Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:So, Jlay, are YOU voting? And for whom?

I'm glad to see that some Americans will be voting. I hope there's not the dimmest chance of rain on voting day because that would keep most registered voters at home.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Philip wrote:So, Jlay, are YOU voting? And for whom?

I'm glad to see that some Americans will be voting. I hope there's not the dimmest chance of rain on voting day because that would keep most registered voters at home.

FL

FL, it's the 21st century in America. And by the wonders of technology, we can actually vote by mail. We don't have to leave home to vote! I know Canada is a little behind in technology, but you do have mail, don't you?

On that note, voting day is 2 weeks away, and as far as President, I'm still undecided. Someone convince me why their candidate should get my vote. I'm all ears.

RickD wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Philip wrote:So, Jlay, are YOU voting? And for whom?

I'm glad to see that some Americans will be voting. I hope there's not the dimmest chance of rain on voting day because that would keep most registered voters at home.

FL

FL, it's the 21st century in America. And by the wonders of technology, we can actually vote by mail. We don't have to leave home to vote! I know Canada is a little behind in technology, but you do have mail, don't you?

On that note, voting day is 2 weeks away, and as far as President, I'm still undecided. Someone convince me why their candidate should get my vote. I'm all ears.

Unfortunately my vote is a vote of displeasure (of the current president) than it is a vote of confidence in the candidate I will be voting for. But such is the state of American politics. I have no issue with voters who take the position of not voting to make a statement but in many ways this will help one candidate over another so they end up voting whether they like or not. That's why I believe a vote to the lesser of 2 evils is better than a non-vote that ends up benefiting the greater evil.

RickD wrote:FL, it's the 21st century in America. And by the wonders of technology, we can actually vote by mail. We don't have to leave home to vote! I know Canada is a little behind in technology, but you do have mail, don't you?

Voting by mail?! That's stoopid! You mean to tell me that you guys have made voting so easy yet only 32% of Americans bother to vote?

Byblos wrote:Unfortunately my vote is a vote of displeasure (of the current president) than it is a vote of confidence in the candidate I will be voting for.

A protest vote is still a vote. Not voting is just irresponsible.

FL

Byblos wrote:
Unfortunately my vote is a vote of displeasure (of the current president) than it is a vote of confidence in the candidate I will be voting for. But such is the state of American politics. I have no issue with voters who take the position of not voting to make a statement but in many ways this will help one candidate over another so they end up voting whether they like or not. That's why I believe a vote to the lesser of 2 evils is better than a non-vote that ends up benefiting the greater evil.

Byblos, I can certainly understand that logic, and for many, it makes sense. For me, I'm not convinced. I basically have 3 criteria when it comes to who gets my vote for President:
1) the candidate has to have the political views I share.
2) the candidate has to be trustworthy in my view.
3) the candidate has to have a legitimate chance to win.

None of the candidates fit my criteria. That's my dilemma.

FL wrote:
Voting by mail?! That's stoopid! You mean to tell me that you guys have made voting so easy yet only 32% of Americans bother to vote?

FL, keep in mind that only 50% of Americans are literate.

FL wrote:
A protest vote is still a vote. Not voting is just irresponsible.

If I don't vote specifically for Pres., it will be because I'm not confident in any candidate. Not because I'm protesting. Frustrated, yes. Protesting? Nah.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Unfortunately my vote is a vote of displeasure (of the current president) than it is a vote of confidence in the candidate I will be voting for. But such is the state of American politics. I have no issue with voters who take the position of not voting to make a statement but in many ways this will help one candidate over another so they end up voting whether they like or not. That's why I believe a vote to the lesser of 2 evils is better than a non-vote that ends up benefiting the greater evil.

Byblos, I can certainly understand that logic, and for many, it makes sense. For me, I'm not convinced. I basically have 3 criteria when it comes to who gets my vote for President:
1) the candidate has to have the political views I share.
2) the candidate has to be trustworthy in my view.
3) the candidate has to have a legitimate chance to win.

None of the candidates fit my criteria. That's my dilemma.

I can also understand and appreciate such a position. Given, however, that Florida is such a crucial state in this election and that every vote literally counts, by not voting who do you think you'll be helping? As long as you can live with that decision then fine.

Byblos wrote:
I can also understand and appreciate such a position. Given, however, that Florida is such a crucial state in this election and that every vote literally counts, by not voting who do you think you'll be helping? As long as you can live with that decision then fine.

Let's see...give a guy another four years, who hasn't proved to me that he deserves four more years.

Or, give a guy four years who I really don't trust.

Now you can see my dilemma.

Whatever I do, I need to make sure my conscience is clear. I can't worry about who my non vote would go for, if I don't vote. I'll say this, if I hadn't lived in Massachusetts when Romney was governor, allowing me to see this candidate first hand, he'd more than likely get my vote.

Somebody needs to convince me why I should vote for him, when everything I've seen is telling me not to vote for Romney.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
I can also understand and appreciate such a position. Given, however, that Florida is such a crucial state in this election and that every vote literally counts, by not voting who do you think you'll be helping? As long as you can live with that decision then fine.

Let's see...give a guy another four years, who hasn't proved to me that he deserves four more years.

Or, give a guy four years who I really don't trust.

Now you can see my dilemma.

Whatever I do, I need to make sure my conscience is clear. I can't worry about who my non vote would go for, if I don't vote. I'll say this, if I hadn't lived in Massachusetts when Romney was governor, allowing me to see this candidate first hand, he'd more than likely get my vote.

Somebody needs to convince me why I should vote for him, when everything I've seen is telling me not to vote for Romney.

I tell you what, if you decide to go with the non-vote route, I'm willing to swap with you. I'll promise not to vote for anyone here in NY in return for you voting for Romney in FL. This way we both get what we want, my vote will matter where it should and your conscience will still be clear since one of us didn't vote.

I tell you what, if you decide to go with the non-vote route, I'm willing to swap with you. I'll promise not to vote for anyone here in NY in return for you voting for Romney in FL. This way we both get what we want, my vote will matter where it should and your conscience will still be clear since one of us didn't vote.

That might be a pretty good idea. If you're serious, I'll keep that in mind.

RickD wrote:

I tell you what, if you decide to go with the non-vote route, I'm willing to swap with you. I'll promise not to vote for anyone here in NY in return for you voting for Romney in FL. This way we both get what we want, my vote will matter where it should and your conscience will still be clear since one of us didn't vote.

That might be a pretty good idea. If you're serious, I'll keep that in mind.

I'm very serious, definitely think about it.

What is a "protest vote"?

PaulSacramento wrote:What is a "protest vote"?

That would be spoiling your ballot somehow. It is better to spoil your ballot than to not vote. Not voting sends a message of voter apathy.

Byblos wrote:I tell you what, if you decide to go with the non-vote route, I'm willing to swap with you. I'll promise not to vote for anyone here in NY in return for you voting for Romney in FL. This way we both get what we want, my vote will matter where it should and your conscience will still be clear since one of us didn't vote.

This is a bizarre arrangement!

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Byblos wrote:I tell you what, if you decide to go with the non-vote route, I'm willing to swap with you. I'll promise not to vote for anyone here in NY in return for you voting for Romney in FL. This way we both get what we want, my vote will matter where it should and your conscience will still be clear since one of us didn't vote.

This is a bizarre arrangement!

Not bizarre at all. There's been talk of abolishing the electoral college and making the presidential election by popular vote, the way it ought to be. I'm just jumping the gun so-to-speak.

Byblos wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Byblos wrote:I tell you what, if you decide to go with the non-vote route, I'm willing to swap with you. I'll promise not to vote for anyone here in NY in return for you voting for Romney in FL. This way we both get what we want, my vote will matter where it should and your conscience will still be clear since one of us didn't vote.

This is a bizarre arrangement!

Not bizarre at all. There's been talk of abolishing the electoral college and making the presidential election by popular vote, the way it ought to be. I'm just jumping the gun so-to-speak.

Me no likie when a candidate can't win by popular vote, yet he becomes President by electoral votes.