Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who Did You Vote For?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Plus, Prop. 2 was a direct slap at the religious nut jobs, something that's hard for me to vote against. ;)
Yeah, when in doubt vote against them... make them spend a few more millions next time around... and keep them focused on that. Since the lawn-signs by the churches say "No on 2", I'm voting "Yes".

Odd as it seems, I have not yet decided on the rest:

Prop 2 -- medical marijuana ... the measure was so long that I didn't read it... I'll probably vote in favor, particularly because I think it'll fail

Representative: I'll probably vote for a guy who supposedly voted for a bill where a female GI raped in Iraq and then pregnant will be denied an abortion. That's how bad our choices are! I should slash my wrists on the way home.

President... not yet sure... since I vote late, the exit polls may sway me into voting for loser if the gaps appears huge. What can I tell you, I'm a social metaphysician too. [Otherwise, I'll vote for Obama. It'll make for interesting threads next year.]

OTOH, Since I think Obama is predicted to win, I spent a few minute jotting down some polemical points against two things thatb will likely be early on the agenda: CHIP and Card-check.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Voted absentee]

President: Barack Obama

Reason: Because he doesn't claim that his proposals are for the "free-market" his failures are more likely to be blamed on his plans rather than on Capitalism. It may only buy clarity for a few years, but that may be enough to buy us some more time in the long run or even give us a faster start.

Everyone else: Republican straight. I did not vote for any local candidates however, since I could not find any information on them other than short advertisements floating around.

Proposal one [allowance of medical marijuana]: Yes.

Proposal two [stem cell research]: Yes.

Proposal three [police millage]: The language was too vague as to how high the tax would raise, so no.

Honestly, except for the proposals, I feel pretty bad that I voted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President: Wrote in Ron Paul. I don't know if this will even be counted, as I've read that write-in candidates have to be "registered" somehow in order to be counted. In the end, there were too many things about Obama and McCain that just made me say, "I just can't do it - I can't vote for either of these guys."

I respect those who abstained, I respect those who voted for McCain or for Obama or Libertarian or Constitution Party. There are good reasons for any of those choices, it just depends on the importance weight that you place on the various pros and cons. Pretty sure Obama's going to win regardless. I am hoping that at least an Obama presidency will raise the level of discourse so that it can be about IDEAS. We've got to be ready to express ours convincingly.

House: Republican. Our Democrat, Gabrielle Giffords, isn't too bad, but she voted for the bailout, and I had emailed her office to say I'd vote against her if she voted for the bailout, so I did.

Other seats: Libertarian when available, else Republican.

Propositions: Against any tax increases, against "defining marriage in the state constitution", against new regulations on home builders, for prohibiting any law that would restrict people from paying for health care out of their own pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


President: some douchebag (McCain--Cringe)

Senate: some douchebag (Udall--boy did I cringe, a fucking Boulder liberal!!!)

Congresscritter: some douchebag (The democrat, hasn't a prayer of winning)

State House: some douchebag (The R, in this case she's actually been useful fighting eminent domain.)

District Attorney: The douchebag was unopposed so I didn't vote for him.

No to all judges.

No to 48 (personhood amendment) and 59 (weasel tax increase); controversially amongst objectivists I voted yea for 47, right to work. The argument that it violates contract to me is irrelevant because it's a contract that a sane businessman would sign only at the point of a gun, which is exactly what happens. The stronger argument against is that it's an amendment to the state constitution and such should not be cluttered with trivia (it already prohibits bear baiting for crying out loud).

No to *another* penny of county sales tax. Ten years ago the sales tax rate here was 5% (three percentage points going to the state), the local governments whined and pleaded for more, it's now 7.1% --meaning they get double what they used to--and even that is not enough?!?! WTF!!!!

Anyhow, may God help the United States of America.

And since there IS no God, that means we are screwed. With a 12 gauge wire brush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President: Barack Obama

Everyone Else: Democrat


I love this country, or at least what this country was. A great house that stood for Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we all lived in and gave us purpose. Those ideas though have warped, rotted, and have caught on fire with everything that has happened in the recent years. I hear some of you say "If we can hold them this year we might have a chance." or "let's vote so nothing happens." i am not that optimistic and that is no way to live. So I voted for Obama, not because I felt he was the best or could make this country better. I voted for him because I knew the exact opposite would happen. Like a house engulfed in flames you can't save it by throwing a bucket of water on it from time to time. When it's that far gone you just let it burn. When the fire has gone out and the ashes have cooled, you build a new house. I love my life and everything about it, and if I was to get sick I would do everything I could to save myself. If I waited and let it spread though me and chose to late to save myself well then I would just let myself died, instead of living a hellish life on life support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pres: McCain

Reasoning: Gridlock, and Republicans are easier to fight against since everyone already hates them. I don't forsee any of their religious motives leaking into State constitutions, worst case scenario things stay as they are.

House: Tim McNeil, Libertarian.

Reasoning: lesser of the evils, might actually do some good

Senate: Generic Republican

Reasoning: The other choice was Generic Democrat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try harder.

UUUMMPHH!!....Nope. Still can't resist.

"It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."-BOH

I intended to not vote for either but I just couldn't get the above quote by Barrack out of my mind at the booth. So I voted Republican for the first time in my life(with the taste of bile in my mouth). My reasons were as follows.

1) Obama is fully, consciously opposed to rights, understanding what that means and in possession of a mad following of people who feel entitled to own me.

2) A democratic super majority is almost a given, and gridlock has been the only thing I have seen which effectively slows the tide of socialism.

3) Mccain does not strike me as very religious and to the extent he is, his religion is one I had much rather be subjected to then Obama's 20 years of racist tripe.

4) The danger of having someone with a smooth voice that causes their followers to abandon reason in favor of emotion has usually been the catalyst which has caused socialist dictatorships to come to power. Whereas, theocracies seem to drift slowly into place. We have more time to fight them.

4a) Combined with this emotional popularity, he already has people legally going after those who say negative things about him in typical brown coat fashion.

4b)He and his followers feel morally justified in the elimination of rights. For them owning me is a moral crusade.

4c)Besides their interest in ending abortion rights, Christians that i know, tend towards freedom far more then their materialistic religious pals on the left. Worst case scenario, abortions can still be had by traveling when we are economically free.

5)He intends to destroy the coal industry without replacing it first and I am not looking forward to having my electric bill go from $300/month to $600.

6)The company he keeps are the worst sort of people I can imagine. In theory, an individual can be close friends for decades with someone who does not share any fundamental convictions. In practice, I have never seen it. People's closest friends, their friends of virtue, share core values. They're reflections of them. Understanding of cohorts and peer pressure from psychology reaffirm this. Peers don't pressure good kids into bad. Bad are attracted to bad, and being grouped together creates a false courage that enables the behavior they wished for in the first place. I see one chance in a very large number, that he does not share the essential values of ayers and wright and many others. .Further, nothing in his speech contradicts this correlation.

7)The strong arm tactics he utilized to force banks into the bad behavior, lending to those who could not afford it "because of their race" during his time working as a fundraiser for ACORN, which lead to this mess are a small taste of what's to come.

8)Very few objectivists around. Very many christians. So I see them as the only effective democratic force in opposition to the barbarians who are already within our walls. I know they are not ideologically correct or ultimately effective and are doomed to failure in the end, but I see them as the only shield we currently have.

9) The effectiveness of presidents economically is usually credited to them when it is more likely that the effectiveness is due more to their predecessor. It is possible, maybe even probable that things will get better in the next 4 years economically, due to inflationary spending. If it does, it will present the image that more socialism saved us from capitalism and lead to the obvious conclusion that what we need is...more socialism.

10) I don't like him. I feel like the guy listening to the girl talk about her boyfriend who hits her, telling me how he really loves her because of all the nice things he says. Watching in amazement as he feeds her the most obvious line I could imagine, and seeing her eat it up. My gut tells me that he's that guy and America has it's legs spread for him. Mccain, on the other hand, I feel really believes what he says, right or wrong. Spending 5 years being tortured when he could have left tells me something of his internal resolve and his sense of responsibility to his values. Being a "fundraiser" then hopscotching your way through the political positions, never serving more then one term in the same place, tells me that Obama wants power.

Incidentally, on my ballot there was a guy at the bottom running for the objectivist party. Anyone else see that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Voted absentee]

President: Barack Obama

Reason: Because he doesn't claim that his proposals are for the "free-market" his failures are more likely to be blamed on his plans rather than on Capitalism. It may only buy clarity for a few years, but that may be enough to buy us some more time in the long run or even give us a faster start.

My only fear in that regard is that people will be able to effectively use the "companies weren't regulated enough!" argument everytime things go wrong, without the public ever imagining that their precious government could be doing them harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diana Hsieh (owner of Noodlefood) looked into that O'ist party and it's a Libertarian sham.

I voted for a Democrat ONCE before in my life. I've now, I believe, quadrupled that score. I literally flinched when I inked in Udall for Senate; that filibusterproof majority combined with Obama could do some damage. OTOH he apparently is strong on separation of church and state. (Ah, that's right, I voted D for county commissioner. I knew I was forgetting something.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was originally going to abstain, but I have decided that I will be voting for Obama today. My reasoning (as I posted in another thread) is that recent events in my personal life have made the subject of gay civil-unions a top value to me, and there is more likelihood that civil-unions would be forcibly recognized in my state of Utah under Obama than under McCain. Plain and simple. I would be willing to suffer through everything else Obama would do if it meant I got that one value out of it.

Obama is not a true defender of gay rights to non-discrimination, Kevin. He does not support gay marriage and has stated he just does not care. To accept "civil unions" would be accepting a precedent of separate but equal.

Anyway, they both support civil unions and both oppose gay marriage.

I voted Libertarian(!) because I could not write in or vote none of the above. This was the next clearest option to send to the Republicans that I was discontent with their Religious non-sense, along with the continuing Socialistic policies they accept and push forward. I do NOT endorse Barr, and in different states perhaps you should vote Obama or write in instead, depending on the "swing" status.

Barr won't win, so I'm comfortable using the Libs as a point-maker. I don't sanction the viewes of the Libertarian party.

Locally, a mix of Republicans and Democrats. There was a judicial election, and I voted Democrat. I didn't vote for either Representative as they both supported the bailout. (Incumbent voted for it and the challenger gave vocal support of it ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President: some douchebag (McCain--Cringe)...

Well, for all my talk of abstaining, I just couldn't help Obama. (I'm weak, I know. I need help. :P ) I voted exactly as Steve did, with the exception of Schaeffer instead of Udall...at least Schaeffer wants to abolish the Dept of Education and admits it is only furthering a communist agenda. (I think if we can regain control of education in this country, we may have a shot at something positive.)

What a cluster f**k. My belly hurts. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama for president, Libertarians for Senate, House, and State House (it's NH, they actually run libertarians there). Deciding issues for me involved foreign policy and contributing to the total destruction and disemboweling of the GOP so that maybe they will rebuild into something better. Also my perception that Obama is a good deal smarter and at least willing to consider ideas than McCain, even if many (most?) of his ideas are bad ones. It's up for debate whether smart-bad is more dangerous than stupid-bad, but I guess I have a belief that intelligence leaves you at least incrementally more open to reason (psychologically, this is probably debatable).

Also I will bet you five bucks that McCain is dead within two or three years, in which case we'd have Pres. Caribou Barbie to look forward to. Please no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF is the objectivist party?

There is a thread on the forum about it HERE. Someone had brought this party to my attention last month elsewhere and I had never heard of it before, so I checked them out, and I'm sure that thread and Professor Hsieh go into it more than I did, but this is what I briefly gather in the few minutes I took to look at the party: the President that they nominated was and/or still is affilated with Libertarians, for one. So when I read that he's lives his life in accordance with Ayn Rand philosophy, I'd immediately recall what she's said about the Libertarians, about joining their party, associating affiliating with them, how they plagiarized her ideas, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...