Talk Politics

Comment

Comment by JDad on August 20, 2012 at 10:10pm

An instructive piece by John Fund, the title of which is Military Voting Rights Under Fire in Ohio.  The link, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314434/military-voting-right...,  will take you to this piece, the first paragraph of which reads this way:  "Lawyers for the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee marched into federal court last week to argue that it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow military voters to cast in-person early ballots on the Saturday through Monday before Election Day, given that early voting for all other voters stops on the Friday before Election Day. Apparently, Team Obama has decided to take a break from howling about the alleged injustice of voter-ID laws to argue that military voters don’t deserve an occasional accommodation."  Click on the link and read the rest.  Hooyah Navy Dads. . . .

Comment by JDad on August 20, 2012 at 9:39pm

From the Libertarian Party website: 

Gov. Gary Johnson Could Cost Romney 5 Battleground States, 74 Electoral Votes Needed to Win in 2012

"2-Term Governor Gary Johnson’s Votes in North  Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado Could Determine the  Winner of the 2012 Presidential Election"

Libertarian Presidential candidate Gov. Gary Johnson is polling at 5.3% nationwide. (JZ Analytics/Washington Times).

But look at the numbers when he’s included in statewide polls against Obama and Romney. 13% in New Mexico. 9% in Arizona. 7% in Colorado. 7% in New Hampshire. 8% in Montana. (PPP and others) Governor Johnson’s poll numbers – and his votes this November - may be the critical factor in “Tipping Point” or battleground states like North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado – where Obama and Romney are 1% to 6% apart.  Mitt Romney needs these 5 states, these 74 Electoral votes to win the White House.

I'll say no more. . . .

Comment by Kirk Brooks on August 20, 2012 at 4:08pm

Like golf instructor Martin Hall always says, "As long as you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting". Nobody is extolling the virtues of their candidates anymore, we just say "Well, at least he's not the other guy". We accept marginal candidates as a matter of course anymore and then wonder why we get the politicians we deserve. To select someone because he's from either party a or party b is just following party dogma. You're not really voting your conscience and your voice is just one of many that are drowned out in the background by politicians who don't give two turds about you. The GOP and the DNC aren't interested in problem solving, they all just want to be the party in power. Both sides drown us with campaigns packed full of half-truths and feel good rhetoric because they know that people will just fall in line. Remember the howling over, voting for Perot was a vote for Clinton, voting for Nader was a vote Bush. If your candidate can't win on his own merits, he shouldn't be there. That's just whiners mad because they lost.Voting for a third party is simply expressing your right as a US citizen and even if you lose, at least it's with dignity. Something the prevailing parties is sorely lacking.526165_10150989134151644_1840727646_n.jpg

Comment by Jack Flash on August 20, 2012 at 1:56pm

---- "couldn't be farther apart" ----

Comment by Jack Flash on August 20, 2012 at 1:54pm

Interesting discussion...

Think of the election process as Political Olympics. Thousands train for years and compete just for a chance to go to the Olympics. Few ever get the opportunity, but of these few, fewer still get a chance to get up on the podium. After most of the competition has already taken place there are just a small handful of competitors still standing, and then those with a fighting chance at a medal are further dwindled until it is down to jus two who will matche up head-to-head for the Championship. At this point, 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on are already decided.

To pick a third party candidate, would be like cheering for the person who is already out of the running and not vying for the Gold. Why bother? I mean unless you are Canadian or something, why not stay engaged in the process that will ultimately determine who will be up on the podium?

I'm a little surprised to hear someone say they are predominantly moderate or conservative by nature, agonizing over their choice in this upcoming election cycle. The choices could be further apart on the political spectrum.

Comment by Kirk Brooks on August 20, 2012 at 6:19am

Joseph, I should vote for some one that I don't respect or have faith in simply to be one of the masses? or what. If I vote for someone who I feel will do an inferior job how is that not also a wasted vote? If I vote my conscience and then inform the GOP/DNC as to why I voted against both parties then my voice is heard, whether it falls on deaf ears or not, is another matter. This forum may be for Navy Dads but the election of a president concerns far more than defense budgets. Any vote that is cast is never meaningless or irrelevant, even if it means you won't get what you want, standing up and saying "Enough" is what made this country great. Kowtowing to will of the party, simply because it's the party, is meaningless. Voting for the GOP simply because they aren't the other guy would make me a sheep, not a man. Do I think the Reform Party or the Libertarians, or Ron Paul stand a snowball's chance in Hell? Of course not, but to not vote at all would be a wasted vote. Perhaps if enough people, over the years, would tell the party's that we've had enough of them catering to a select few, instead of stepping in line with political dogma we could make some real and meaningful changes. Every day we hear people say "Someone should do something". Maybe it's time to be someone.

Comment by JDad on August 19, 2012 at 10:48pm

Steve B has it nailed; my way of putting it is this:  if you "protest" vote for a third party candidate, you are, in effect, voting for Obama.  You might feel good about the "protest" for a while afterwards, but your vote will be politically meaningless and irrelevant.  Look at what the current administration proposes in terms of slashing defense budgets and then think again about a "protest" vote. . . .

Comment by STEVE B on August 19, 2012 at 5:20pm

YOU'RE RIGHT, KIRK. ROMNEY IS NO REAGAN. NEITHER IS OBAMA. WHETHER YOU AGREED WITH REAGAN'S IDEALS OR NOT, THERE'S NO DENYING HE WAS A MAN'S MAN - THE LAST OF A DYING BREED. SOME DAYS IT SEEMS THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH REAL MEN LEFT IN THIS WORLD. THERE ARE TOO MANY "SENSITIVE" (POLITICALLY CORRECT) PRIUS-DRIVING TEVA-WEARING STAY-AT-HOME SOCCER DADS IF YOU ASK ME. THAT'S JUST ME ON MY SOAP BOX..

HOWEVER, IN KEEPING WITH THE CONTEXT OF OUR DISCUSSIONS HERE AT NAVYDADS: WE ARE VOTING FOR OUR SONS'/DAUGHTERS' COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT MEDICARE (I'M 48Y/O) RIGHT NOW - I'M GONNA GO OUT FIGHTIN' WITH OR WITHOUT IT. I DO CARE (PREEMPTIVELY, AND MAINLY FOR MY KIDS AND THEIR CHILDREN, ULTIMATELY) ABOUT THE NATIONAL DEBT & DEFICIT. HOWEVER, AT THIS POINT, AS MUCH AS I MAY HAVE AN OPINION REGARDING ILLEGALS, GAY MARRIAGE AND ALL THAT BUSINESS, I AM ASKING MYSELF ONE QUESTION AT THE POLLS: WHOM DO I TRUST MOST LEADING MY SON INTO BATTLE.

AND SINCE THERE'S NOT A BOX LABELED: "NONE OF THE ABOVE - DO OVER" ON THE BALLOT, YOU GOTTA PICK ONE. SO, IF YOU WANT TO DO A "SPITE" VOTE (REGARDLESS OF THE CANDIDATE/ISSUE) BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR. YOU MIGHT GET IT.

Comment by Kirk Brooks on August 18, 2012 at 6:32am

Steve B- that's what happens when people are tired of the same old s**t from their party. The GOP is totally out of touch, the Dem's are clueless, and the Libertarian's are a bunch of Bigfoot chasing chuckle heads. I've voted Republican probably 90% of my life starting with Reagan. Romney is no Ronald Reagan, he doesn't have the voter appeal to sway the undecided's, and people aren't upset with Obama enough to vote for Romney/against Obama. I'm sure some number of people will vote for Paul just to protest the current state of the GOP, I might be one of them, I haven't decided yet.

Comment by STEVE B on August 17, 2012 at 11:01pm

IN ALL THE GOINGS-ON WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE, WHAT I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY TALK OF IS THE POSSIBILITY OF RON PAUL SIPHONING VOTES THAT MIGHT LIKELY GO ROMNEY IN THE SAME WAY ROSS PEROT DID IN '92. ALTHOUGH PEROT GOT ZERO ELECTORAL VOTES, HE SPLIT THE 56% OF NON-CLINTON VOTES (37% BUSH, 19% PEROT) SO THAT CLINTON WON WITH 43% OF THE POPULAR VOTES - GIVING CLINTON 370 ELECTORAL. EXCEPT FOR THE WHOLE "HANGING CHAD" FIASCO IN FLORIDA 8 YEARS LATER, I THINK THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN US HISTORY THAT A PRESIDENT WON WITH LESS THAN HALF (MAYBE) OF THE POPULAR VOTES.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• …
• 113
• Next ›
• Page