10-round. But I still think it's a retarded law, so much so that I'm considering building myself a couple of AR's, in 5.56 and 7.62, just so I can thumb my nose at the next AWB.
[li23ea0933f2]He supports lawsuits against gun manufacturers when their products are used in crime, when the gun manufacturer had nothing to do with the unlawful use of their product. If this sort of nonsense were to pass, it should apply to all products used in commission of violent crimes, and not just guns. Baseball bats, kitchen knives, automobiles, tire irons... all should be fair game in that case.
[li23ea0933f2]Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sports shooting. (United States Senate, vote no. 217, S. 397, July 29, 2005)
[li23ea0933f2]Obama voted to uphold local gun bans [b23ea0933f2]and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.[/b23ea0933f2] (Illinois Senate, SB 2165, vote 20, March 25, 2004) [i23ea0933f2](the highlighted part I lireallyli have a major problem with)[/i23ea0933f2]
[li23ea0933f2]He supports national registration of guns and their owners. This has historically been a precursor to the sweeping gun bans that come much later. The 2A is a guarantee to protect the people against tyranny. Pretty much every tyrannical government in history has begun by banning private ownership of weapons. If there is a national registry, they know exactly which [i23ea0933f2]law abiding[/i23ea0933f2] citizens have guns, so they know exactly where to go to get them. I'm not saying Obama would be such a tyrant, but if he had his way in passing mandatory registration, he would be setting the stage for someone later to come along and take advantage of it.[/listu23ea0933f2]
All that said, no I don't believe he can do these things on his own, at least not quickly. It would take the magic 60% in the Senate (which I have greater concerns about happening than Obama winning) AND the replacement of one or two SC justices with ultra-liberals, to enable him to take things that far. But he certainly could set the necessary groundwork, and if he lays low on the controversial subjects like guns during his first term, and is actually successful with tackling more pressing issues and becomes a hugely popular president, you think he won't have carte blanche during his inevitable second term? His socialistic vein apparently runs deep, and this is would be a key point for them.

BTW, mentally deranged people are already banned by federal law from purchasing firearms. As it should be. The problem with the Virginia Tech killer wasn't that the BI law was circumvented (it wasn't, he cleanly passed his BI for both weapons he used), it was that his mental health history was never properly recorded in such a way that the BI would uncover it. Some states are more lax about it than others, and some mental health professionals adhere to the privacy issues, so I agree that needs to be fixed. But the law is already clear that mental defect is a disqualifier for legal firearm ownership.

Also, whomever it was that suggested FactCheck.org was unbiased, needs to check again. There have been many links uncovered between them and liberal causes/benefactors. Personally I think everyone has an agenda no matter how much they attempt to suppress it, so I would never trust any one source for information. You have to research as many sources as you can find while educating yourself on the issues so that you can judge for yourself. Don't let any third party tell you who is right or wrong.

Oh, what was that? No more discussion? Oops.

That's one hell of a discussion.

[quotef9b28cbec5="bballp6699"]That's one hell of a discussion.[/quotef9b28cbec5]
Sorry, mixed this thread up with the other one, and after typing all that out and realizing we weren't supposed to discuss it here, I wasn't going to throw it away. P

Call it abuse of power, executive privilege, or being in possession of sexually compromising mashed potato sculptures of TSJ... I don't care. ;)

One of my friends also has a concealed carry permit. He would have voted for Obama if not for his strong stance on gun control. I'm afraid he lost a lot of votes for this reason. He's pissed at me for voting Obama lol

In regards to your remark that Obama is a Socialist Was the $700 billion buyout and nationalization of banks, socialist? Is Obama's proposal to have the same top marginal tax rates as the Reagan administration, socialist? If so, does that mean that Reagan was a socialist? Of course not.

The whole claim that Obama is a Socialist is absurd.

OK, No more discussion. You want to discuss this with me further, then let's take this over to the other thread. P

This is going to be an interesting night. I believe Obama will win for sure, but the popular vote might be closer than people think. One of my professors did some complex analysis on the polls and determined that McCain is actually 3 points behind nationally. Obama is ahead in key states and all that matters is electoral votes. Anyone else think we should go by popular vote only? I didn't look into much about this, but I feel in this day and age why not. Anyone familiar with this? Do you guys think that would work well?

This is going to be an interesting night. I believe Obama will win for sure, but the popular vote might be closer than people think. One of my professors did some complex analysis on the polls and determined that McCain is actually 3 points behind nationally. Obama is ahead in key states and all that matters is electoral votes. Anyone else think we should go by popular vote only? I didn't look into much about this, but I feel in this day and age why not. Anyone familiar with this? Do you guys think that would work well?[/quote

No.

No to the popular vote I hope? National polling isn't that accurate. I still think popular vote could work if it was done the right way. What do you guys think about mail in ballots? I think that would be a good way for voting. Have people start sending it early. Basically, the absentee ballot system.

[quotea872f795ae="Powerbook"]No to the popular vote I hope? National polling isn't that accurate. I still think popular vote could work if it was done the right way. What do you guys think about mail in ballots? I think that would be a good way for voting. Have people start sending it early. Basically, the absentee ballot system.[/quotea872f795ae]

Popular vote will not work.

Maybe not the normal popular vote, but I don't like the electoral college system. As far as voting goes, I think mail in voting would be a good idea. It wouldn't feel the same as traditional voting, but I think it would work better. Someone was telling me their state that option. I think it was Oregon. I was kind of disappointed since for my first election that I could vote in I did an absentee ballot. I always wanted to pull that lever lol.

[quoteff98d2cb79="Powerbook"]No to the popular vote I hope? National polling isn't that accurate. I still think popular vote could work if it was done the right way. What do you guys think about mail in ballots? I think that would be a good way for voting. Have people start sending it early. Basically, the absentee ballot system.[/quoteff98d2cb79]
I just did that because I'll be at school and unable to come home that day.

[quotecf30b52290="zr2152"][quotecf30b52290="Powerbook"]No to the popular vote I hope? National polling isn't that accurate. I still think popular vote could work if it was done the right way. What do you guys think about mail in ballots? I think that would be a good way for voting. Have people start sending it early. Basically, the absentee ballot system.[/quotecf30b52290]

Popular vote will not work.[/quotecf30b52290]

how will it not? It actually makes your vote count. I voted for McCain. My state (California) is going to turn blue regardless of my vote. This state never turns red; so how does my vote count? It doesn't. With a popular vote, it would count.

But electoral system works OK as it is anyway.

[quote04a3a89a94="EatChex89"][quote04a3a89a94="zr2152"][quote04a3a89a94="Powerbook"]No to the popular vote I hope? National polling isn't that accurate. I still think popular vote could work if it was done the right way. What do you guys think about mail in ballots? I think that would be a good way for voting. Have people start sending it early. Basically, the absentee ballot system.[/quote04a3a89a94]

Popular vote will not work.[/quote04a3a89a94]

how will it not? It actually makes your vote count. I voted for McCain. My state (California) is going to turn blue regardless of my vote. This state never turns red; so how does my vote count? It doesn't. With a popular vote, it would count.

But electoral system works OK as it is anyway.[/quote04a3a89a94]


Yeah, the one thing that pisses me off is that if you are in a solid red or blue state and vote the opposite it feels as if you did nothing. I don't see how the popular vote would not work. The 2000 election is probably the classic example of how a president can win without winning the popular vote.

Yeah, please explain to me why popular vote wouldn't work.

What doesn't make sense is that there are so many states in the primaries who award proportional delegates but when it comes to the real deal, it's all or nothing.

California. <3333333333333333333333333333333333333

[quotea86744d4d1="Veek"]California. <3333333333333333333333333333333333333[/quotea86744d4d1]

How much are you loving California right now after they just passed 8?

[quotef468ac9b7a="mnx12"][quotef468ac9b7a="Veek"]California. <3333333333333333333333333333333333333[/quotef468ac9b7a]

How much are you loving California right now after they just passed 8?[/quotef468ac9b7a]


Still lots, though people are idiots.