Who are you/would you vote for and why?

[Smellincoffee]

I am undecided. Jill Stein or Gary Johnson? It is indeed a tough choice. I'll probably go with the Greens, given as the libertarians aren't nearly as concerned about the power of monied interests as they should be.

 

[_random_]

an administration that involves Paul Ryan in a position of any responsibility or influence.

Well good thing he's running for Vice President.

I think I'll be voting for Obama.

 

[potatokiosk]

Romney, because Obama will do nothing to end illegal immigration.

Deportations are at record levels under the Obama administration. No, he won't "end" illegal immigration because that's impossible.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Just curious, but if an economically right, socially libertarian choice had been the best method to stop them, rather than a fiscal leftist as you'd be more inclined to agree with, would you have done that?

Did I stutter ?

I mean it: Whoever does the most damage to the designs of theocrats is my man/woman. If Gary Johnson or Huntsman were ahead of Obama I would give them serious consideration.

For the record, if the country ever realigns to Objectivist types versus Christian Socialist types then I'd vote Objectivist before you could say "Galt." No Christian Irans on my watch!

Say Merry Christmas to me, put giant crosses on every corner, but leave me the hell alone when I'm doin' my thing. That's all this is about.

 

[History_Buff]

Obama. He's not doing a terrible job, and you can't afford to have guys like Romney in office when Supreme Court nominations come up.

 

[AlpsStranger]

the libertarians aren't nearly as concerned about the power of monied interests as they should be.

The Libertarians are good people, but this is their blindspot. I cannot accept their philosophy as complete or useful because it refuses to address any possibility of tyranny-by-wealth.

That said, the alliance between severely religious and severely anti-theist camps within libertarianism is pretty interesting. I think it represents an attempt to come to an understanding between fervent religion and atheism.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Did I stutter ?

I mean it: Whoever does the most damage to the designs of theocrats is my man/woman. If Gary Johnson or Huntsman were ahead of Obama I would give them serious consideration.

For the record, if the country ever realigns to Objectivist types versus Christian Socialist types then I'd vote Objectivist before you could say "Galt." No Christian Irans on my watch!

Say Merry Christmas to me, put giant crosses on every corner, but leave me the hell alone when I'm doin' my thing. That's all this is about.

I'm intrigued due to the number of people that are voting solely on the economy this year.

I really like people that actually vote because of social issues.

I also find it refreshing that you are actually concerned with being left alone rather than censoring religion like some atheists give me the vibe of aiming at



I do question the validity of voting for Obama with those principles in mind, however. Obama may be pro-gay marriage, but he still can't do a thing about it, and that's about it.

And Romney isn't particularly "Theocratic." Santorum? Bachman? Perry? Yeah. But Romney? He's too centrist to be theocratic.

The Libertarians are good people, but this is their blindspot. I cannot accept their philosophy as complete or useful because it refuses to address any possibility of tyranny-by-wealth.

That said, the alliance between severely religious and severely anti-theist camps within libertarianism is pretty interesting. I think it represents an attempt to come to an understanding between fervent religion and atheism.

It reminds me of a comment from one Libertarian blog that "We're raising a small army so we can... leave everybody alone."

I guess Libertarians on all sides realized that you can't force people to live your way, so why try?

 

[AlpsStranger]

I also find it refreshing that you are actually concerned with being left alone rather than censoring religion like some atheists give me the vibe of aiming at.

Usually we're talking about public school or something like that. Or that Bible Belt judge who was sentencing people to church attendance. I can be pretty shrill in situations like that, believe me.

Other examples, like the ground zero cross fiasco, didn't really make a lot of sense to me

And Romney isn't particularly "Theocratic." Santorum? Bachman? Perry? Yeah. But Romney? He's too centrist to be theocratic.

I doubt Mormonism would fare any better than atheism in Bachmann's Iran. Still, there are matters like the supreme court and the rest of the Republican machinery to worry about.

 

[Dachs]

Well good thing he's running for Vice President.

The word choice was intentional; I am as much of an Armando Iannucci fan as the next guy.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Not eligible for voting. So with that in mind Gary Johnson.

 

[Masada]

Obama, because Romney won't give me a phone or let me vote.

 

[Chiteng]

Deportations are at record levels under the Obama administration. No, he won't "end" illegal immigration because that's impossible.

It is easily possible. In fact it has been done in the past.
I am not allowed to explain how, because it upsets the mods

 

[Leoreth]

Obama, because Romney won't give me a phone or let me vote.

Wait until the second debate, I'm sure Romney will correct the misconception that he's against free phones.

 

[downtown]

It is easily possible. In fact it has been done in the past.
I am not allowed to explain how, because it upsets the mods

So Mitt Romney is going to mine the border now?

I'm voting for Obama. I think he's made important gains with social policy, I strongly disagree with trickle-down economics, and I think a Romney Presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for my beloved church.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I am undecided. Jill Stein or Gary Johnson? It is indeed a tough choice. I'll probably go with the Greens, given as the libertarians aren't nearly as concerned about the power of monied interests as they should be.

I think you should vote for Gary as he's on the ballot everywhere and if enough people vote for him over Romney/Obama on their shared social authoritarianism they might seriously think about throwing in a more pro-civil liberties guy.

Then again, I wouldn't vote Stein so take that as you will

Usually we're talking about public school or something like that. Or that Bible Belt judge who was sentencing people to church attendance. I can be pretty shrill in situations like that, believe me.

Sentencing people to church attendance? I'm insulted. I don't think of attending church as a punishment

Other examples, like the ground zero cross fiasco, didn't really make a lot of sense to me

You mean when they tried to stop Muslims from building a mosque? I understand the sensetivity to the issue, and it did make their religion look bad to a lot of people (Not really to me) but anyone who says it should be illegal needs to get smacked in the face and reminded of religious freedom

I doubt Mormonism would fare any better than atheism in Bachmann's Iran. Still, there are matters like the supreme court and the rest of the Republican machinery to worry about.

Well, there's two competing things here for me, that I want Roe v Wade overturned, and that I don't want sodomy laws and the like to come back

And then there's the fact that either way, our civil liberties will not be protected by the court. They're still going to look at the phones, they're still going to rape pat down people in airports, they're still going to do crap like the NDAA, exc.

I couldn't vote for either one of these people, but I understand your concerns with Romney...

So Mitt Romney is going to mine the border now?

I'm voting for Obama. I think he's made important gains with social policy, I strongly disagree with trickle-down economics, and I think a Romney Presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for my beloved church.

I should be on record for saying that as radical as I am, putting mines on the border is idiocy, and Mittens isn't going to do it either.

 

[Cutlass]

So Mitt Romney is going to mine the border now?

I'm voting for Obama. I think he's made important gains with social policy, I strongly disagree with trickle-down economics, and I think a Romney Presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for my beloved church.

In what way do you think it would harm your church?

 

[downtown]

In what way do you think it would harm your church?

The LDS church is actually a global, and highly diverse group. There are more members outside the US than inside, and the most common language spoken by Latter Day Saints is Spanish. Outside of the US, given the church's history, it is extremely tied to the United States, and further linking that with a potentially highly unpopular president could really hurt the church's missionary and charity work. Already countries have either closed their country to missionaries (Switzerland, Venezuela) or attempted to fight temple construction (France). The church is also currently forbidden to operate in China, and much of SE Asia and the Middle East.

The linking of Romney to Mormonism (and Prop-8) have also done a lot of harm to the church's reputation among US liberals. A Mitt presidency that is either going to be highly conservative, ineffective, or worse, beset by corruption, will tarnish the church as well. I don't want an LDS president.

 

[Goodfella]

That was Huntsman not Romney.

Romney does too. I guess there were two of them then.

 

[ace99]

Romney does too. I guess there were two of them then.

Did Romney ever say it during the primary? From what I remember Huntsman did and got castigated for it and stood by it. Sounds out of character for Romney.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Huh, I never realized that Downtown was a Mormon.