Presidential election--vote or no?
I always hear that if you don't vote, you can't complain about who's in office, but is it any better to vote for someone you don't believe in? I was just thinking about this today. Thoughts? |
|
|
| it comes down to never going to have a perfect candidate and having to vote for the best overall option. SOmetimes it helps to define for yourself what you don't like about the candidate and deciding if that is really relevant to the current decision. SOr tof like the old pro's and cons lists we madeas kids. |
| I thought it was you who said you thought it was weird or something that I voted along the lines of my party no matter if I liked/believed in them, but I think that's what most people do.
Personally, I can't imagine not voting. Mr. J stood in line for 6 hrs in the freezing cold (temps unbearable) just to vote while in iraq. Always along party lines proudly wearing is Texans for Bush shirt. Not sure how much he loves that shirt now though. 
j/k because overall we like the guy. We don't feel many people could or have handled all that he has had to in his time in office. He can't help he looks like a monkey whether he's speaking or just standing there. |
Joahaeyo wrote: I thought it was you who said you thought it was weird or something that I voted along the lines of my party no matter if I liked/believed in them, but I think that's what most people do.
Sorry but I hope that is not what most people do. Personally I would like to register for one party locally and the other party on a national level - ther eis that much difference in their behavior. |
| my boyfriend has a pretty good philosophy. He says he never really "likes" either candidate; he votes for the one that he fears the least.
I think that there is something about politicians at this lever that makes me nervous. Someone that wants or actively seeks this much power might not actually be the best person to give it to. |
Joahaeyo wrote: I thought it was you who said you thought it was weird or something that I voted along the lines of my party no matter if I liked/believed in them, but I think that's what most people do.
I do not think that is what most people do. I really, really do not. I think that may have been more true in the past, but it is not today, and certainly will not be for this election. I agree with Kerry, and don't think there is a "perfect" candidate out there for every voter. If I was in your shoes, I would consider taking this quiz (and maybe others as well), http://www.politicalcompass.org/ and then vote for the candidate who is CLOSEST to you. You won't agree on every issue, and you might not even care for his personality, or his running mate or his wife or some other factor. But it's the best way to find the candidate who is most likely to support the positions you think are most important. Here's how the candidates plot out: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 I also cannot fathom being an American and throwing away my vote. I think people who do also give up every right to complain about anything that happens during the winners' administration! |
Let me rephrase then say I stand by my statement / opinion 
I believe your typical middle to upper middle class married adult would go vote with their party, but young single 20-somethings wouldn't bother. |
| I have to look beyond the man and look at his past actions, his vision for the country, who is he likely to put into his Cabinet and most importantly, who would he nominate to the Supreme Court as they ultimately shape a country more than a President. Those old ducks stay around for decades! |
Joahaeyo wrote: Let me rephrase then say I stand by my statement / opinion
I believe your typical middle to upper middle class married adult would go vote with their party, but young single 20-somethings wouldn't bother. well I don't socialize with young, single 20-somethings...and I'd fit into the "typical middle to upper class married adult" category. Either way, lots more people vote than my group and this year more than ever. Which is good no matter who wins. |
Joahaeyo wrote: Let me rephrase then say I stand by my statement / opinion
I believe your typical middle to upper middle class married adult would go vote with their party, but young single 20-somethings wouldn't bother. well I left my twenties behind before you were born I suspect. I guess other than the word typical all those other adjectives fit me |
I realized that those that have replied so far, fit that category... I didn't mean that you guys didn't when I made my reply.  |
Joahaeyo wrote: I realized that those that have replied so far, fit that category... I didn't mean that you guys didn't when I made my reply.
I'm 38 and as married as one can get, without a wedding band and a license. While I consider myself a democrat; I don't think I've ever voted the "party line"; I chose instead to try and figure out which individual will do the best job. And in the past, if I have felt that neither of the main two candidates would, I have then looked to the smaller parties' candidates. Many of my friends feel it is "throwing away' my vote to vote something other than Republican or Democratic, but I refuse to back someone I don't think will do the right thing once in office. |
| I vote for whoever I believe will try to take the country on the path that I believe the country should be on. It hardly ever works out that way.
In fact I have come to firmly believe that if you dearly want a particular hot-button issue accomplished, unless there will be a landslide victory you should vote for the other guy. Let me explain. If the Democrats have an issue (say healthcare) and the country starts to lean strongly towards the issue, the Republicans will never allow them to get the credit for passing the issue and will do everything in their power to block them. However if Republicans are in control, they will usurp the issue, make it their own and pass it with little opposition from the Dems who were for it in the first place. And vice versa. Examples? Nixon passed OSHA and Clean Air and Clean Water. Clinton passed Welfare Reform. Bush II passed Medicaid Prescription Drug coverage. ...and so on. There are exceptions, but right now I don't see any spirit of cooperation between the parties nor do I see a political mandate anywhere. The last time there was a mandate was for Ronald Reagan. George Bush II had a mandate.... sort of. He probably could have gotten election logistics reform (quality voting machines for all!) passed quite well.  |
| Personally I fear the candidate that everyone agrees with. I believe that both of our candidates are good men. It is a question is which one you agree with the most. They agree with each other on a great deal of issues. It is the method that they want to use to obtain the end result that is the difference between them. I know that most voters want to believe that it is a deep difference, but it isn't.
I have a belief that teams should be made of views. There is little growth if the team all agrees in all issues. Neither party is without blame in this mess we are in. In fact I believe that the people of this country is just too intrested in the quick fixes to think about what they are doing most of the time. Strangely both candidate seem to think the same thing. Hmm, I think I may have to vote for Nader. |
| Well, not to bum you out, but in some states, your vote technically doesn't matter because of electoral college votes. The candidate only needs 270 electoral college votes out of the 538 possible. So, it is possible (though not probable) for a candidate to not get a single person's vote in 39 states or the District of Columbia, yet be elected president by winning the popular vote in just 11 of these 12 states (Had to look up the states):
California New York Texas Florida Pennsylvania Illinois Ohio Michigan New Jersey North Carolina Georgia Virginia I don't like the idea of depending on the electoral college to represent us. Working loosely with the math, throughout history, around one in every 14 elections has an electoral college vote that did not match the popular vote. Admittedly, that isn't a huge number but it's big enough to make me feel like maybe my vote really doesn't count that much. So, Steph, looking at it that way, you can complain if you want-- and be angry with the electoral college instead.  |
| but the concept behind the electoral college was really to ensure that the populous states did not totally dictate the election (of course populous in the 1700's was a bit different than today). If you allow for a true popular vote why would anyone in Rhode Island ever vote? |
ButtersStotch wrote: So, Steph, looking at it that way, you can complain if you want-- and be angry with the electoral college instead. Awesome. I'll totally complain about the electoral college. While I've voted for my party so far for every election, I don't vote soley along party lines. The first time I voted for president I was 18 and basically just voted for who my parents voted for. But aside from that I've used my own mind to vote That's why it's so frustrating to me to not particularly want to back either candidate. They both have pluses and minuses to them, and I still like my party's fundamentals the best, but they are courting some segments of the population and talking about some not-so-good social aspects, in my mind. So that part really bothers me. So while I like their take on finance and government, I dislike their take on social issues. What's a girl to do? 
My husband has never voted and I'm trying to get him to vote in this election. But it's hard when I don't have any conviction behind either choice. |
kerry wrote: but the concept behind the electoral college was really to ensure that the populous states did not totally dictate the election (of course populous in the 1700's was a bit different than today). If you allow for a true popular vote why would anyone in Rhode Island ever vote?
They don't really need to in the electoral college system. They're pretty unimportant in that sense since no candidate is going to campaign hard for their single electoral vote. It seems like the popular vote would be more valuable because each vote would actually count in the total tallies and make the voters feel like they had more of an impact. |
| Back to the original question - VOTE. Not voting is not an option. Here's a link to the email that talks about the punishment that the women who picketed for votings rights suffered in 1920: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/womenvote.asp We need to make sure that this right is never taken away from us.
I admit that the Presidential options are disappointing for me this year. But there are a ton of local positions and initiatives to vote for this year, and those local elections may have more direct impact on you than the President does. And, remember that you have more than 2 choices for President, depending on your state. For example, you could vote for Libertarian Bob Barr or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. I know that there are people who feel that voting for an "alternative" candidate is throwing your vote away. I don't agree. If a larger percentage of the population starts supporting third party candidates, it might be enough to challenge the lock that the DNC and RNC have over presidential politics. At the very least, a large block of third party votes might make the two parties realize how divorced they are from the average American. Neither party does a good job of representing my opinions, and from reading the other posts I can tell I'm not alone. |
| 3 votes per state minimum (each electoral vote corresponds to one for each member of congress).
That gives Vermont a heckuva lot more power than their population warrants. If I recall correctly, the last couple of elections were so close it forced the candidates to campaign everywhere and a tiny state like Vermont could have swung it either way. As mentioned, with direct voting a home state politician from say, California, New York or Florida might have so many votes it would be very difficult for a candidate from a small state to win; hence we'd never have had Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, we'd have president Bush from Texas (and Florida) and President Juliani (or Pataki) from New York It's all the same; does it really matter how we elect them as long as WE are electing them? |
Bailey's Mom wrote: Back to the original question - VOTE. Not voting is not an option. Here's a link to the email that talks about the punishment that the women who picketed for votings rights suffered in 1920: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/womenvote.asp We need to make sure that this right is never taken away from us.
I admit that the Presidential options are disappointing for me this year. But there are a ton of local positions and initiatives to vote for this year, and those local elections may have more direct impact on you than the President does. And, remember that you have more than 2 choices for President, depending on your state. For example, you could vote for Libertarian Bob Barr or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. I know that there are people who feel that voting for an "alternative" candidate is throwing your vote away. I don't agree. If a larger percentage of the population starts supporting third party candidates, it might be enough to challenge the lock that the DNC and RNC have over presidential politics. At the very least, a large block of third party votes might make the two parties realize how divorced they are from the average American. Neither party does a good job of representing my opinions, and from reading the other posts I can tell I'm not alone. I'm actually considering voting for Bob Barr's mustache. |
| I was aware that my vote "doesn't count" but I like to go through the motions anyway....
ButtersStotch wrote: Well, not to bum you out, but in some states, your vote technically doesn't matter because of electoral college votes. The candidate only needs 270 electoral college votes out of the 538 possible. So, it is possible (though not probable) for a candidate to not get a single person's vote in 39 states or the District of Columbia, yet be elected president by winning the popular vote in just 11 of these 12 states (Had to look up the states): California New York Texas Florida Pennsylvania Illinois Ohio Michigan New Jersey North Carolina Georgia Virginia I don't like the idea of depending on the electoral college to represent us. Working loosely with the math, throughout history, around one in every 14 elections has an electoral college vote that did not match the popular vote. Admittedly, that isn't a huge number but it's big enough to make me feel like maybe my vote really doesn't count that much. So, Steph, looking at it that way, you can complain if you want-- and be angry with the electoral college instead. |
| Unless you vote Republican in Utah, your vote doesn't count. This state couldn't be more red. Bush could land air force one on State Street, hold up the Wells Fargo, shoot numerous first responders and still get a full house for a 10 thousand dollar a plate fund raiser two hours later. Why, because he's Republican.
I'm voting McCain/Biden (you don't have to vote party line for pres and vp), hoping McCain's age catches up with him while in office. Can't vote McCain/Palin  Palin belongs in a Barbie dreamhouse, not the whitehouse. |
Sheeps over Aces wrote: I'm voting McCain/Biden (you don't have to vote party line for pres and vp), hoping McCain's age catches up with him while in office. Can't vote McCain/Palin
Palin belongs in a Barbie dreamhouse, not the whitehouse.I understand that you don't have to vote party line and you can vote for the pres of one party and the vp of another. Gotcha. But logically, I'm just curious..why bother? We know for sure your state will go with McCain. And with McCain comes Palin. It literally doesn't make a difference in the world if every single voter in America votes for Biden separate from Obama, because he's not running to be McCain's VP. If Obama loses, Biden loses. If McCain wins, Palin wins. Ah, it's all just jacked up any way you look at it, isn't it? |
rdf wrote: Ah, it's all just jacked up any way you look at it, isn't it?
Indeed!!! I have one reason for voting, it's my right. So many people have fought and died to provide that right, it's up to me as an American to respect it. It's even more important for me to honor the women that fought so hard to give me and all women the right to vote. I could be living in Africa where women are still routinely mutilated, just because they are women. I'm lucky that I live in a country that allows me to take part and control my destiny. The act of voting still makes me feel a bit nervous when I step into that booth. When I leave, I feel good knowing, good or bad, I've done what every American "can" do. I hope that Americans start applying the same Wall Street Bailout anger to the failed congressional process and start demanding change. |
| Let me just clarify -- I never meant to say "why bother voting" !! I am the staunchest "get thee hiney to the poll NOW" person you'll meet. It was more of a rhetorical question with regard to voting for Biden if you're voting for McCain since there's no possible outcome for that scenario. |
| I tend to chose the issue I feel most strongly about and vote for the person that I feel best represents my stand. Doesn't mean I agree with everything else they say or do but it comes down to priorities and what is most important.
Can't say I'm in love with either candidate (I'm a Hilary girl and proud to be) but my two "important" issues are the war and the economy and will vote for the person I feel is best able to resolve those problems. I have always been a registered Democrate but only to enable me to vote in primaries. I have no problem voting across party lines when I feel it is warranted. This year I'll be sticking with my party. I think it is a mistake to not vote because you are not 100% committed to the candidate. Even if your choice is based on one small part of their platform it is important to vote. |
| I never said that I wasn't going to vote. Or that I wasn't going to vote for a candidate unless I was 100% behind them. I think that'd be pretty hard to come by in a presidential candidate.
And of course I'm voting, so all this thread was about was wondering how people go about voting if there isn't a candidate they are enamored with. The problem I'm having is that I'm having a hard time finding any vote-worthy issues from either candidate. And it was news to me that a person can vote for the president and then vote for the opposing vice president candidate. Never knew that! |
Sheeps over Aces wrote: rdf wrote: Ah, it's all just jacked up any way you look at it, isn't it? Indeed!!! I have one reason for voting, it's my right. So many people have fought and died to provide that right, it's up to me as an American to respect it. It's even more important for me to honor the women that fought so hard to give me and all women the right to vote. Precisely. It's for those reasons that I never miss a vote. It's the principle more than the candidates for me. It's not a perfect system but I'm not sure one exists that could replace it and make everyone happy so, though I often grumble, I do it. It's also within my rights to grumble. |
I love this place... even talking politics everyone still loves everyone else.  |
| Is that REALLY true that you can vote for one party for Pres and another for VP??????
NOW THAT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING STATE OF AFFAIRS!!!!!!!!!!! But the idea definately has some merit! |
| I rarely vote straight party lines. Maybe never, but I hate to say I never have when perhaps I did some time or another.
In the past, I have voted for third party candidates for President when I absolutely could not bring myself to vote for either major party candidate. Pretty often, it does come down to who do I dislike the least..... |
Tasker's Mom wrote: Is that REALLY true that you can vote for one party for Pres and another for VP??????
Twelfth Amendment of the constitution. I'd love to see it happen! |
| I am voting for the candidate that doesn't lie. |
shon wrote: I am voting for the candidate that doesn't lie.
Where is the rolling on the floor laughing hysterically emoticon? I don't think such a politicial candidate exists!!! |
| hahahaha Ginny, I have been thinking about how to respond to that for hours and hours.... your reply made me think...
If you find a politician who you believe doesn't lie, you'd better not vote for him/her -- he or she has got you fooled! LOL |
ButtersStotch wrote: So, Steph, looking at it that way, you can complain if you want-- and be angry with the electoral college instead.
I agree, I don't know why it is still in place. Should be the popular vote and that's it. |
VerveUp wrote: ButtersStotch wrote: So, Steph, looking at it that way, you can complain if you want-- and be angry with the electoral college instead. I agree, I don't know why it is still in place. Should be the popular vote and that's it. says the person from Pennsylvania. I think Montana may feel differently |
kerry wrote: says the person from Pennsylvania. I think Montana may feel differently
I'm from NJ! I mean total popular vote nationwide. At least then you would feel that your vote counts! That is one of the reasons I have never voted for any republican or democratic president, and rather for an independent, as I know that NJ usually is a Blue State. Check out this speculation electoral state map which is updated daily - http://www.electoral-vote.com/ |
VerveUp wrote: kerry wrote: says the person from Pennsylvania. I think Montana may feel differently I'm from NJ! I mean total popular vote nationwide. At least then you would feel that your vote counts! That is one of the reasons I have never voted for any republican or democratic president, and rather for an independent, as I know that NJ usually is a Blue State. Check out this speculation electoral state map which is updated daily - http://www.electoral-vote.com/  I always say you are from PA - sorry. Not that there is anything wrong with PA - or NJ. Oh forget it |
| i thought might make a good laugh for everyone. On a serious note, i will be voting. |
| Maybe this will help some make up their mind as to whether or not their vote is important: My vote is McCain & Palin.
OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS: BUT: Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street? WHERE ARE THEY NOW? FRANKLIN RAINES - Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae (Charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.) TIM HOWARD - Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama: Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae (Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earn ings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!) JIM JOHNSON - Johnson is Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee: CEO of Fannie Mae (Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million.' Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.) |
| Well "Guest" we've done a pretty good job of keeping this thread about voting NOT about political opinion so I won't bother to mention the transgressions of the McCain Palin staff (which are easily obtainable and far mor frightening than any Obama staffers) and turn this from a friendly discussion about voting to political stump.
Not sure why you feel the need to, especially annonymously. |
shon wrote: i thought might make a good laugh for everyone. On a serious note, i will be voting.
whew, after I posted I thought, hmmmmm maybe shon is SERIOUS!!! |
| That is why I never talk politics or religion because I will always end up saying something that I probably should not. Someone gets upset and a friendly discussion can turn ugly in about 2 seconds. |
Tasker's Mom wrote: Well "Guest" we've done a pretty good job of keeping this thread about voting NOT about political opinion so I won't bother to mention the transgressions of the McCain Palin staff (which are easily obtainable and far mor frightening than any Obama staffers) and turn this from a friendly discussion about voting to political stump.
Not sure why you feel the need to, especially annonymously. I agree - and anyway who better to advise you on what can be done and what to watch out for than the ones who know how to game the system |
| I'm not sure what a FATWA is, but I thought this was amusing.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/02 ... ing-palin/ Pakistani Religious Leader Issues Fatwa on President for Complimenting Palin Quote: A radical Muslim prayer leader in Pakistan condemns Asif Ali Zardari's "indecent gestures" toward Sarah Palin, calling it a disgrace to all of Pakistan to say the Western woman is "gorgeous." Islamic religious leaders in Pakistan have issued a fatwa against President Asif Ali Zardari for allegedly flirting with Sarah Palin when the two met at the United Nations last week during her meet-and-greet with foreign leaders, India's Daily News reported. Cleric Maulana Abdul Ghafar, a prayer leader at radical mosque Lal Masjid, condemned Zardari's "indecent gestures" toward Palin as a disgrace to all of Pakistan. Zardari's "filthy remarks and repeated praise of a non-Muslim lady wearing a short skirt" was unbecoming of a head of state of a Muslim country, Ghafar said during a sermon, according to the Daily News. |
| hahahahaa
According ti Wikipedia: A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى), in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion on Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwa is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be, depending on the status of the scholar. In the early days of Islam, fatwa were pronounced by distinguished scholars to provide guidance to other scholars, judges and citizens on how subtle points of Islamic law should be understood, interpreted or applied. There were strict rules on who is eligible to issue a valid fatwa and who could not, as well as on the conditions the fatwa must satisfy to be valid. According to the usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), the fatwa must meet the following conditions in order to be valid: The fatwa is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Qur'anic verses and hadiths; provided the ahadith was not later abrogated by Muhammad. It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart; It is free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude; It is adequate with the needs of the contemporary world. Today, with the existence of modern independent States, each with its own legislative system, and/or its own body of Ulemas, each country develops and applies its own rules, based on its own interpretation of religious prescriptions. Many Muslim countries (such as Egypt and Tunisia) have an official Mufti position; a distinguished expert in the Sharia is appointed to this position by the civil authorities of the country. It's like getting taken to the woodshed by the priest! |
Tasker's Mom wrote: Well "Guest" we've done a pretty good job of keeping this thread about voting NOT about political opinion........ My opinion is just that - mine. I'm not ashamed of whom I'm voting for so I said so - no big deal. The conversation was about "why" we should vote, etc..... I just gave an example of why. If those three men are guilty of..... and we're in the shape we're in now.......... Regardless of who you vote for, if we're blind the first time they do wrong, so be it, but if we do nothing (don't vote), its our own fault if the condition worsens. I felt that was a good example of WHY voting is so important. Who you vote for is up to the individual, but its important to VOTE while we have the opportunity to...... Tasker's Mom wrote: ...Not sure why you feel the need to, especially annonymously.
I didn't feel the need to sign annonymously, I just hadn't signed in. Guess I didn't sign at the bottom of the post either, sorry. I wasn't changing the conversation from voting to candidate's! The three men I used as examples are not running for office, but.............  |
Tasker's Mom wrote: hahahahaa
According ti Wikipedia: A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى), in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion on Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwa is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be, depending on the status of the scholar. In the early days of Islam, fatwa were pronounced by distinguished scholars to provide guidance to other scholars, judges and citizens on how subtle points of Islamic law should be understood, interpreted or applied. There were strict rules on who is eligible to issue a valid fatwa and who could not, as well as on the conditions the fatwa must satisfy to be valid. According to the usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), the fatwa must meet the following conditions in order to be valid: The fatwa is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Qur'anic verses and hadiths; provided the ahadith was not later abrogated by Muhammad. It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart; It is free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude; It is adequate with the needs of the contemporary world. Today, with the existence of modern independent States, each with its own legislative system, and/or its own body of Ulemas, each country develops and applies its own rules, based on its own interpretation of religious prescriptions. Many Muslim countries (such as Egypt and Tunisia) have an official Mufti position; a distinguished expert in the Sharia is appointed to this position by the civil authorities of the country. It's like getting taken to the woodshed by the priest! So in their country, I'm guessing it really means "don't expect to be alive next week" j/k |
| Pam, whether you realize it or not, your post changed the entire "tone" of the thread. It just didn't have to happen.
We were having a non-partisan discussion about voting, NOT trying to shove our political beliefs down another persons throat. The last "political thread" here started to turn ugly and it seemed, at the time, that we decided that we cared too much for each other to continue the discourse. Yes, your opinion is yours and you are entitled to it (although I doubt there is anyone here that doesn't know exactly where you stand on most issues). But this thread was not about political opinion and MY opinion is that your unsigned post was an attempt to get the stir up more unpleasantness. |
kerry wrote: :oops: I always say you are from PA - sorry. Not that there is anything wrong with PA - or NJ. Oh forget it
Sorry, I guess I should have put some emoticons with the post. I wasn't mad or anything. I usually tell everyone I'm from the "Philly area" since we are so close to Philadelphia...
Obama is having a huge rally with a free Bruce Springsteen acoustic concert in Philly on Saturday. I'm not sure why he is doing it since Philly usually swings Democratic. He needs to be out in Harrisburg with Mandy and maybe they can do the sound again! |
| damn - wish I lived in Philly! Nothing political - these huge events are once in a life time events and something to tell the grand kids about - or someone else's grand kids about |
| Just wanted to plug my favorite political site during campaign season:
Factcheck.org is wonderful at dissecting truth from exaggeration or even outright fabrication--for all candidates. They did a nice ananlysis of the debates, too. |
| That is a great site!! Thanks! |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|