Poll: Would you vote for a presdential republican candidate...

[smallthemouse]

I don't think Obama is really a Christian, and that he, just like the majority of US presidents, does it for the votes.

 

[Belated]

L

I vote... for Sakura.

She is the best choice.

[sub]Damn, sleepy... need... rest...[/sub]

FUCK YEA.


ALSO, topic creator, a candidate's religion or lack thereof shouldn't be a factor, really. It's not relevant to politics as much as you might think. Also, most Americans oppose "gay marriage," so you calling that "extreme" is flat-out wrong. Obama doesn't support that, even.

Au contraire, I'd be willing to bet that most of us do support it. Or would support it if they weren't influenced by yet another tired old "think of the children" argument. I had a friend who once believed that allowing gay marriage would somehow corrupt children because they may have to be taught about it in schools as a result. Firstly, no they wouldn't. They don't teach us about straight marriage in school, so why would they teach us about gay marriage? Secondly, let's pretend for a second that they would teach gay marriage in schools. In this case, so what? The little brats can handle it. They're not THAT stupid.

Anyway, I explained both of these points to my friend, and he switched his position. You see, I think that a lot of the people who are against gay marriage, aren't REALLY against gay marriage, but just afraid of how it will affect children. Because people are stupid about children. You wave a kid around and people will believe anything you have to say. As long as it's "FOR THA KEEDZ!" You don't even have to explain your argument. Literally just pick up a kid, wave him around like a flag, and say "Look, a kid!", and people will assume your position is valid, no matter what your position is.

In other words, being against gay rights totally IS an extremist point of view. The only reason it has such a high following is likely because somebody waved a kid around at some point and said "think of the children." At least, that's what I think happened.

You're completely wrong. First off, the more "normal" you make it, the more likely it is to affect children. Secondly, that's far from the only aspect that's fucked up about it. The union between a man and a woman is different than anything else, and the only pairing capable of producing offspring. It should therefore be defined differently, as it is not the same thing. Anyway, now taking a nap.

Nope. I'm completely right. Even if it did affect the children, they could handle it. All that would happen is that they would look upon same-sex marriage as "normal", which is how it should be looked at. It wouldn't magically turn children psychotic or hurt them in any way. So how exactly is this aspect "fucked up", as you put it? And frankly, who cares about reproduction? Homosexuality isn't a choice, so it's not like straight marriage and reproduction are going to suddenly stop happening if gay marriage is allowed. Reproduction won't slow down at all. We'll still produce humans at the speed of sound, and the only thing that will change about society, is the way we view gay couples. Which would be good. Also, what did I tell ya? "Think of the children" totally blinds people to the facts about gay marriage. Case in point: You.

 

[Murais]

I still think Mitt Romney was the best presidential candidate in 2008, period, and he was Mormon.

Maybe I'm weird, but within reason, religion has no bearing on my voting habits.

As a man from Massachusetts, y'know, the state where was governor.

FUCK. NO.

The guy wasn't even present in the STATE for his last year in office. He left. Just upped and left, and shirked his responsibility in order to run for President. He's a shit-eating, smarmy ladder climber, and nothing more. No. Nonononononononono. I would quite literally vote for ANYONE over that man. Even... uggggggggh... P-Palin.

As for the OT; I don't bother voting most of the time. The competent, charismatic leader is dead, and bipartisanship killed him. Now every campaign seeks to make their candidate as homogeneous enough for everyone to vote for, instead of selecting candidates with any revolutionary or effective ideas. Religious zealotry is a turnoff when it comes to a political candidate, but any person running for Presidency who declares himself an atheist is committing political suicide. Atheists don't get elected, because a good chunk of the country is still scared of them.

 

[Bobbity]

Well, here's the thing. I'm utterly disgusted with both parties at the moment, so I wouldn't vote. I'd prefer to identify myself with the Democrats, but they're utterly useless when it comes to getting things done. The Republicans, on the other hand, have a lot of force and manage to get done what they want done, but I believe that their agenda would seriously damage the US. They want to repeal the Healthcare reform, stop funding for social security and - Fuck it, I really do hate them right now.

It's a lose-lose situation.

Good thing I'm an Aussie, Believe it or not, our government is possibly worse than yours right now.

 

[smallthemouse]

And for everyone saying they wont vote, drop your 12 year old "fite teh powr" rhetoric and realize that they don't care if they win by getting 10 votes or 100,000,000 votes, they'll still be in power, and all you're doing is saying "i'm not going to vote so that the person who represents me and my country and looks out for my well being is elected with less effort on his/her part."

 

[2fish]

I want someone fiscally conservative in the White House next term. I don't care if they're a level 5 laser Buddhist, as long as they're for balancing the budget and getting US spending under control.

While it would be nice to see spending under control it is not going to happen. The economic issues are a nice burdern that if the gov stop spending to support everyone elese it will take much longer to fix. So I say flat tax rate everyone pays 5% of their earnings, but that is off topic and i do not want to derail the op so.

If I thoight said person was the best choice yes I would vote for them, I don't think they would have much chance due to the number of people I know that vote that consider religion a major factor, but hey worth a shot.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

Your country is falling apart because you guys won't pay enough tax to support a first world nation, and you want even SMALLER government? Just think how it looks to us in Australia - we take for absolute granted that every single person in the country is insured by Medicare for all procedures except purely cosmetic surgery (nose-jobs and facelifts require private insurance, though things like lap-band surgery are covered by the government if there's a serious health issue involved), not to mention public funding of tertiary education, training etc, and our national debt is only 3% of GDP (yours is around 68%). The fact that you guys can't afford what we take as the basic minimums of civilised existence is astounding, and every time I hear you say 'we can't afford universal healthcare' it just sounds to me like 'the US is a nation of freaken' morons who can't even manage the basics of nationhood'.

I whole heartedly agree.

 

[Varanfan9]

I'm going with Obama on this one. They say Democrats want a big government but really a government that wants people to not be allowed to marry based on who they want to marry seems more controlling over people's lives than one that gives them health care.

 

[coolkirb]

An athiest would never win a Democratic or Republican primary, its just bad politics to not belong to a religion

 

[Hader]

I don't vote. Just how I roll. The abstain 'vote' can be just as important.

 

[Skratt]

Atheist Republican? That's the same as saying an Atheist Christian. Anyways, Scince I'm Canadian, I don't really have much say. But Republicans are all about monopolizing everything, making everything a buisness that keeps screwing you over. No.

*EDIT* After consideration, I suppose him being an Atheist would make him less prone to...insanity (Glenn Beck, Bill O'reilly, Rush Limbaugh.) So, I'd give him a chance.

Pretty much. An atheist republican is really just a non-religious fiscal republican. For the most part they are good people, hell I support a lot of their views. Except when they go off the deep end and start calling people communists or socialists because they support things like Medicare. So while I am more inclined to vote for someone who will keep their personal religious view out of politics, I am still skeptical.

 

[Gaiseric]

I don't vote. Just how I roll. The abstain 'vote' can be just as important.

I think most people would write that off as lazy and forget about it. At least vote for a crazy or wildcard candidate, you know a third party.

 

[DustyDrB]

And for everyone saying they wont vote, drop your 12 year old "fite teh powr" rhetoric and realize that they don't care if they win by getting 10 votes or 100,000,000 votes, they'll still be in power, and all you're doing is saying "i'm not going to vote so that the person who represents me and my country and looks out for my well being is elected with less effort on his/her part."

I'm not going to vote because I don't believe a word any of them say and don't think they will make a difference. I made a point during the last election to watch all the debates, look up candidate's voting history on issues, fact-check them, and do the same for their running mates. But now I have absolutely zero confidence in politicians. I'm not abstaining from voting to make a statement. I'm abstaining because it takes less effort than to be well-informed and participate in an exercise in futility.

 

[Hader]

I don't vote. Just how I roll. The abstain 'vote' can be just as important.

I think most people would write that off as lazy and forget about it. At least vote for a crazy or wildcard candidate, you know a third party.

Maybe they will. I sure as hell don't care. As far as voting for president goes, I really don't care. Though normally if I abstain, I will have a reason why.

 

[Ensiferum]

An epileptic monkey would make a better president than Obama. So sure; I'd vote for this guy.

 

[ace_of_something]

You assume much about republicans based on a vocal minority.
If I agree with someone. I will vote them.

 

[Nieroshai]

The option of "atheist republican" and "democrat"...
First of all, why should any candidate be atheist? Completely unnecessary to demand all politicians be secular in their personal lives. Also, Obama claims to be Christian and I have no reason currently to doubt it, so if you demand Reps be atheist, demand the same of Dems.

 

[smallthemouse]

And for everyone saying they wont vote, drop your 12 year old "fite teh powr" rhetoric and realize that they don't care if they win by getting 10 votes or 100,000,000 votes, they'll still be in power, and all you're doing is saying "i'm not going to vote so that the person who represents me and my country and looks out for my well being is elected with less effort on his/her part."

I'm not going to vote because I don't believe a word any of them say and don't think they will make a difference. I made a point during the last election to watch all the debates, look up candidate's voting history on issues, fact-check them, and do the same for their running mates. But now I have absolutely zero confidence in politicians. I'm not abstaining from voting to make a statement. I'm abstaining because it takes less effort than to be well-informed and participate in an exercise in futility.

If you truly did watch the debates and all that sort of stuff as in depth as you say (which i seriously doubt), you should have enough initiative to make a decision on who you want to represent you more than another. All you are doing is going for the "fight the power" rhetoric. Just because you don't fully agree with someone, it dosent mean you should give them equal voice than the one spewing inane thoughts. Its ALWAYS better to be well informed, and you cant tell me going to a voting booth is too much effort for you.

 

[DustyDrB]

And for everyone saying they wont vote, drop your 12 year old "fite teh powr" rhetoric and realize that they don't care if they win by getting 10 votes or 100,000,000 votes, they'll still be in power, and all you're doing is saying "i'm not going to vote so that the person who represents me and my country and looks out for my well being is elected with less effort on his/her part."

I'm not going to vote because I don't believe a word any of them say and don't think they will make a difference. I made a point during the last election to watch all the debates, look up candidate's voting history on issues, fact-check them, and do the same for their running mates. But now I have absolutely zero confidence in politicians. I'm not abstaining from voting to make a statement. I'm abstaining because it takes less effort than to be well-informed and participate in an exercise in futility.

If you truly did watch the debates and all that sort of stuff, you should have enough initiative to make a decision on who you want to represent you more than another. All you are doing is going for the "fight the power" rhetoric. Just because you don't fully agree with someone, it dosent mean you should give them equal voice than the one spewing inane thoughts. Its ALWAYS better to be well informed, and you cant tell me going to a voting booth is too much effort for you.

I'm not fighting any power, I'm just going about my life.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Anybody running against the retard we have in office is a good person in my book. Also, religion has no bearing on who I vote for. I voted for Romney, who's a Mormon. I didn't care for his religion but rather his political ideaologies.