PDA

View Full Version : How did you vote?


Mark
11-03-2010, 02:27 AM
I voted all republican. Im just not happy with our president or the people that voted him in!

adamt
11-03-2010, 02:44 AM
all republican

AND i voted to oust the judges that "legalized" homo "marriage" here in iowa

VCURamFan
11-03-2010, 02:56 AM
I voted all Republican, as well. There were also 3 proposed amendments to the VA Constitution (tax cut for seniors, tax cut for handicapped vets, 5% increase in the "rainy day fund") on which I voted no, yes, no.

Chris F
11-03-2010, 03:35 AM
I did not vote. The lesser of two evils is still evil and frankly teh twi headed monster needs to be slain.

logrus
11-03-2010, 03:53 AM
I voted all republican. Im just not happy with our president or the people that voted him in!

Hey its not my fault you guys chose the Penguin as your candidate. Check that, Pokey Pig, "da da da well dadada im all for dadada-the ppapapap-people......"

adamt
11-03-2010, 04:15 AM
I did not vote. The lesser of two evils is still evil and frankly teh twi headed monster needs to be slain.

you don't get the right to complain about politics then cause you don't do what you can to affect it, how ever small it may be, you don't HAVE to vote for the two main parties, you could always write in, or run for office....

NateR
11-03-2010, 04:32 AM
All Republican here as well.

logrus
11-03-2010, 04:41 AM
I voted for Kirk and Brady, bout all I will go on the matter.

Only 5k votes seperate Quinn and Brady, wow. Might see a recount on that race.

Chris F
11-03-2010, 04:55 AM
you don't get the right to complain about politics then cause you don't do what you can to affect it, how ever small it may be, you don't HAVE to vote for the two main parties, you could always write in, or run for office....

That is not a choice in OKlahoma. SO my only option is none of the above, Plus I have ran for office twice on a third party ticket in Missouri and as a write in. But here Oklahoma you have tweedle dee and Tweeldle dum

http://ky3.blogspot.com/2006/08/fluharty-to-run-as-write-in.html
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=72510

TexasRN
11-03-2010, 10:47 AM
I voted straight ticket Republican. I had to then vote for a lot of judges in the non partisan races and on a consitutional amendment that states those convicted of felonies shall not be allowed to be sheriff. I voted yes to that.



~Amy

rearnakedchoke
11-03-2010, 11:13 AM
i didn't vote .... but i did a week or so ago in the Toronto municipal elections ... so the reps won the house but not the senate is what i am reading ... i am sure they are both important, but what is the advantage of winning one and not the other? where does the advantage lie?

adamt
11-03-2010, 12:51 PM
That is not a choice in OKlahoma. SO my only option is none of the above, Plus I have ran for office twice on a third party ticket in Missouri and as a write in. But here Oklahoma you have tweedle dee and Tweeldle dum

http://ky3.blogspot.com/2006/08/fluharty-to-run-as-write-in.html
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=72510

fair enough i guess

Llamafighter
11-03-2010, 04:19 PM
Well, first I went to my polling place which is at a school right across the street.
I went in and gave the front desk my address so they could send me to the right check in desk. My group was #14
Then I stood in line for about 15 minutes.
I then signed for my ballot and scanning ticket
I then went over to one of the privacy booths and made my picks.
I took the ballot over to the scanner and they had me scan it into the machine.
Then I went home.
that's how I voted:)

Primadawn
11-03-2010, 04:40 PM
Republican--except one local election where the Democrat was a better choice--but she lost :sad:.

Vizion
11-03-2010, 06:29 PM
Republicanist - all the way :)

time for some hope and change

Eric4
11-03-2010, 07:00 PM
Republican. How did everyone from Illinois vote on the "Recall." I thought they were able to remove Blago, so why would I want to make it easier for the Legislature to remove a Governor? The Governor is elected by the people, sometimes the people make the wrong decision and have to deal with the consequences. There will always be another election. I think this amendment just expands the powers of our state government. So I voted No.

Please let me know if I interpreted the Recall wrong.

NateR
11-03-2010, 07:31 PM
i didn't vote .... but i did a week or so ago in the Toronto municipal elections ... so the reps won the house but not the senate is what i am reading ... i am sure they are both important, but what is the advantage of winning one and not the other? where does the advantage lie?

Ideally, all three branches of US government (Executive - President; Legislative - Congress; and Judicial - Supreme Court) are all supposed divide up the powers of the government equally, with no one branch having more power than the other two. The Legislative branch is further divided up into the Senate and House of Representatives. Again, both should be equal in power.

The reason for the two sub-branches of Congress goes all the way back to the colonial days. Back then the larger states believed that the number of state representatives in Congress should be based on the population of each state. The smaller states thought that would be unfair and essentially squash their voice in the government. So the solution was to create two branches of Congress: the Senate (in which each state gets 2 senators regardless of their size) and the House of Representatives (in which the number of representatives is based on the population of the state).

The advantage that the Democrats had prior to yesterday, was that they had almost total control of 2/3 or our entire government. They controlled the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Presidency. Which is the only reason that Obama's 2009 stimulus package and Obamacare passed when they did. If the Republicans had been in control of either the House, Senate or Presidency, then those pieces of legislation would have been dead in the water.

Basically, with the Republicans now having control of the House, it significantly dials back the amount of power and influence that Obama has. It's going to be much, much more difficult for the President to push any of his progressive policies through now. Which is exactly what the American people wanted.

It's all about the balance of power, and that balance was thrown completely out of whack in November 2008. This is just things equalizing themselves again.

BamaGrits84
11-03-2010, 08:33 PM
I voted almost straight republican. I voted for Martha Roby who took one of the house seats previous occupied by a democrat. I voted for two democratic judges (who were already unopposed) but only because I know them personally.

Our state now has a republican governor, and republicans ran the table to have the majority of the state legislative seats. First time in years our legislature has been ran by republicans. Hopefully somethings will get done around here!

Tyburn
11-03-2010, 08:43 PM
They wouldnt let me vote :sad:

I find that so...racist :angry:

:laugh:

Tyburn
11-03-2010, 08:48 PM
those convicted of felonies shall not be allowed to be sheriff.



~Amy

Do they honnestly need a vote on that :blink:

mindue...Europe pressured us to allow our convicts the right to vote from prison...:angry:

...and the SAS is now under the control of some French Military official...ohh...and we are sharing an aircraft carrier with the frogs...which means between now and the next 50 years...10 years will see the French take sole responsibility for any military advances against the Faulklands....

Maggie has probably been reduced to tears over that one. :unsure-1:

Tyburn
11-03-2010, 08:59 PM
It's all about the balance of power, and that balance was thrown completely out of whack in November 2008. This is just things equalizing themselves again.

So its about reigning in the amount of people one party can have...so that votes arent just a massicre of the minority :huh:

Do we know what the Exact ballence of power is now?? Presumably the democrats still have the presidency :laugh: but do they have any of the other three....what about the Judicial? did you get to vote on that in the mid terms aswell??

You know it strikes me...that your mid terms are equatable to our General Ellection...because the party size that votes is determined...NOT by the selection of a President...but presumably by the Party size....so in England the largest party is always the one in office...but in the US...the Office and the Parties are not joined.

if that system worked in the UK...it means that Labour might have a majority...but the Prime Minister would be....a Liberal Democrat or something...

I imagine...if you..as a President, lost control of Senate, Representative, and Judges...you might as well resign your commission...coz...it would be like one man against the Government, despite being in charge of it :blink:

We have issues with proportional representation to...it SUCKS. just because there are larger volumes, doesnt mean they should have more say....I thought all were created equal???

Really?? Because it sounds like The entire population of Illinois voted for Republican...except for the residents of a single city on its North Coast...and somehow...Chicago matters more, then the rest of the State put together??? Or so I read on facebook :ashamed::laugh:

NateR
11-03-2010, 11:36 PM
So its about reigning in the amount of people one party can have...so that votes arent just a massicre of the minority :huh:

Do we know what the Exact ballence of power is now?? Presumably the democrats still have the presidency :laugh: but do they have any of the other three....what about the Judicial? did you get to vote on that in the mid terms aswell??

You know it strikes me...that your mid terms are equatable to our General Ellection...because the party size that votes is determined...NOT by the selection of a President...but presumably by the Party size....so in England the largest party is always the one in office...but in the US...the Office and the Parties are not joined.

if that system worked in the UK...it means that Labour might have a majority...but the Prime Minister would be....a Liberal Democrat or something...

I imagine...if you..as a President, lost control of Senate, Representative, and Judges...you might as well resign your commission...coz...it would be like one man against the Government, despite being in charge of it :blink:

We have issues with proportional representation to...it SUCKS. just because there are larger volumes, doesnt mean they should have more say....I thought all were created equal???

Really?? Because it sounds like The entire population of Illinois voted for Republican...except for the residents of a single city on its North Coast...and somehow...Chicago matters more, then the rest of the State put together??? Or so I read on facebook :ashamed::laugh:

Well, the system is actually designed to prevent one man or one small group of people from having all the power. Political parties didn't exist in America until after our first President, George Washington, left office. In fact, Washington was very much opposed to the idea of political parties because he knew that they were the beginnings of government corruption.

So, to a large extent, what ChrisF is saying is true; however many of us just don't see inaction as a viable option towards changing things.

As for the Supreme Court, those judges are appointed, not elected. So the people only have a very indirect say in who serves on the Supreme Court, since we elect those who appoint Supreme Court judges.

adamt
11-04-2010, 12:03 AM
Ideally, all three branches of US government (Executive - President; Legislative - Congress; and Judicial - Supreme Court) are all supposed divide up the powers of the government equally, with no one branch having more power than the other two. The Legislative branch is further divided up into the Senate and House of Representatives. Again, both should be equal in power.

The reason for the two sub-branches of Congress goes all the way back to the colonial days. Back then the larger states believed that the number of state representatives in Congress should be based on the population of each state. The smaller states thought that would be unfair and essentially squash their voice in the government. So the solution was to create two branches of Congress: the Senate (in which each state gets 2 senators regardless of their size) and the House of Representatives (in which the number of representatives is based on the population of the state).

The advantage that the Democrats had prior to yesterday, was that they had almost total control of 2/3 or our entire government. They controlled the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Presidency. Which is the only reason that Obama's 2009 stimulus package and Obamacare passed when they did. If the Republicans had been in control of either the House, Senate or Presidency, then those pieces of legislation would have been dead in the water.

Basically, with the Republicans now having control of the House, it significantly dials back the amount of power and influence that Obama has. It's going to be much, much more difficult for the President to push any of his progressive policies through now. Which is exactly what the American people wanted.

It's all about the balance of power, and that balance was thrown completely out of whack in November 2008. This is just things equalizing themselves again.


nate i don't often disagree with you, but i do greatly disagree with you on this. I don't for one minute believe the founding fathers thought all three branches were equal in power. That is a misconception. The judicial branch has very little "power" within the constitution, yet they have usurped more power than they were rightfully allotted.

What is in the constitution is checks and balances. Not equal power. One would think that would mean equal power, but not so. Different roles, different powers, and different amounts of power.

The judicial branch has no power to speak of, except to hold the other branches accountable to what is already there, not to make up any rules.

that's why judges can be appointed and not elected. They have, or at least, supposed to have very little say/discretion.

it is apples to oranges

judges are not supposed to have a political affiliation though, presumably because they are unbiased cause they merely enforce laws and discrepencies between parties

adamt
11-04-2010, 12:07 AM
Really?? Because it sounds like The entire population of Illinois voted for Republican...except for the residents of a single city on its North Coast...and somehow...Chicago matters more, then the rest of the State put together??? Or so I read on facebook :ashamed::laugh:

stupid ignorant people in mass quantities sure can put some stupid people in power

i.e. chicago has more people than the entire state of iowa, which of course is my state,

so someone could brainwash chicago and nullify all of the hard working common people in iowa who actually know whats going on

great thing is, us common people own the land, know how to live off it and we are all for owning and shooting guns

rearnakedchoke
11-04-2010, 12:19 AM
Ideally, all three branches of US government (Executive - President; Legislative - Congress; and Judicial - Supreme Court) are all supposed divide up the powers of the government equally, with no one branch having more power than the other two. The Legislative branch is further divided up into the Senate and House of Representatives. Again, both should be equal in power.

The reason for the two sub-branches of Congress goes all the way back to the colonial days. Back then the larger states believed that the number of state representatives in Congress should be based on the population of each state. The smaller states thought that would be unfair and essentially squash their voice in the government. So the solution was to create two branches of Congress: the Senate (in which each state gets 2 senators regardless of their size) and the House of Representatives (in which the number of representatives is based on the population of the state).

The advantage that the Democrats had prior to yesterday, was that they had almost total control of 2/3 or our entire government. They controlled the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Presidency. Which is the only reason that Obama's 2009 stimulus package and Obamacare passed when they did. If the Republicans had been in control of either the House, Senate or Presidency, then those pieces of legislation would have been dead in the water.

Basically, with the Republicans now having control of the House, it significantly dials back the amount of power and influence that Obama has. It's going to be much, much more difficult for the President to push any of his progressive policies through now. Which is exactly what the American people wanted.

It's all about the balance of power, and that balance was thrown completely out of whack in November 2008. This is just things equalizing themselves again.

thanks ... so is this the first time in a while that one party has had the three split up? i think it is best that not one party has power ... right now we have a minority gov't which is pretty much the same thing .... no party can have their own way ...

NateR
11-04-2010, 12:35 AM
nate i don't often disagree with you, but i do greatly disagree with you on this. I don't for one minute believe the founding fathers thought all three branches were equal in power. That is a misconception. The judicial branch has very little "power" within the constitution, yet they have usurped more power than they were rightfully allotted.

What is in the constitution is checks and balances. Not equal power. One would think that would mean equal power, but not so. Different roles, different powers, and different amounts of power.

The judicial branch has no power to speak of, except to hold the other branches accountable to what is already there, not to make up any rules.

that's why judges can be appointed and not elected. They have, or at least, supposed to have very little say/discretion.

it is apples to oranges

judges are not supposed to have a political affiliation though, presumably because they are unbiased cause they merely enforce laws and discrepencies between parties

Just because they have different roles to play doesn't make them unequal. If the President doesn't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling on a law can he overrule them? No, he can't. Neither can Congress. However, the Supreme Court will only get involved in the law-making process if a certain law gets challenged. Which can take years after a law has been put into effect.

I never once claimed that the Supreme Court had the power to make or rewrite laws. That is clearly overstepping the bounds of their authority. They are simply there to interpret laws based on the US Constitution and only the US Constitution - not on foreign constitutions, or on case law, or the Progressive Liberal agenda. And they most definitely do not have the authority to interpret or rewrite the Constitution. Clearly that hasn't been the case over the last several decades; but just because the Court has the most passive role to play in American law making, doesn't give them any less power in our "checks and balances" system.

NateR
11-04-2010, 12:46 AM
thanks ... so is this the first time in a while that one party has had the three split up? i think it is best that not one party has power ... right now we have a minority gov't which is pretty much the same thing .... no party can have their own way ...

Usually, Democrats gain control of Congress when a Republican is President and vice versa. The more liberal the President, the more conservative Congress becomes. The more conservative the President, the more liberal Congress gets. I don't know if it's intentional. I think it's just that liberal Presidents tend to piss off conservative voters and drive them to the polls come election day. Conservative Presidents have the same effect on liberal voters.

So, if a Conservative Republican President gets elected in 2012, then we can expect a dramatic win for Democrats in Congress in 2014.

I don't know if there has ever been a point in the past where one party controlled the Senate, the House AND the Oval Office like the Democrats did from 2008 until yesterday. Fortunately, that has come to a end and hopefully this Progressive Liberal runaway train, that we've been stuck on for the last 2 years, can be slowed and eventually stopped.

Chris F
11-04-2010, 02:01 AM
nate i don't often disagree with you, but i do greatly disagree with you on this. I don't for one minute believe the founding fathers thought all three branches were equal in power. That is a misconception. The judicial branch has very little "power" within the constitution, yet they have usurped more power than they were rightfully allotted.

What is in the constitution is checks and balances. Not equal power. One would think that would mean equal power, but not so. Different roles, different powers, and different amounts of power.

The judicial branch has no power to speak of, except to hold the other branches accountable to what is already there, not to make up any rules.

that's why judges can be appointed and not elected. They have, or at least, supposed to have very little say/discretion.

it is apples to oranges

judges are not supposed to have a political affiliation though, presumably because they are unbiased cause they merely enforce laws and discrepencies between parties

I think you are a bit mistaken on this. I have studied that period of history in great detail while working on my MA in history and the founders did indeed believe in a thee equal branch system. In fact even some founder compared it to the Christina idea of the trinity 3 parts of one entity the other unable to dictate to the other. You are ocrrect that in modern history the judicial has got bigger than they out to and the president has invented some powers he does not have. But the NateR is right the founders intended and viewed them as co equal. FOr proof read any memior form the key fopunders or the federalist papers or the anti federalist papers and you will understand more clearly.

Tyburn
11-04-2010, 12:30 PM
Well, the system is actually designed to prevent one man or one small group of people from having all the power. Political parties didn't exist in America until after our first President, George Washington, left office. In fact, Washington was very much opposed to the idea of political parties because he knew that they were the beginnings of government corruption.

So, to a large extent, what ChrisF is saying is true; however many of us just don't see inaction as a viable option towards changing things.

As for the Supreme Court, those judges are appointed, not elected. So the people only have a very indirect say in who serves on the Supreme Court, since we elect those who appoint Supreme Court judges.

I see that, because your President, is in effect, Independant the moment he takes office...that is to say...there is no promise that his party will ever have a majority throughout his reign. There would be no problem regarding the presidency in removing all political parties...because UNLIKE with the British Government (outside of a coillition) the President doesnt actually have even majoirity rule (in terms of the party he came from)

What would be Best...is if there were a rule saying that NO Card carrying political party could nominate for a President. A true ballence, would surely be...either a President of a party, and even split amoungst parties in Congress...OR A President, and a Congress entirely filled of independants...or perhaps the most intreguing.

An Independant President...and a Democrat/Republican divide in Congress...lets face it...the President can only be his party if he has a majority...otherwise the best he can push for is a bias...that is to say he could veto something from the opposite party...but not have the votes to carry his own agenda for his own party.

I think that would be best...And you would see...the moment you banned a Card Carrier from the Executive Branch...the parties would start to disintegrate naturally...because despite the fact the parties would still have the vote...I reckon the knowledge they couldnt get their bod into the Executive would be enough to create an Independant Congress within two terms of office (When I say independant...I obviously mean hundreds of small little groups...and so long as you kept a purely independant President...you would probably never have the bi-partisanship you have now...EVEN THOUGH...that would still be as effective as it is now...its more a case of morale....that would be good...because it strikes me that the parties are putting all their weight into the Executive...without realizing its the Legislative that actually has the power to change...all the Executive can do is pull the plug if it doesnt like the flow...without that being bias to a party...then people would be forced to think for themselves and their country...and NOT for their party....you have the same problem that our parties do...there is only really two...and they are getting to mean the same thing, and do the same things...and stand for the same shyte.

Tyburn
11-04-2010, 12:39 PM
nate i don't often disagree with you, but i do greatly disagree with you on this. I don't for one minute believe the founding fathers thought all three branches were equal in power. That is a misconception. The judicial branch has very little "power" within the constitution, yet they have usurped more power than they were rightfully allotted.

What is in the constitution is checks and balances. Not equal power. One would think that would mean equal power, but not so. Different roles, different powers, and different amounts of power.

The judicial branch has no power to speak of, except to hold the other branches accountable to what is already there, not to make up any rules.

that's why judges can be appointed and not elected. They have, or at least, supposed to have very little say/discretion.

it is apples to oranges

judges are not supposed to have a political affiliation though, presumably because they are unbiased cause they merely enforce laws and discrepencies between parties

Yes...but doesnt the power come from the fact that everything is open to interpretation. The Judicial Branch therefore is not just like an internal check list to make sure noone does something naughty...they can also choose to see the same law in two different ways.

But you cant get around this...for if you say they should be ellected...I say that the people will only ellect what they want the law to look like...and if you let the President decide...he will do exactly the same with his choice. There are two other ways around this...the first is to have some kind of Heraldry involved. This would be like a set of independant Families that would inherit the position. This keeps continuity...because like a lineage your successor takes over from you. This ideal is a feudal take...but without the power...after all...its only the means by which some random person gets to decide how to interpret the laws.

The other is more radical still. Have a set of ellectoral role lottery, to litterally randomly select any person from the population. Give them training...and let them looose :laugh:

matthughesfan21
11-04-2010, 06:05 PM
didn't vote tuesday, not because I didn't want to, but I am at school and I'm only registered back home...I don't focus on Dem or Rep., i just try to weigh each individual candidate against the other regardless of political affiliation because both sides have bad people and a lot of politicians are just slimeballs...Lately it has become more about picking the lesser of the two evils

Chris F
11-04-2010, 06:38 PM
didn't vote tuesday, not because I didn't want to, but I am at school and I'm only registered back home...I don't focus on Dem or Rep., i just try to weigh each individual candidate against the other regardless of political affiliation because both sides have bad people and a lot of politicians are just slimeballs...Lately it has become more about picking the lesser of the two evils

Under the laws if you are in school you can vote on National elections, you just could not vote on the local ones. But oyu are right not much to choose from not sure where you are at but the pickings were slim

Play The Man
11-05-2010, 07:41 AM
I did not vote. The lesser of two evils is still evil and frankly teh twi headed monster needs to be slain.

Don't you live in Oklahoma? There was a ballot measure banning judges from considering Islamic Sharia or International law when making a ruling. Why would you forego your right to vote on such an important question? Tom Coburn is an excellent senator and was up for re-election. Why wouldn't you vote for him? Since there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, if we all followed your logic, nobody would ever vote in any election. You, of course, don't have to vote; however, you aren't being prudent.

Play The Man
11-05-2010, 07:51 AM
i didn't vote .... but i did a week or so ago in the Toronto municipal elections ... so the reps won the house but not the senate is what i am reading ... i am sure they are both important, but what is the advantage of winning one and not the other? where does the advantage lie?

The House must introduce all revenue bills. Essentially, the Republicans now control the pursestrings. The Senate approves treaties and presidential appointments. The Democrats in the Senate will probably be able to shepherd Obama's appointments successfully through the confirmation process. The House brings charges of impeachment, but the impeachment trial takes place in the Senate. Obama should be safe from impeachment.

Play The Man
11-05-2010, 08:01 AM
Usually, Democrats gain control of Congress when a Republican is President and vice versa. The more liberal the President, the more conservative Congress becomes. The more conservative the President, the more liberal Congress gets. I don't know if it's intentional. I think it's just that liberal Presidents tend to piss off conservative voters and drive them to the polls come election day. Conservative Presidents have the same effect on liberal voters.

So, if a Conservative Republican President gets elected in 2012, then we can expect a dramatic win for Democrats in Congress in 2014.

I don't know if there has ever been a point in the past where one party controlled the Senate, the House AND the Oval Office like the Democrats did from 2008 until yesterday. Fortunately, that has come to a end and hopefully this Progressive Liberal runaway train, that we've been stuck on for the last 2 years, can be slowed and eventually stopped.

Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435)
2009 111th D D - 55*** D - 256
2007 110th R D - 51** D - 233
2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232
2003 108th R R - 51 R - 229
2001 107th R D* R - 221
1999 106th D R - 55 R - 223
1997 105th D R - 55 R - 228
1995 104th D R - 52 R - 230
1993 103rd D D - 57 D - 258
1991 102nd R D - 56 D - 267
1989 101st R D - 55 D - 260
1987 100th R D - 55 D - 258
1985 99th R R - 53 D - 253
1983 98th R R - 54 D - 269
1981 97th R R - 53 D - 242
1979 96th D D - 58 D - 277
1977 95th D D - 61 D - 292
1975 94th R D - 60 D -291
1973 93rd R D - 56 D - 242
1971 92nd R D - 54 D - 255
1969 91st R D - 57 D - 243
1967 90th D D - 64 D - 247
1965 89th D D - 68 D - 295
1963 88th D D - 66 D - 259
1961 87th D D - 64 D - 263
1959 86th R D - 65 D -283
1957 85th R D - 49 D - 232
1955 84th R D - 48 D - 232
1953 83rd R R - 48 D - 221
1951 82nd D D - 49 D - 235
1949 81st D D - 54 D - 263
1947 80th D R - 51 R - 246
1945 79th D D - 57 D - 242

Play The Man
11-05-2010, 08:33 AM
didn't vote tuesday, not because I didn't want to, but I am at school and I'm only registered back home...I don't focus on Dem or Rep., i just try to weigh each individual candidate against the other regardless of political affiliation because both sides have bad people and a lot of politicians are just slimeballs...Lately it has become more about picking the lesser of the two evils

You should have voted absentee ballot. I voted absentee ballot several weeks ago.

I hear many people say similar statements re: Dem vs. Republican. I disagree. There are conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats with positions almost indistinguishable from a moderate Republican. For the sake of argument, let us say that identical twin brothers are running for a House seat. One is a conservative Democrat and one is a moderate Republican. The candidates are essentially identical in background. Let us say that they have identical positions on the issues of the day. Based on your reasoning, a voter might as well flip a coin. Republican . . . Democrat . . .tomato . . .toe-mah-toe . . . Who cares?

The party affiliation makes a huge difference. The majority party elects the Speaker of The House. The Speaker sets the agenda and assigns committee chairmanships. A committee chairman can kill a bill in committee so it will never be voted on the floor of the House. Foolish conservative voters in 2006 and 2008 voted for many "Blue Dog" Democrats over similar Republican candidates. These "Blue Dogs" may have held some conservative positions, but that did not prevent them from electing Uber-liberal Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco as the most powerful woman in the country, the Speaker of The House. Her committee chairs killed every conservative bill in committee.

Party affiliation has huge ramifications to say the least.

Neezar
11-05-2010, 11:12 AM
Our leader is a man who seems to hate our country. Did this election send him a message? Of course. But will it only serve to reasssure him that his time is definitely limited and he must inflict as much damage as possible before he leaves?

Tyburn
11-05-2010, 12:56 PM
Our leader is a man who seems to hate our country. Did this election send him a message? Of course. But will it only serve to reasssure him that his time is definitely limited and he must inflict as much damage as possible before he leaves?

It might. Watch out for Obamaspite :laugh:

Chris F
11-05-2010, 06:16 PM
Don't you live in Oklahoma? There was a ballot measure banning judges from considering Islamic Sharia or International law when making a ruling. Why would you forego your right to vote on such an important question? Tom Coburn is an excellent senator and was up for re-election. Why wouldn't you vote for him? Since there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, if we all followed your logic, nobody would ever vote in any election. You, of course, don't have to vote; however, you aren't being prudent.

1. Under the constitution of both Oklahoma and the USA they cannot consider those thiings anyhow so the ballot measure was nothing more than political posturing much like the law to make English an offical language. Only those uneducated masses get worked up for things like that because the public school do not teach the constitiuoin anymore and thus the averege voters is clueless. In cases where the judges have used international law those were quickly reversed by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has refreenced it but only in their opinions they write after the fact and not a precedence. Sad thing is since they are the last voice they go unchecked all the time because the other branches do not do their jobs.

2. Coburn is not any better than the rest of the established good ol boys club. What I do respect about him as he has already term limited himself. But his votes in the past do not reflect my political views and thus I cannot in good consceince vote for him. I am a strict constitutionalist and he favors things that violate that like federal invilvement in education and he opposses states 10th amendment rights in most cases.

So that is why I did not vote. I had no options and the state questions were jokes at best. I see your POV but I have been around the block to many times to accept the lesser of two evils. My vote was none of the above

CAVEMAN
11-05-2010, 07:51 PM
I did vote for a couple of Libertarians because they actually had some very conservative stances on some important issues. I was so glad to see that Bob Schilling beat out the incumbent Phil Hare!!!!

:happydancing::happydancing::happydancing:

cheachea
11-07-2010, 11:35 PM
You know guys, I didn't even vote in the local elections. It seems like the further I get down this rabbit hole the more I think everything is a little rigged. For instance the candidates who say that they are Christian are really wolves telling us what we want to hear to get our vote. Am I the only person who feels this way ? It seems like you have to be apart of secret societies to even run for office nowadays like Free Masonry, college fraternities, etc.
I honestly believe the ones that have a "Christian" veil are actually the most evil politicians who are really luciferian satanists. Seriously, if we were a Christian nation wouldn't we have statues of Christ Jesus and the apostles on the capital building and other significant buildings ? Instead we have pagan statues of justice, egyptian phallic statues like the washington monument, and occultic geometric buildings like the pentagon. It's really ridiculous. I wish our leaders leaned more towards the puritans way of thought. I wish our leaders would stand against secret societies. It seems like our nation worships freedom, knowledge and power. The Lord Jesus Christ will come back and take all of us who are Really His and I can't wait. Sorry for the long rant LOL.:)

County Mike
11-08-2010, 11:19 AM
Republican - and encouraged others to do the same. My reasoning was basically what Nate talked about. We needed to take away some of Obama's power so he couldn't hurt us as badly as he wants to.

I would also like to see an end to the two-party system and get to a point where we can vote on an individual's merit instead of his party affiliation. Unfortunately, I don't know what it would take to get there.

Chris F
11-08-2010, 04:48 PM
Republican - and encouraged others to do the same. My reasoning was basically what Nate talked about. We needed to take away some of Obama's power so he couldn't hurt us as badly as he wants to.

I would also like to see an end to the two-party system and get to a point where we can vote on an individual's merit instead of his party affiliation. Unfortunately, I don't know what it would take to get there.

Gridlock is good. The investors love it and Wall Street is already foaming at the mouth this last week.

rockdawg21
11-12-2010, 01:47 AM
I live in Cibolo, TX, so naturally, I looked up the voting places and went to Cibolo City Hall. When I got there, they said that I need to go to Santa Clara City Hall. Never heard of Santa Clara, TX. In fact, my 2010 updated Garmin GPS couldn't locate a town called Santa Clara, TX. I found it online and just manually mapped it. When I got there, I decided to make fun of the fact that Spanish voting was available in the United States, so, I voted in Spanish. I never party vote and I didn't in this case, but by the time I was done, all of my votes were for Republicans. As I left, I thanked them and said goodbye all in Spanish.

It's funny, when I go through the checkout lines at Wal-Mart, I choose Spanish and talk to the machine in Spanish. People in my hometown in Missouri look at me like, "WTF is that white guy doing?" :laugh:

adamt
11-12-2010, 03:54 AM
Republican - and encouraged others to do the same. My reasoning was basically what Nate talked about. We needed to take away some of Obama's power so he couldn't hurt us as badly as he wants to.

I would also like to see an end to the two-party system and get to a point where we can vote on an individual's merit instead of his party affiliation. Unfortunately, I don't know what it would take to get there.


this

Miss Foxy
11-22-2010, 09:46 PM
Voted Republican.. Unfortunately we got the idiot Jerry Brown back and that dinosaur Boxer still in office. Makes me literally sick to my stomach at how ignorant people are to keep voting these idiots in.. California sucks...