Just registered to vote

[mothballs]

Turned 18 on the 16th of this month. First thing I decide to do? Register to vote, so I can vote for my man Ron Paul.

Even though for all my life thinking I was a Democrat, I really didn't know too much about politics until recently. So since Republicans have been making more sense lately instead of Obama's mindless spending on useless agencies and thus putting us into more debt and fucking up our market further, I put myself down as a Republican. This got my family pissed because they're all ignorant Democrats that know nothing about what's going on.

Anyway I'm really excited to vote in the New York primary on April 14th. NY gives lots of delegates. Who else thinks that Ron Paul is the one? I know I do :D

[SansNumbers]

At 1 hour ago, mothballs wrote: Obama's mindless spending on useless agencies and thus putting us into more debt

Care to tell me which agencies you consider to be useless?

and fucking up our market further

The president has barely anything to do with the economy. But if you want to argue it like that's true, then fine:

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia2000.html

There has only been one major dip in the Dow Jones since Obama became president, and that was in 2009, in his first 100 days. Compare that to the economy under Bush and get back to me then.

[Entice]

I'm turning 18 in March, not far away. I'm not sure what I'm going to do when election time comes around.

[aviewaskewed]

At 2 hours ago, mothballs wrote: Turned 18 on the 16th of this month. First thing I decide to do? Register to vote, so I can vote for my man Ron Paul.

So you decided to show how much of a Republican you are by voting for a Libertarian?

Makes perfect sense.

[Camarohusky]

At least he's got the balls to do something different than his family, and likely his community.

However, I get the feeling he's falling into a common trap for the young'ns. Younger folk have a tendency to smatter and to parrot.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 12 hours ago, mothballs wrote: Who else thinks that Ron Paul is the one? I know I do :D

to bad he is way behind and like always will lose like he did in the 80s and 08.

[EKublai]

At 18 hours ago, Ilssm wrote:

I myself am a moderate, because going with JUST Right wing or Left wing policies is idiotic. And I could care less about voting, I'm probably not going to when I turn 18, maybe not ever.

First of all, to the OP, congrats, voting for the first time definitely gives you a charge of excitement.

To Ilssm: I understand what you're getting at, however, hopefully your stances on issues are created because you're genuinely convinced by a variety of viewpoints. Politics is about Left vs. Right, policy-backing is not, mainly because conceptions of what is "left-wing" or "right-wing" change all the time. I generally have a hard time seeing wear I fall on the spectrum, but I'm fine with that because what's important is that I always consider different arguments and make sure that my political stances are balanced correctly and in line with my worldview. In the end, I'm probably left of center of the current midpoint, but I think it's telling that I read hotair.com, a conservative blog, but do not read a liberal blog. I don't need my own preacher to preach to me anymore.

[mothballs]

At 21 hours ago, aviewaskewed wrote: So you decided to show how much of a Republican you are by voting for a Libertarian?

Makes perfect sense.

He is a Libertarian, but he is under Republican, and in order to vote in the primary you have to be registered as the party that the candidates being contested are.

At 21 hours ago, SansNumbers wrote: Care to tell me which agencies you consider to be useless?

Energy, Education, Commerce, FDA, and Interior are all pretty useless.

The president has barely anything to do with the economy. But if you want to argue it like that's true, then fine:

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia2000.html

There has only been one major dip in the Dow Jones since Obama became president, and that was in 2009, in his first 100 days. Compare that to the economy under Bush and get back to me then.

Looks like Bush did a much better job with the economy. Obama didn't have to go through 9/11, which fucked up the economy pretty bad.

[Camarohusky]

At 16 minutes ago, mothballs wrote: 9/11, which fucked up the economy pretty bad.

No it didn't.

Analogy time!

Imagine a huge pile up on an interstate, like 50 cars and it's massively shitty. 9/11 is like the VW Beetle near the end. Sure, it might have had some worsening effect on the extent of the damage, but the pile up was already there before it hit, and the pile up was gonna happen even had the Beetle decided to take the side roads.

[mothballs]

At 3 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 16 minutes ago, mothballs wrote: 9/11, which fucked up the economy pretty bad.

No it didn't.

Analogy time!

Imagine a huge pile up on an interstate, like 50 cars and it's massively shitty. 9/11 is like the VW Beetle near the end. Sure, it might have had some worsening effect on the extent of the damage, but the pile up was already there before it hit, and the pile up was gonna happen even had the Beetle decided to take the side roads.

According to the chart you gave me, there was a bit of a dip around where Sep 2001 was. And I'm not standing up for Bush, he's a shitty president. So why would you compare (considerably) one of the worst presidents in history to our current one, if there's not much of a difference in the numbers? It's not true that the president doesn't have much control over the economy, they do most of the budgeting.

[Camarohusky]

At 4 minutes ago, mothballs wrote: According to the chart you gave me, there was a bit of a dip around where Sep 2001 was.

There was clearly a stock hit revolving around 9/11, I'll give you that. What else would expect when the trading floor is destroyed alogn with 10 floors of Dean Witter, and likely over 50 other floors of major players' property is destroyed. However, the real problems with the economy were already in play by this time.

It's not true that the president doesn't have much control over the economy, they do most of the budgeting.

Budgetting is a Constitutionally deliniated Power of Congress, not the President. All he has over the budget is veto power, and since the line-item veto was removed, the President has to accept the massive budget as is or reject it as a whole. That is the only control over the budget the President has.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1 hour ago, mothballs wrote: He is a Libertarian, but he is under Republican, and in order to vote in the primary you have to be registered as the party that the candidates being contested are.

I know, I just kind of wanted to make the funny more then anything else really. It's a shame Paul is caught in an unwinnable trap, as he has some good ideas. If he were to align with the Libertarians (his true party), he would never get any attention or gain any real shot at the vote. But by staying Republican, which gets him that spotlight, he's hopelessly caught within a party that rewards intelligence with scorn and seems to have as it's base people who want candidates to act as dumb as they are appear to be and try to turn the government into a Presidential dictatorship so that it's less complicated and they theoretically get what they want.

[jsheppard]

Ah, voting. Congrats OP!

I remember the years back when I turned of age to vote. Likewise, I was excited. After several elections though, that enthusiasm has diminished. Naturally, my life has gotten a lot busier since turning 18, and I care more about being informed to come to the "right" decision. It seems like I never have enough time to stay up-to-date on all the topics and the positions of the candidates. Thus, sadly, I no longer vote.

Sorry to damper the mood...

(Random note: Absentee ballots are a pain in the ass. I've gone through my fair share.)

[mothballs]

At 1 day ago, Camarohusky wrote: Budgetting is a Constitutionally deliniated Power of Congress, not the President. All he has over the budget is veto power, and since the line-item veto was removed, the President has to accept the massive budget as is or reject it as a whole. That is the only control over the budget the President has.

You are right, they're not giving all of the power of budgeting to the president because checks and balances prevents the president from having unlimited power - but think of why Obama hasn't been able to do much throughout his presidency. Almost all of our Congress is Republican, so it was near impossible to get any of his Democratic bills and laws passed through Congress. That's where the president can pass bills and laws relating to the economy, but ultimately you're right, it's up to Congress whether they accept it or deny it.

And thanks a bunch to everyone congratulating me on being able to vote :D

[BUTANE]

At 8 hours ago, mothballs wrote:

At 1 day ago, Camarohusky wrote: Budgetting is a Constitutionally deliniated Power of Congress, not the President. All he has over the budget is veto power, and since the line-item veto was removed, the President has to accept the massive budget as is or reject it as a whole. That is the only control over the budget the President has.

You are right, they're not giving all of the power of budgeting to the president because checks and balances prevents the president from having unlimited power - but think of why Obama hasn't been able to do much throughout his presidency. Almost all of our Congress is Republican, so it was near impossible to get any of his Democratic bills and laws passed through Congress. That's where the president can pass bills and laws relating to the economy, but ultimately you're right, it's up to Congress whether they accept it or deny it.

And thanks a bunch to everyone congratulating me on being able to vote :D

So you admit that budget issues and the economy are not Barack Obama's fault and have essentially acknowledged that the republican majority in the House stops any legislation that the democrats introduce from being passed. Yet you think putting a republican in the white house will solve the problem? The problem is clearly the republicans in congress. Keep Obama and vote out the house republicans so that the democrats have a majority and can finally start taxing the rich and fix the current debt problem.

Also voting for Ron Paul is a wasted vote.

Congrats on turning 18 and deciding that voting would be the first thing you'd do. I bought cigars and porn.

[Sense-Offender]

I voted the first chance I got, too, which was the last presidential election. I also voted on the last NY governor election.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 2 days ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 16 minutes ago, mothballs wrote: 9/11, which fucked up the economy pretty bad.

No it didn't.

Analogy time!

Imagine a huge pile up on an interstate, like 50 cars and it's massively shitty. 9/11 is like the VW Beetle near the end. Sure, it might have had some worsening effect on the extent of the damage, but the pile up was already there before it hit, and the pile up was gonna happen even had the Beetle decided to take the side roads.

well to complete that analogy, the beetle was trailing behind it a series of semis that were loaded with black powder. 9/11 in itself wasn't much (ECONOMICALLY speaking), but it caused the government to over react and chain multiple, very costly wars together, not even slowing down after they got the guy responsible for it.

[Sword-of-Kings]

At 3 days ago, Ilssm wrote:

And I could care less

facepalm

[camobch0]

"I'm a moderate, so I'm going to vote for a far-right old white man."

Just vote for Obama. He's not great by any means, but it's better than getting stuck with a republican or Paul.

[VictorGrey]

At 3 days ago, mothballs wrote:

Who else thinks that Ron Paul is the one? I know I do :D

Yep.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 6 hours ago, camobch0 wrote: "I'm a moderate, so I'm going to vote for a far-right old white man."

Just vote for Obama. He's not great by any means, but it's better than getting stuck with a republican or Paul.

moderate depends where you are looking from, Stalin would have considered Obama to be an extremist.

[riemannSum]

At 7 days ago, camobch0 wrote: "I'm a moderate, so I'm going to vote for a far-right old white man."

Just vote for Obama. He's not great by any means, but it's better than getting stuck with a republican or Paul.

Who says American politics are broken??

[Camarohusky]

At 51 minutes ago, riemannSum wrote: Who says American politics are broken??

Theoretically, the "lesser of two evils" vote is the most pure. If neither side is truly happy, but are at least semi-comfortable then we have found the best medium between them. As some judges say when deeming settlements fair, "I haven't found the right answer until both sides are angry with me."

[riemannSum]

At 48 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 51 minutes ago, riemannSum wrote: Who says American politics are broken??

Theoretically, the "lesser of two evils" vote is the most pure. If neither side is truly happy, but are at least semi-comfortable then we have found the best medium between them. As some judges say when deeming settlements fair, "I haven't found the right answer until both sides are angry with me."

Uh... Actually theoretically the "lesser of two evils" vote is complete trash. Theoretically, voting for someone on principle and platform is the most pure vote. The point of a democracy isn't to find a happy medium, but to represent the interests of the majority while reserving reasonable rights for the minority.

I'm pretty sure your... "quote," is meant to be sardonic.