View Poll Results: Do you support Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Voters
316. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mitt Romney

    86 27.22%
  • Barack Obama

    230 72.78%
Page 61 of 111 FirstFirst ... 115157585960616263646571 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,525 of 2770

Thread: Obama Vs. Romney: 2012 US Election

  1. #1501
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    corn country
    Posts
    3,918

    Default

    Personally, I think early voting should last up until the beginning of "normal" voting -- but then, I guess, what would separate that from early voting?
    3DS FC: 3926-4256-2399
    Ingame name: Coatlicue

    The usual links

  2. #1502
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Honestly I am not a fan of early voting. I would rather have all voters have the chance of vote with equal information. Some voters got the chance to vote before the debates even began!

  3. #1503
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    corn country
    Posts
    3,918

    Default

    Well, starting points that early, excepting those absentee cases where starting that early is critical to overall turnout of the electorate, are kind of silly. I'm sure that a lot of people basically had made up their minds by then (yourself probably included), mind you.
    3DS FC: 3926-4256-2399
    Ingame name: Coatlicue

    The usual links

  4. #1504
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cenobitic View Post
    Well, starting points that early, excepting those absentee cases where starting that early is critical to overall turnout of the electorate, are kind of silly. I'm sure that a lot of people basically had made up their minds by then (yourself probably included), mind you.
    True, but there can always be a rather large event that can change people's minds. The first debate performance by Obama proved that. Not to mention there is always the possibility of some bomb shell October Surprise that could possibly change everyone's mind. I mean lets say this was 2008, and it was John McCain vs John Edwards. And in late October in the middle of the full swing of early voting, it was revealed that John Edwards had a mistress who had born his baby, all while his wife was dying of cancer. Can you honestly say that people wouldn't want their vote back?
    Last edited by BigLutz; 5th November 2012 at 6:21 AM.

  5. #1505
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Well let me put it this way, the Redskin rule has a 100% accuracy with the revised rule, and something around 93% with out it. What is the accuracy of the Scholastic election or the 13 keys?
    Scholastic election has only been wrong twice, n 1960 and 1948 while the 13 keys is always right.
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  6. #1506

    Default

    I'm voteing for Romeny cause the way things are in my life mainly I going need a job in a year I think he is the better pick.

  7. #1507
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Paul Ryan says to Social Conservatives that Obama is threatening Judeo-Christian values and he'll continue to do so if he is reelected.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2074129.html

  8. #1508
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    corn country
    Posts
    3,918

    Default

    Funny, because Obama's a Christian, too. Not that politicians understand what "Judeo-Christian" values are (or if they do, they don't act like it). How would Obama threaten our religious freedom? Make us all Christians? I think a majority of Americans already are. Or at least, a very large number.
    3DS FC: 3926-4256-2399
    Ingame name: Coatlicue

    The usual links

  9. #1509
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cenobitic View Post
    Funny, because Obama's a Christian, too. Not that politicians understand what "Judeo-Christian" values are (or if they do, they don't act like it). How would Obama threaten our religious freedom? Make us all Christians? I think a majority of Americans already are.
    A majority, but not all. I'm proof of that.
    Anyways, he couldn't, 1st Amendment and all that. Though with all the hype about for and against the 2nd Amendment, I suppose even the Bill of Rights aren't untouchable.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  10. #1510
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    corn country
    Posts
    3,918

    Default

    Oh, I'm not even arguing that not all Americans are Christians (I sure am not), but that's sort of what I'm saying -- given that Obama has a religious view and it's the majority view... especially since Paul Ryan's talking to his own base (far as I can tell), who are most likely mostly Christian, why don't more of them shrug and say "okay" (other than the fact that they think he's a "secret Muslim," never mind how hard that'd be to keep secret anyway and that that could be alleviated via research)... or look at the Constitution (which would also tell them, if I recall correctly, that the President can't him/her/etc.self actually change the taxes like Romney promised at least once) and think "he couldn't sneak that one in anyway"?

    Then again, I guess some people vote(d) for candidates in the past on whether or not they would "take their gun(s) away" -- an ersatz point to bury all ersatz points.
    3DS FC: 3926-4256-2399
    Ingame name: Coatlicue

    The usual links

  11. #1511
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cenobitic View Post
    Oh, I'm not even arguing that not all Americans are Christians (I sure am not), but that's sort of what I'm saying -- given that Obama has a religious view and it's the majority view... especially since Paul Ryan's talking to his own base (far as I can tell), who are most likely mostly Christian, why don't more of them shrug and say "okay" (other than the fact that they think he's a "secret Muslim," never mind how hard that'd be to keep secret anyway and that that could be alleviated via research)... or look at the Constitution (which would also tell them, if I recall correctly, that the President can't him/her/etc.self actually change the taxes like Romney promised at least once) and think "he couldn't sneak that one in anyway"?

    Then again, I guess some people vote(d) for candidates in the past on whether or not they would "take their gun(s) away" -- an ersatz point to bury all ersatz points.
    Yeah, because, to be honest, when you vote for a president, you don't vote for things to happen, you vote for a recommendation for these things to happen. Like it or not most, if not all, of the president's actions must be approved by Congress. The whole checks and balances things.
    If a law that originates from Congress is passed and wholly conflicts with the Bill of Rights/Constitution, first the president can override that once. Congress can override the override and then pass it anyways. Then its up to the Supreme Court to declare void if someone brings up a case.
    If the president wants to make a law, he can only recommend it to Congress and then they have to pass it.
    So the president is powerless alone. And that was the point. So when candidates promise to "pass a law", they are making false or un-backed promises, since they can only be filled if Congress lets them.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  12. #1512
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cenobitic View Post
    Funny, because Obama's a Christian, too. Not that politicians understand what "Judeo-Christian" values are (or if they do, they don't act like it). How would Obama threaten our religious freedom? Make us all Christians? I think a majority of Americans already are. Or at least, a very large number.
    You can be a Christian and not follow Christian values. Being a Christian merely means saying you believe Christ is the son of God, etc etc. And lets be honest Obama has hurt religious values for Christians through the laws and acts he has passed. Specifically the Contraception mandate.

  13. #1513
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    corn country
    Posts
    3,918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    You can be a Christian and not follow Christian values. Being a Christian merely means saying you believe Christ is the son of God, etc etc. And lets be honest Obama has hurt religious values for Christians through the laws and acts he has passed. Specifically the Contraception mandate.
    I'm pretty sure he said that religious organizations had an out on that, though. And if that's your only example? Especially because many women take contraceptive pills for non-contraceptive purposes, and, from what I remember, a large number, somewhere on the order of 90+%, of Catholic women take them.

    Again, would have to dig out sources for these again.
    3DS FC: 3926-4256-2399
    Ingame name: Coatlicue

    The usual links

  14. #1514
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cenobitic View Post
    I'm pretty sure he said that religious organizations had an out on that, though.
    His out I believe is they would pay for insurance that would then offer contraception, which is a defacto payment and thus not a out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cenobitic View Post
    And if that's your only example? Especially because many women take contraceptive pills for non-contraceptive purposes, and, from what I remember, a large number, somewhere on the order of 90+%, of Catholic women take them.
    Merely the first one that comes to mind, as I am debating it again on another forum. And by the way not all Christians are Women.

  15. #1515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    In Florida, people are waiting in line to vote early as Governor Rick Scott refuses to extend polling hours.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics

    I saw that one. Democrats wanted to sue because they think early voting hours were too short... but we been given a week. Good for the governor. I've waited a long time in line to vote and it was worth it because General Election voting is going to be a mad house.
    岩根雅明=♡

  16. #1516
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    corn country
    Posts
    3,918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    His out I believe is they would pay for insurance that would then offer contraception, which is a defacto payment and thus not a out.
    Fair if sourced.

    Merely the first one that comes to mind, as I am debating it again on another forum. And by the way not all Christians are Women.
    That may be, but what does that have to do with it? That it would only hold if all Christians were women? That just because there's at least ONE MAN in the faith, suddenly the statistic that 90+% of Catholic women use contraceptives doesn't matter?
    3DS FC: 3926-4256-2399
    Ingame name: Coatlicue

    The usual links

  17. #1517
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cenobitic View Post
    Fair if sourced.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/1...ost-to-anyone/

    The Insurance Companies will pay for the Contraception, the Religious Entities will pay for the Insurance, creating a defacto payment for Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by Cenobitic View Post
    That may be, but what does that have to do with it? That it would only hold if all Christians were women? That just because there's at least ONE MAN in the faith, suddenly the statistic that 90+% of Catholic women use contraceptives doesn't matter?
    It doesn't

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was put in place for this one very reason, laws cannot create a substantial burden on a person's freedom of religion. That can be one person, it can be millions. Now there are two things that can be used to override the law: First, if the burden is necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest. Second the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.

    Seeing how insurance is available outside of a employer, and a person can buy contraceptive medicine over the counter at say Target for fairly cheap. The law does not rise to either of those exemptions.

  18. #1518
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    As far as Contraception and Abortions go, I think I choose a more center opinion. Or not. I dunno.

    I think that Contraception should be paid out of pocket and not be insurance. The day after pill should be legal, but also paid out of pocket.
    Abortions should be legal, but also be paid for by the person EXCEPT in cases of rape and/or threat to the mother. In those situations, it should be paid by insurance.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  19. #1519
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    corn country
    Posts
    3,918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was put in place for this one very reason, laws cannot create a substantial burden on a person's freedom of religion. That can be one person, it can be millions. Now there are two things that can be used to override the law: First, if the burden is necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest. Second the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
    Possible tangent: What defines "a substantial burden on a person's freedom of religion" or "a compelling government interest," though? You know, just as a point of interest.
    3DS FC: 3926-4256-2399
    Ingame name: Coatlicue

    The usual links

  20. #1520
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cenobitic View Post
    Possible tangent: What defines "a substantial burden on a person's freedom of religion" or "a compelling government interest," though? You know, just as a point of interest.
    Eh, it varies.
    Just look at the Necessary and Proper Clause. Basically, gov gets to do whatever they please as long as there's a good enough reason. Who determines if the reason is good enough? The Supreme Court, essentially.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  21. #1521
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    corn country
    Posts
    3,918

    Default

    So, it sounds kind of like a "we'll just have to agree to disagree" moment. Can't be helped, really.
    3DS FC: 3926-4256-2399
    Ingame name: Coatlicue

    The usual links

  22. #1522
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cenobitic View Post
    Possible tangent: What defines "a substantial burden on a person's freedom of religion" or "a compelling government interest," though? You know, just as a point of interest.
    A substantial burden on a person's freedom of religion would be to put some one in a position in which they would have to violate their religion. Performing a Abortion, Giving Contraceptive Drugs, Working on a Religious Holiday, Eating Pork, etc etc. Compelling Government Interest is something that the Government needs to happen, such as you cannot say "It is against my religion to pay taxes" because it is a compelling Government interest to have tax dollars flow in.

  23. #1523
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tyler, Tx
    Posts
    669

    Default

    Can anyone tell me why the heck you all are really voting for Obama please explain to me why you would like 4 more years like the last 4?

    I would actually vote for Ron Paul really but I go Romney over Obama.

  24. #1524
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Salvage Springs, Telmani
    Posts
    1,001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rangerdude24 View Post
    Can anyone tell me why the heck you all are really voting for Obama please explain to me why you would like 4 more years like the last 4?

    I would actually vote for Ron Paul really but I go Romney over Obama.
    Because maybe these people really don't want to become poorer and the richer get richer? I dunno. Just a thought.
    If I could vote, I'd go third party, Stein. Though Johnson is pretty good too.
    ~Author's Profile ||~|| <Fly High Graphics> ~
    ~rTTL: Chapter 3: 31% ||~|~|~|| rAVT : Chapter 2: 0%~



  25. #1525
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Unova
    Posts
    695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rangerdude24 View Post
    Can anyone tell me why the heck you all are really voting for Obama please explain to me why you would like 4 more years like the last 4?

    I would actually vote for Ron Paul really but I go Romney over Obama.
    Because I like to have rights to my own body?

    Because I'd like to get married someday?

    Because I'm not rich, white, or male?

Page 61 of 111 FirstFirst ... 115157585960616263646571 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •