Weiland Backs Obama

[artist151]

All I got to say is there is a channel that plays nothing but OBama 24 7.  I think they are both lame.  Another reason I don't vote and never will till someone says something I like or have interest in.  NEedless to say that channel has been blocked in our home. 

[STPGurl]

Another reason I don't vote and never will till someone says something I like or have interest in. 

If you give up your right to vote, then you also give up your right to bitch, IMO.

[NakedFountain]

I for one am happy that Scott likes Obama. McCain would mean another 4  (or years of Bush's politics...No more republicans for me.

[lovemachine97]

There are other candidates out there.  I have never understood people saying you're wasting a vote if you vote 3rd party.  I am not even doing it as a vote of no confidence, I just believe he has the best understanding of our Constitution, the free market, and how FAR we've come from what the Constitution says.  Research all the candidates on your ballot, and choose whom you most think you align yourself with.  NEVER EVER EVER is that wasting your vote.

I did so, and I have been supporting Bob Barr.  

I live in California, and because of all-or-nothing electoral voting here, any vote that is not FOR Obama will be a waste, sadly.

While we're on the subject, voting for you local Congressman/woman (as well as local officials) is actually more important than voting for President.  Our founding fathers even told us so.  Research those running in your area and vote accordingly.

I plead with you all to change this country by voting, WHOEVER it is for, and not in a monopolized-campaign-slogan sort of way.  In a real way.  If that is for Obama, fine.  But make sure you do it.

I for one am happy that Scott likes Obama. McCain would mean another 4  (or years of Bush's politics...No more republicans for me.

This is another "lying by omission" case.  First, to get technical, McCain has never "voted with Bush".  Bush has no vote.  He has a position on an issue, but no Congressional vote.  This might be playing semantics, but it's worth pointing out the wordplay.

Yes, McCain voted with Bush's position 90% of the time...but ONLY in 2007.  In fact, McCain has voted, in one year's time, as low as 65% and 70% with Bush's positions, and Obama has voted as high as 45% with Bush's policies.

Things you only find out if you actually research them...

[STPGurl]

I for one am happy that Scott likes Obama. McCain would mean another 4  (or years of Bush's politics...No more republicans for me.

LOL - you don't even live in the US, NF. 

[Peebs]

If you give up your right to vote, then you also give up your right to bitch, IMO.

That we can agree on ;-)

Even if you are unhappy with either candidate you have the right to right in anyone you want but you are exercising your right as a person in a democracy.

[Aaron]

To preface, i'm a moderate and have voted both ways in the past. 

Both candidates suck IMO, but I just cant get behind McCain.  Not crazy about Obama either, but I substantially prefer him over the alternative.  Regardless, both candidates are full of empty promises right now.  They both have empty, underdeveloped plans in most respects, and are making promises that they just cant possibly keep. 

What this country needs is a viable 3rd party candidate, IMO. 

[lovemachine97]

What this country needs is a viable 3rd party candidate, IMO. 

I wholeheartedly, 100% agree

The problem is viability is determined by the Republicans and Democrats (because of their dominance), the media, consumer apathy, and the (ridiculous, IMO) notions of a "wasted vote" or wanting to be on the "winning side".

I firmly believe Bob Barr is as viable as Ross Perot was, but consumers don't care enough to look beyond the two parties, the media won't cover him, and the two-party system has muffled democracy.

I don't ever want to coerce anyone, only encourage the consumption of knowledge, and a vote you can stand behind as fully as possible.  I highly, highly recommend thoroughly reading the Constitution, then checking out the platforms of the candidates, including the 3rd parties (www.BobBarr.com, www.votenader.org), and choose the candidate you believe is the right choice despite their chances to win.

The only way to get the Republicans, Democrats, and media to look beyond 2 candidates is to eliminate the other reason 3rd parties don't do well--consumer apathy, and the idea that you must vote for one of the two major candidates.

I can't stress enough, though, that Congressional elections are actually MORE important than the President.  I'll keep harping on it lol...

[Aaron]

I can't stress enough, though, that Congressional elections are actually MORE important than the President.  I'll keep harping on it lol...

Completely agreed.  I'm done worrying about the presidential election, since its already pretty much decided, barring an Obama implosion. 

The congressional elections is where my attention is.  These people are doing the real work (comparatively speaking), elect them as you best see fit to represent your interests and beliefs.  For me, that means voting for democrats, republicans, and in one particular case an independent. 

[Long Way Home]

The liberal part turns me off. 

Wow.....no offense, but I had you pegged as a lib.

Go figure.

Obama is probably going to win, but I am helping with get out of the vote here in NC. The ground game here is going very well and there is not way Obama is up 5 in this state like the polls say. The polls are rubbish and are just trying to kill everyone's enthusiasm.

Also, a Scott endoresment means a loss for Obama. Weiland backed Gore and Kerry too.

[lovemachine97]

Completely agreed.  I'm done worrying about the presidential election, since its already pretty much decided, barring an Obama implosion. 

The congressional elections is where my attention is.  These people are doing the real work (comparatively speaking), elect them as you best see fit to represent your interests and beliefs.  For me, that means voting for democrats, republicans, and in one particular case an independent. 

Exactly.  My Rep., Jerry Lewis, has been in Congress since Nixon.

He's one of the biggest, if not THE biggest earmarker spender in the nation.

Congressional incumbents get reelected at the rate of 98%.  Now, I am going to make one of those analogies that gets guys like Bill O'Reilly in trouble.  98% reelection is what happens in dictatorships.

That's essentially what's happened in Congress, though, with gerrymandering.  The demographic of your district shifts?  They just use their power to redraw the lines in order to ensure reelection.

It's absolutely unbelievable that we put up with this. 

Politicians are a reflection of us, not the other way around.  So shame on us.

[Long Way Home]

Why you earn more than $250,000 a year?

There is so much nonsense and craziness in this topic by nat and Peebs that my head is about to explode. I check this board during work, but I do not have enough time to post right now. I know I will not change your minds because you are wrapped up in all the empty platitudes of Obama, but this is nuts....man I hope I remember to come back here over the weekend.

On a side note, I think both choices stink considering how great of a country we have. Until I come back, choke on this for a while:

http://brucegresham.blogtownhall.com

PS: Nice job lovemachine

[DELEO]

I support Obama as well.......

-Chase

[Aaron]

Also, a Scott endoresment means a loss for Obama. Weiland backed Gore and Kerry too.

Historically the incumbent party loses.  Its an uphill battle for an incumbent party to win, even if they nominate a clearly superior candidate. 

Also to play devil's advocate, Gore won the popular vote...

[Aaron]

On a side note, I think both choices stink considering how great of a country we have. Until I come back, choke on this for a while:

Agreed.  There were better potential presidents on both sides during the primary season, IMO.