[risyGreeple]

I'm not saying that it's all about money. I'm just pointing out the flaw inthe argument that Obama's money is somehow the same as Romney's.

Wow. If you think one rich guy is any different than another rich guy, you've been bamboozled.

[gusunsuth]

Wow. If you think one rich guy is any different than another rich guy, you've been bamboozled.

Either you don't knnow the difference between old money and new money, or you're ignoring it out of convenience.

[doctorzlo]

This ISN'T left vs. right or whatever.

What would make me want to vote for the current occupant of the White House?

No rhetoric; just facts, please.

[KatoabamyHant]

This ISN'T left vs. right or whatever.

What would make me want to vote for the current occupant of the White House?

No rhetoric; just facts, please.

Probably nothing, more in this election is geared towards voting "against" the other guy than anything that would excite you about any of the mainstream candidates.

[Zesavenue]

This ISN'T left vs. right or whatever.

What would make me want to vote for the current occupant of the White House?

No rhetoric; just facts, please.

Ok, if you haven't picked up on it by this point, you're not going to.

We don't know what would make you vote for him. We don't know what your beliefs are. We don't know what's important to you. We don't know who is going to have an impact on your life the most.

Hell, to respond, I could say that one thing he has done is get the healthcare bill passed. But maybe you don't like the bill, so that wouldn't make you vote for him.

I could say that he kept Gitmo open, but maybe you think it should have been closed.

I could say that he has a great plan for energy, but you might not be interested in that.

So, in closing, it's impossible to answer your question, because what we think would make you want to vote for him could be the things that would make you vote against him.

[sportsbettinge]

Now you're thinkin'! A great plan for energy? Please enlighten me, as I've yet to see it addressed.

[casinobonuscxz]

Now you're thinkin'! A great plan for energy? Please enlighten me, as I've yet to see it addressed.

It was only an example. His plan is the same as everyone elses. Bitch about "Big Oil" while not actually doing anything to reduce the need for it.

[Aafimoq]

I just think it's funny you think the Obama/Romney vote will make a significant difference in affecting women!

Especially when you consider more women are now unemployed than men..

[prpaims]

Rizzo's dilemma cannot be resolved without knowing the state in which this voter's ballot will be cast. Only about one-third of the states are seriously in contention. If you live in Texas, the District of Columbia, California or Wyoming, you may as well not bother to vote because we already know which candidate will carry each of those states.

[antiggill]

Rizzo's dilemma cannot be resolved without knowing the state in which this voter's ballot will be cast. Only about one-third of the states are seriously in contention. If you live in Texas, the District of Columbia, California or Wyoming, you may as well not bother to vote because we already know which candidate will carry each of those states.

That is a fact. What's funny about California is though the state almost always votes democrat for President, we seem to vote in a lot of Republican governors.

[Roneyslelry]

I just think it's funny you think the Obama/Romney vote will make a significant difference in affecting women!

Well, one of them actually has supported a platform that routinely tries to remove access to sex education, birth control, and abortions even in the case of rape and incest.

I mean if you don't think they have any intention of fulfilling their platform's goals like they have every time in the past I guess this makes sense, technically.

[hellenmoranov]

Rizzo's dilemma cannot be resolved without knowing the state in which this voter's ballot will be cast. Only about one-third of the states are seriously in contention. If you live in Texas, the District of Columbia, California or Wyoming, you may as well not bother to vote because we already know which candidate will carry each of those states.

Fuck that. Not voting manages to pull off both stupid and lazy. Even if your state isn't going to swing your way it's still another voice in support of your candidate to say nothing of the local elections that take place at the same time.

[Rounteetepe]

Oh yeah, I forgot the whole "War on Women" Hyperbole, at least I tried to!

Then why do Reps keep running their sucks about vaginas?

Just going to throw this out there, but the biggest slut in the world has probably taken in less d___ than Akin's mouth.




And by "d___" I meant "dinner"... you know... because Akin is fat.... so like... I was joking he eats to much. Mind out of the gutter people!

[Effopsytupt]

I was going to put my vote this time around for the economic case, which is usually represented by the Republican party. Tea Party politics has made this difficult, however, since we as a country currently cannot afford to reduce taxes (to be honest, we can't legitimately expect to avoid an increase there and still hope to reduce our overall debt). I just really wish that someone out there would have the guts to say "You know, taxes are going to have to go up with no increase or even an overally decrease in programs, in order to get America into a decent shape by the end of this century".

It's sad that the Democratic party, usually the deficit spenders, are the ones most likely in the current case to get the macroeconomic issues somewhat on track. I may be unusual in that I'm willing to take a hit for my country, and willing to acknowledge that it is probably needed at this time. Oh, and as a last note, whenever anyone wants to make a claim about how President Obama has failed to push most of his bills and budgets through, please look to the votes on them. Most are split straight down party lines, with the Republican side of the aisle stonewalling it.

The vote for President will not affect this directly, but I feel that whomever is getting voted into the top office is going to need support from Congress. Anyone out there should probably base their vote on a combined view, to try to get the Executive aligned with the Legislative whichever way it happens to be.

[Itrtuawh]

Being the Dems are the ones more than likely NOT gonna reduce spending on any of the programs, other than the mil, i doubt they would do better than the reps.

[Ruiceara]

garhkal, I'm not arguing that point (because it's true). The problem lies in the fact that it will take a very strong combined approach to do what needs doing, and neither party seems to be doing it.

[welihiedginly]

As about half a dozen of the last posts prove, Super-PAC adds work, and they work well! I'd even argue they help the average American voter who is too intellectually lazy to make a decision for themselves! If you are still in fact undecided, I would encourage you to read my post #2 here, then everything that follows with that cautionary language in mind, and decide for yourself whether one candidate is really running a significantly stronger platform or if both sides are just feeding you craploads of BS. Election 2012, supposedly it's the most important elections of our lives!

[Evoryboypoto]

Very stupid. I'm probably going to write in some schmuck. It's disappointing that you are always told how much your vote counts. It doesn't count for anything when I'm stuck voting for the lesser of two evils every time. And if I vote for a 3rd party, it's pretty much a waste, other than to show that I'm not happy with the big two.

If you are gullible to swallow that tripe.... When it comes to the Pres election, your vote counts not at all. In this country, there are exactly 538 votes that count in a Pres election. No more, no less.

[corolaelwis]

If you are gullible to swallow that tripe.... When it comes to the Pres election, your vote counts not at all. In this country, there are exactly 538 votes that count in a Pres election. No more, no less.

What's tough about third party is the money factor. As about 2 pages of posts in this very thread clearly show. Super-PACs are definitely having an effect on this election. For every one of you who aren't too disengaged to look, there are ten others who quite frankly prefer that others tell them how they should vote, and twelve more that will swallow anything "their side" puts in front of them and immediately accept it as gospel.

[Aniplinipsync]

garhkal, I'm not arguing that point (because it's true). The problem lies in the fact that it will take a very strong combined approach to do what needs doing, and neither party seems to be doing it.

Yea true.. That's why i feel we should outs them all and put term limits on anyone wanting to run for office, with a pay packet similar to the public sector... that way we will know if they truely want to serve the people rather than their own pocket books..