A thread for undecided voters

Anon

know1 wrote:

Are you serious? Just look at this board. Is ANYONE ANYWHERE voting because of policies? Looks to me like their just trying to dig up dirt (or plant dirt). I haven't heard policies mentioned in a long time.

I'm voting because of policies. Where were you over the last 6 months when there has been thread after thread after thread of ridiculous lies and dirt that have been bought up about obama? Zomg he is teh anti christ and he doesn't wear the pin flag and zomg he frows lil old white ladiez under busses and blah blah blah blah blah. It's been going on for months and it's not just against Palin. And for the record, not everyone stoops to digging up dirt ok?

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5839710&postcount=10

But hey if that's your reason for voting. Go ahead.

know1

Pj_Gurl wrote:

I'm voting because of policies. Where were you over the last 6 months when there has been thread after thread after thread of ridiculous lies and dirt that have been bought up about obama? Zomg he is teh anti christ and he doesn't wear the pin flag and zomg he frows lil old white ladiez under busses and blah blah blah blah blah. It's been going on for months and it's not just against Palin. And for the record, not everyone stoops to digging up dirt ok?

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5839710&postcount=10

But hey if that's your reason for voting. Go ahead.

I'm not saying that either side is innocent in this, but the Dems have taken it to a whole new level by attacking her daughter, etc., and their approach just seems a lot more mean-spirited and hypocritical.

And actually, I'm still not planning to vote, but I've just become completely sickened by the whole election and the complete partisanship and lack of credit ever given to anyone from "the other side" - whatever that may be.

Anon

know1 wrote:

I'm not saying that either side is innocent in this, but the Dems have taken it to a whole new level by attacking her daughter, etc., and their approach just seems a lot more mean-spirited and hypocritical.

And actually, I'm still not planning to vote, but I've just become completely sickened by the whole election and the complete partisanship and lack of credit ever given to anyone from "the other side" - whatever that may be.

I absolutely agree that her kids and family and personal life should be off limits. Perhaps that's why i have such an issue with some of her policies as mentioned here.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5835761&postcount=7

know1

Pj_Gurl wrote:

I absolutely agree that her kids and family and personal life should be off limits. Perhaps that's why i have such an issue with some of her policies as mentioned here.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5835761&postcount=7

I saw that thread and it's a good example of what I was talking about. Sure - the issues are mentioned, but saying things like "Sarah Palin wants to control the way any children i may have, receive sex ed., and wants to take away our reproductive rights" is just more of twisting the facts or making blanket statemetns that just aren't true. The sentence I just quoted could apply to any candidate running with the possible exception of the statement about reproductive rights which makes no sense whatesoever.

blondieblue227

mattyjoe - how the hell am supposed to know where mcCain stands on people with disabilities? it's not on his website. please show me if i missed it.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

here's obama's page: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/disabilities/

and i know damn sure neither of them will bring it up in the debates. We’re the forgotten minority. well not if you include disabled vets, which i don't.

So with the little information I do have, I can only assume he’ll cut spending across the board.

________________

unsung - what about healthcare? http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=265733

PJSkier

Long time MP reader, obviously never a poster.

Congrats to 88Keys. This may be the most commonsense political thread I have ever seen on the MT.

My thoughts.

I am a registered Independent and undecided. When asked why I usually jokingly state that I support neither party and blame both. The difficulty I face is that my opinions and views do not fit into these “party platforms”. The party platform has given rise to the dominating and uncompromising PACs. Many of our leaders are now beholden to these groups and the financial power they wield.

Inability to compromise. I believe this to be the root cause as to why neither side can progress this country forward and provide benefits to all citizens. The injection of social issues as the “be-all end all” into national politics has bitterly divided this country. I recently heard a conversation where a Democrat supporter, said he could not listen to Sarah Palin’s speech and turned the channel. When asked why he said that all he saw when looking at her was the Devil. With such over the top comments and closed mindedness coming from both sides, you really have to wonder where we are headed.

I believe the founders got it right. Checks and balances. States rights, and rights of voters within those States, should be honored and not dominated by the Federal or Judicial branch. We are a diverse mosaic country that should not be ruled by a few hundred, potentially compromised, lawmakers in DC. It was never intended for the Federal government to become as large and wasteful, or as the Judicial branch to be as influential as it is today.

My views could be best described as Jeffersonian or Libertarian. Today’s Republican and Democrat parties are so far from either of these philosophies I will most likely vote third party. However, I have not ruled out voting for either Obama or McCain. I simply want to hear as much as I can from both..

Whether Obama or McCain is elected I will congratulate the winner and hope for their success. Sadly, I think many people, some on this board, will hope for the President to fail if their chosen candidate is not elected.

know1

PJSkier wrote:

Long time MP reader, obviously never a poster.

Congrats to 88Keys. This may be the most commonsense political thread I have ever seen on the MT.

My thoughts.

I am a registered Independent and undecided. When asked why I usually jokingly state that I support neither party and blame both. The difficulty I face is that my opinions and views do not fit into these “party platforms”. The party platform has given rise to the dominating and uncompromising PACs. Many of our leaders are now beholden to these groups and the financial power they wield.

Inability to compromise. I believe this to be the root cause as to why neither side can progress this country forward and provide benefits to all citizens. The injection of social issues as the “be-all end all” into national politics has bitterly divided this country. I recently heard a conversation where a Democrat supporter, said he could not listen to Sarah Palin’s speech and turned the channel. When asked why he said that all he saw when looking at her was the Devil. With such over the top comments and closed mindedness coming from both sides, you really have to wonder where we are headed.

I believe the founders got it right. Checks and balances. States rights, and rights of voters within those States, should be honored and not dominated by the Federal or Judicial branch. We are a diverse mosaic country that should not be ruled by a few hundred, potentially compromised, lawmakers in DC. It was never intended for the Federal government to become as large and wasteful, or as the Judicial branch to be as influential as it is today.

My views could be best described as Jeffersonian or Libertarian. Today’s Republican and Democrat parties are so far from either of these philosophies I will most likely vote third party. However, I have not ruled out voting for either Obama or McCain. I simply want to hear as much as I can from both..

Whether Obama or McCain is elected I will congratulate the winner and hope for their success. Sadly, I think many people, some on this board, will hope for the President to fail if their chosen candidate is not elected.

I do not think I could agree anymore with this post. It expresses my views almost exactly...except more eloquently than I ever can.

blondieblue227

hahaha, life is funny.
15 mins after my post i receive this link in my email on a newsletter i subscribe to.

'91% Of People With Disabilities Believe They Receive Less Attention From Presidential Candidates Than Other Groups'
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/119585.php


Like I said I know we are the ‘SuperMinority', but still it’s fucking pathetic.

88keys

unsung wrote:

Illegal Immigration: I want it stopped. I do not support any type of amnesty. I want the anchor baby law repealed. I want business owners to face jail time for employing illegal aliens. I want those that are here following the laws and are of legal staus to quit being screwed around.

I totally agree with this... unfortunately both candidates stance on this is similar to amnesty of some sort. So I guess this is a non-issue. I know a couple of the 3rd party candidates like Bob Barr (Libertarian) and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution party) feel the same way and I and unsung, but we all know both of them have a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election.

88keys

PJSkier wrote:

Congrats to 88Keys. This may be the most commonsense political thread I have ever seen on the MT.

Thanks for the props... that was my goal with this thread.

know1

Here are some of the issues that I feel strongly about...and why you won't see me voting for any of the candidates:

Abortion - I think it should be stopped. Immediately.

Death Penalty - I think it should be stopped. Immediately.

Illegal Immigration - I oppose nationalism and racism (which is what I think most of the debate is about) and I think we should relax our laws to the point that anyone who wants to come here, work and live should be welcomed with open arms and and extremely simple citizenship process. I'm more concerned about people in general than I am in helping "Americans" to the exclusion of another human being.

War - I oppose the war now and I opposed it then. BUT...I feel that we owe it to the Iraqi citizens to do our best not to make the problems we've caused worse by pulling out fast and letting chaos and death ensue.

Taxes - I'm in favor of every single tax decrease proposed no matter who it is for and I am against every single tax increase. I think the government should be about making and enforcing laws and providing basic infrastructure and basic defense. Everything else should be dropped.

Healthcare - I think we should ban health insurance except for policies that cover catastrophic conditions and let people pay for most healthcare out of pocket. I think health insurance is one of the biggest scams ever put over on the masses. I think it would only get worse if the government tried to take it over.

Some issues I don't much care about:
Gay Marriage - I don't much care one way of the other, but I do think there's some merit to the argument that the government should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage.

Gun Control - I see both sides of this one, but I do think that the spirit of the 2nd amendment is long since gone. We can't defend ourselves against missiles and tanks with handguns and rifles.

MattyJoe

blondieblue227 wrote:

mattyjoe - how the hell am supposed to know where mcCain stands on people with disabilities? it's not on his website. please show me if i missed it.

Trust me, no one would cut spending for people with disabilities, that would be insanity. Governor Palin remarked in her convention speech how people with disabilities will have "an advocate in the White House," due in large part to her down-syndrome child. Obviously that's not a physical disability, but the same goes for both mental and physical. Disability spending is an important thing, not something that would be cut. When he says he's cutting spending, he's referring to obscure, useless programs which don't benefit anyone.

A good example of one of these programs is that so-called "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, a $398 million, federally-funded bridge that would've connected Ketchikan, Alaska with Gravina Island, in southeastern Alaska. Governor Palin initially supported the effort but came to oppose and, eventually, stop it's construction. Public opinion was that it was unnecessary. This is just one example of hundreds of other projects that Congress funds which are unnecessary. Disability programs are much more important than that bridge, I assure you.

Another example was a project in the Boston area to move one of the interstates underground, something that went on to cost the Federal Government $14.6 billion. It was completed around 2003, but there were many structural problems which actually caused the deaths of some motorists (I think the roof collapsed or something). In addition, there are cracks and leaks all over the tunnel as a result of the use of "sub-standard" materials.

These kinds of projects are funded by Congresspeople usually as a result of lobbying by various "special interest groups." These groups promise campaign donations and support in exchange for their agenda being spearheaded by members of Congress. This is a form of corruption and one which occurs on a daily basis in every level of government.

Every year, Congress dumps billions of our tax dollars into all kinds of these weird projects. This is what both McCain and Obama are promising to cut. However, this is one of those issues that never really seems to be resolved. Politicians promise to cut spending but it never gets done, therefore continuing to increase our budget deficit. However, Governor Palin has a history of battling this corruption and unnecessary spending to great effect, which makes me hopeful that maybe this issue will finally be dealt with. It's certainly an important one, one which could lead to tax cuts and more money for the Federal Government to spend on things which really are important, like helping people with disabilities.

digster

To be fair, I think McCain and Obama both have something positive in common that the other campaign is not giving them credit for.

I think they're both been bipartisan reformers, and they have crossed the aisle more than either side will give them credit for. Although I think for the past two-three years McCain has harshly drifted towards the social conservative side to get the nom, in his past he has been willing to break with established thought and bring differing factions together. Obama, as well, has many instances in his State Senate as well as U.S. Senate worked on biparisan legislation. I understand it's election season, but they both deserve credit for this.

blondieblue227

mattyjoe

Not falling for it. if the Rebs can’t even put it on their website or mention it in ONE speech, then fuck em. Just because Sarah has a special needs baby doesn’t mean I’m voting for them either. I maybe young, but I’ve noticed something. Rebs are for big business and Dems are for the little people. And I must be a little person because the Rebs can’t even mention my group. A group that covers over 50 million people. that being said, 50mil is a lot of votes to ignore. it's a slap in the face in my opinion. I go my state’s General Assembly every year to ask for more funding, so don’t tell me they wouldn’t cut money on programs for people with disabilities, because they do it all the time.

Sorry 88keys, I’ll shut up now. I’ve said my two cents

MattyJoe

blondieblue227 wrote:

Not falling for it. if the Rebs can’t even put it on their website or mention it in ONE speech, then fuck em. Just because Sarah has a special needs baby doesn’t mean I’m voting for them either. I maybe young, but I’ve noticed something. Rebs are for big business and Dems are for the little people. And I must be a little person because the Rebs can’t even mention my group. A group that covers over 50 million people. that being said, 50mil is a lot of votes to ignore. it's a slap in the face in my opinion. I go my state’s General Assembly every year to ask for more funding, so don’t tell me they wouldn’t cut money on programs for people with disabilities, because they do it all the time.

Examples?

You're right, the Republican party has always been aligned with business, and the Democratic party has always been aligned with the common man. It's been that way since their inceptions over 200 years ago. Generally I'm not a big fan of either party. I believe more in the ideology of the Democratic party, but I am strongly against how Democrats throughout the last 15-20 years have been going about it. They are leaning WAY too close to socialism for my taste. It was capitalism that made this country as prosperous and powerful as it is. No matter how much you think Capitalism benefits only the upper class, the lower class STILL have it very good in this country compared to others. They have the ability to climb the social ladder. They have enormous opportunity. Yeah it's still tough, but that's life. My father was way poorer growing up than Obama ever was, so I understand the system. I don't think it's wrong to help the poor. However, I do think it's wrong for the government to take a person's own money and give it to the poor. They may be able to afford it, and, yes, it's regrettable that they don't do more. Certainly, a wealth redistribution program when my father was growing up would've been very beneficial. But he doesn't believe in it, and I don't believe in it, because it's still wrong. That money is that person's property. It is wrong to unjustifiably take it from them.

I'm sorry you think I'm trying to trick you. I'm really not. It's Obama who's trying to trick you into thinking socialist ideals are what's best for this country by using the media to pump himself up into a demigod. Think socialism works? Look at Canada. They have almost no GDP. Growth is negligible. What keeps quality of business up? Competition between businesses to deliver the best possible product. Removing that competition is what makes countries like Canada mediocre, and what would make this country mediocre. Think the economy is bad now? A recession is lack of economic growth for 2 or more economic quarters. Under socialist principles, there would be a permanent lack of growth, so, essentially, a permanent recession. Obama's tax plan and healthcare plan are based on socialist principles. No matter how genuine the intention behind them, they are just not good for the overall well-being of this country.

slightofjeff

blondieblue227 wrote:

I maybe young, but I’ve noticed something. Rebs are for big business and Dems are for the little people.

I'm a pretty much a Republican. I'm not "for" big business. I'm for capitialism. And I'm not "against" the little people. In fact, I'm for creating ways for "little people" to become "big people."

Democrats are for keeping little people little -- making them utterly dependent on the government -- because otherwise they would become "big people" and vote Republican.

You're being silly if you think McCain would cut funding for disabilities just because he doesn't explicity say he won't on his website.

He also didn't write on his website that he wouldn't seize the first-born son of every American couple and sell him to the circus. But that doesn't make McCain a child pornographer.

OffHeGoes29

MattyJoe wrote:

Examples?

You're right, the Republican party has always been aligned with business, and the Democratic party has always been aligned with the common man. It's been that way since their inceptions over 200 years ago.

Not trying to be a dick, but from what I remember reading in US history, it was the other way around until FDR. The Rep. were abolitionist and even placed African Americans with in the government. The Dems where mostly from the conservitive south all through out the civil war and against equal rights, some even up too the 1940's. I'm sure some one with better knowledge of this can back me up here.

Other than that difference, I think you make a good point.

digster

MattyJoe wrote:

No matter how much you think Capitalism benefits only the upper class, the lower class STILL have it very good in this country compared to others. They have the ability to climb the social ladder. They have enormous opportunity. Yeah it's still tough, but that's life. My father was way poorer growing up than Obama ever was, so I understand the system. I don't think it's wrong to help the poor.

First, Obama's plans are pretty far from socialism, and I think it's a gross distortion to insinuate them as such.

I think this is my central problem with the Republican Party, and although I am a huge fan of fiscal discipline and personal liberty, I was not sure if I could ever be a full-fledged Republican. You said it yourself; "they have the ability to climb the social ladder." You hear it often, the American Dream which is something I believe does exist. You pull yourself up by your bootstraps and through hard work, determination and a little luck you can fulfill every dream. Like you, I understand that this dream is achievable; my parents lived in a studio apartment, were both struggling and we had to live on food stamps for a while. Now, we live in Manhattan and I'm a college grad because they sacrificed and made their way up the ladder. I don't say this to gain cred, but I say to show that I do feel I've been able to see both sides.

And this is where I break harshly with Republicans; if everyone has the ability to move up the ladder, if you do not do so then it must be your own fault. It's the legislative equivalent of walking by a panhandler and telling him to take a hike and get a job. I consider it naive and dangerous to assume that since someone is struggling that it's because the effort is not there. "Yeah, it's tough, but that's life" doesn't cut it for me when there are fifty million people, most through no fault of their own, without health insurance, when people have to work three jobs and cannot break even.

This idea that slightofjeff proposed that Republicans recently are really "for the little people" (at least Republican administrations of the past 20 years) is not supported by the facts. Under the two eight-year Republican administrations (and during both those administrations the President served with a Republican-controlled Congress for over half the time), by the end of the eight years unemployment had gone up, wage increases had decreased, national deficits have increased (by record heights) and social programs have been cut. So I say to sleightofjeff's claim, not a chance. I think it's also pretty offensive to think that low-income voters primarily vote Democratic because they're all mindless minions who vote Democratic cause they're told to. Maybe they have a mind of their own and see nothing to like in the Republican Party.

I don't think Republicans are against the little people, but I think the Republican party establishment have made it clear they have different priorities.

MattyJoe

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Not trying to be a dick, but from what I remember reading in US history, it was the other way around until FDR. The Rep. were abolitionist and even placed African Americans with in the government. The Dems where mostly from the conservitive south all through out the civil war and against equal rights, some even up too the 1940's. I'm sure some one with better knowledge of this can back me up here.

Other than that difference, I think you make a good point.

Socially, yes the Dems were more conservative back then. But that's because that's what the common man of the South wanted. They still had the same ideology, it was just implemented differently. They mainly supported the South, however, because they supported more independent States, not because of slavery. They were against a strong central government. Thomas Jefferson essentially founded the party, although it was not called the Democratic party until Andrew Jackson. But it had the same ideology from the very beginning.

And the Repubs were anti-slavery, but that's because businessmen in the North didn't rely on slavery to earn a living, like farmers in the South did. They didn't care if slavery was abolished because it wouldn't have affected them. Since slavery was thought of as barbaric anyway, why not support its abolition and, therefore, improve your image? Repubs were still aligned with businesses.

MattyJoe

digster wrote:

First, Obama's plans are pretty far from socialism, and I think it's a gross distortion to insinuate them as such.

Redistribution of wealth.

From Wikipedia:

"The economic/political system of communism forwards the idea that a government, serving the interests of the proletariat, would confiscate the wealth of the rich and then distribute benefits to the poor. Critics of state-managed economies, notably Milton Friedman, point out that the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." turns ability into a liability and need into an asset. They cite the former Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China as examples of countries where, despite aggressive economic regulation, wealth continues to be distributed unevenly. However, such arguments are straw man arguments based upon misrepresenting the goals and nature of the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribute_wealth#Redistribution_of_wealth_and_public_policy

Socialism is a form of Communism, by the way.

Barack's policy:

Higher taxes on the rich, and "tax credits" for the poor.

From his site:

"Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama will increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families."

"Provide Tax Relief: Obama will provide all low and middle-income workers a $500 Making Work Pay tax credit to offset the payroll tax those workers pay in every paycheck. Obama will also eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 per year."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/