After a long, haughty process, MarlinsBaseball.com has decided how they like their eggs.

 

Scrambled.

 

Now, it's time to see who they are voting for, and if we can create a correlation between the way one likes their eggs cooked and who they are voting for.

 

If it just so happens that a certain candidate also happens to like scrambled eggs, and data shows that MarlinsBaseball also votes for him, I will be submitting this data to Cornell University, where hopefully they will publish my findings and bring attention to MarlinsBaseball.com.

 

 

 

 

So the question is simple, who will you be voting for? Blind poll. You do not have to share who or what you voted for (but you ruin the f***ing fun).

 

Obviously, select other for Senator/don't vote on amendments if you're not from Florida.

 

Unless you have a stance on those anyways, then feel free to vote on them. If someone is particularly insulted that I didn't include every last amendment, say so and I will add it. I tried to go with what was more 'controversial', but I'm no chief economist myself so I am not entirely sure.

Dr Beinfest's Ballot:

 

Pres: Gary Johnson

 

Sen: Bill Nelson

Rep: Alan Grayson

 

Amendments

 

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) No

4) Yes

5) No

6) Yes

 

8) No

9) Yes

10) Yes

11) No

12) Yes

I don't believe you can vote in the poll without answering each poll question.

 

If that's what you implied,

 

I voted other, other, yes on tax educations for seniors. No for everything else because I didn't read them.

 

'Merica!

Poll edited to include 'not voting yes/no' in each poll.

Just curious, why did you vote for Gary Johnson? I've been considering doing the same.

Because.

Just curious, why did you vote for Gary Johnson? I've been considering doing the same.

 

 

To put it straight forward, Gary Johnson represents what I agree with most. Ideologically he is socially free and economically free. He is the best fit candidate to my political liking. That's just ideologically, though. For some examples, Gary Johnson is specifically:

 

- Opposing of the wasteful war on drugs

- A non-bureaucratic style of government

- Very successful/popular in a relatively progressive state

- A major proponent of non-interventionism

- Very anti-war

- Wants to disband government over-structure

- Does not choose sides on Iran-Israel

- Pro choice

- Pro gay marriage

- Opposes censorship

- Opposes government surveillance of its people

- Pro separation of church and state, despite being a Christian

 

 

and so many more. That's just off the top of my head.

Politics is usually a topic I like to ask others about to hear their opinions because I don't consider myself to be incredibly informed. I just watch the debates and fact-check to make fun of all the lies said, which is a reason why I find it incredibly difficult to vote for Romney especially.

 

Since Johnson does not get much attention from the media, I probably did not focus on his views until...well, very recently. Can anyone explain his whole 43% cut in government spending and how that would benefit the country? From a social issues point of view, I basically agree with all of Johnson's thoughts which was why I found him to be an interesting candidate to potentially vote for.

Johnson is a fundamentalist. He works to simplify the government. Take, for example, his tenure as New Mexico's governor. A quick Wikipedia result tells me Johnson lowered taxes 14 times and did not raise them once.

 

He used his vetoing powers over 200 times, more than all 49 other governors combined. He shoots to break down over-development in government. Wasteful spending. He is a Libertarian (hence why he's on the LIB ticket). Think Ron Paul. Dismantling what is deemed unnecessary. Shrinking the size of the federal government.

 

Do not be mistaken, he was very successful as governor of New Mexico. His policies worked there. From when he entered to when he reached his term limit, his state was doing well.

 

The particular 43% though that you're mentioning comes largely out of military spending overseas (as opposed to defense spending here domestically), knocking out corporate income tax, knocking out superfluous government programs that are unnecessary (such as stimulus packages, bailouts, etc), and a lot of other things which basically decompose the government into a simpler form.

- Does not choose sides on Iran-Israel

 

 

Why do you think this is a positive?

I'm asking him why he thinks that.

Israel is no less guilty or more innocent than Iran.

 

But more importantly, I believe in non-interventionism. It's none of our business. We're strong enough. Israel is an ally, and if Iran f***s with our interests they will cease to exist.

 

I don't understand why everyone is, by default, pro Israel. I'm pro neither. I'm pro minding your own damn business. There's a reason why the rest of the world hates us you know...

I don't understand why everyone is, by default, pro Israel. I'm pro neither. I'm pro minding your own damn business. There's a reason why the rest of the world hates us you know...

 

 

Thats a blanket statement that isnt true. Cool.

But more importantly, I believe in non-interventionism.

 

 

Always? In every circumstance? Do you believe the United States has no moral obligation anywhere beyond it's own borders/interests?

But more importantly, I believe in non-interventionism.

 

 

Always? In every circumstance? Do you believe the United States has no moral obligation anywhere beyond it's own borders/interests?

 

In aid and rescue missions yes. In ways that deal with our own nations well being yes.

 

To stop two people from killin each other- no.

 

We aren't the world police.

But more importantly, I believe in non-interventionism.

 

 

Always? In every circumstance? Do you believe the United States has no moral obligation anywhere beyond it's own borders/interests?

 

There are few cases where intervening is necessary. Afghanistan was a retaliation and it was justifiable. Japan and Germany, as a fulfillment of the obligations of the end of WWII, are justifiable. Outside of that, I do not believe the United States has any moral obligation anywhere beyond it's own borders/interests, no. We're not the world police, and we should stop acting like it.

I don't understand why everyone is, by default, pro Israel. I'm pro neither. I'm pro minding your own damn business. There's a reason why the rest of the world hates us you know...

 

 

Thats a blanket statement that isnt true. Cool.

 

What? You think they hate us 'because of our freedom'? Do you think they hate us because 'we're better than them'? Or perhaps they hate us because we're a nation largely founded on the Christian religion? Maybe because we are not Muslim, we are their enemy.

 

Maybe 'the rest of the world' was a poor way of saying 'the ones who want to blow us up'. They hate us because we are all up in their business taking advantage of them, occupying their homeland, killing their innocent civilians (as well as their guilty ones), and aiding their enemies in doing the same.

Anyways though, have your word in and let's just stop at that. I made this topic not to debate Israel, I did so to see the general trend of the election, especially among Florida voters and the amendments.

I don't understand why everyone is, by default, pro Israel. I'm pro neither. I'm pro minding your own damn business. There's a reason why the rest of the world hates us you know...

 

 

Thats a blanket statement that isnt true. Cool.

 

What? You think they hate us 'because of our freedom'? Do you think they hate us because 'we're better than them'? Or perhaps they hate us because we're a nation largely founded on the Christian religion? Maybe because we are not Muslim, we are their enemy.

 

Maybe 'the rest of the world' was a poor way of saying 'the ones who want to blow us up'. They hate us because we are all up in their business taking advantage of them, occupying their homeland, killing their innocent civilians (as well as their guilty ones), and aiding their enemies in doing the same.

 

So what you are saying is that the Muslim world hates America?

 

I wasnt aware Muslim world = the entire world.

 

Thanks for the education.

 

Although Kuwait is something like 85% Muslim, and they do not hate the United States by any means. So I guess its really not the entire Muslim World that hates America.

 

Maybe you mean the nations that hate Israel with the they hate us comment?

Anyways, would you like to give us some of your opinions on the amendments in Florida? I mean I assume you're from Texas by your profile listing and username, but perhaps you could chime in on that...

Sure.

 

National Health Care compliance, I assume Florida is deciding if they want to follow a federal mandate or not. On what grounds is it being put to that they can comply or not? I mean is it a judgment of whether or not its legal? Whether or not health care should be provided for all? Or does this devolve into an abortion/birth control argument?

 

What kind of limitation on state budgets, does it state that only so much can be used on something, it cant be used on something, et al? If thats the case, its good.

 

Commerical and non homestead property taxes...what is the issue. Homestead's should get to pay a lower tax rate. Commerical agencies should be forced to pay whatever a commerical rate established is...

 

Probibiting public funding for abortions, I'm against it, but only if you then provide for adequate funding for childhood care of the poor especially, you cant both not fund abortions and then not properly fund chlid care.

 

Allow public funding of religion, if they are going to pay taxes then yes. If not then absolutely not. (not sure it would even really be legal to do so)

 

What kind of exemption for ad valoreum taxes is being sought?

 

Tax exemptions for low income seniors, I'm game with that.

 

If you care to fill me in on the details I dont know about, I'll be happy to give my opinion.

Sure.

 

National Health Care compliance, I assume Florida is deciding if they want to follow a federal mandate or not. On what grounds is it being put to that they can comply or not? I mean is it a judgment of whether or not its legal? Whether or not health care should be provided for all? Or does this devolve into an abortion/birth control argument?

 

 

Indeed. Because all of the amendments are Republican'ly written, voting yes on 1 would mean voting in favor of Florida symbolically disagreeing with National Health Care and the Obamacare system. It has nothing to do with abortion or birth control. Voting on Amendment 1 essentially has no meaning, because the federal law supersedes the state law. A yes would mean that the state would not enforce fining the people for not complying with the system. At least, that's my understanding of it.

 

What kind of limitation on state budgets, does it state that only so much can be used on something, it cant be used on something, et al? If thats the case, its good.

 

This one I'm not so sure on. I believe this just means that it would create a soft-budget system as opposed to a hard budget such that the budget is determined based upon population and inflation, rather than just having a fixed budget. It is designed to lower and control the state budget.

Commerical and non homestead property taxes...what is the issue. Homestead's should get to pay a lower tax rate. Commerical agencies should be forced to pay whatever a commerical rate established is...

 

This amendment would be cutting taxes on commercial and non-homestead property taxes in the event that one votes yes. I've seen non-partisan research on it showing it supports the economy, and I've heard all sides to it. Depends whether or not you're in favor of trickle-down or Keynesian economics, I guess.

 

Probibiting public funding for abortions, I'm against it, but only if you then provide for adequate funding for childhood care of the poor especially, you cant both not fund abortions and then not properly fund chlid care.

 

This one is under the topic of abortion, but I really feel as though the lawmakers should have labeled it under taxes. It's an anti-tax law dressed up as an anti-abortion law. The fine text of it reads that it prohibits public funding of abortions unless in the case of rape or serious threat to the mother's life. Still, a judgment call for one to make.

 

 

What kind of exemption for ad valoreum taxes is being sought?

 

Probably the one I'm least familiar with, but #10 is basically another trickle-down bill. Here is the text, for your interpretation:

 

Provide an exemption from ad valorem taxes levied by counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local governments on tangible personal property if the assessed value of an owner's tangible personal property is greater than $25,000 but less than $50,000.

 

 

 

So that's that.

But more importantly, I believe in non-interventionism.

 

 

Always? In every circumstance? Do you believe the United States has no moral obligation anywhere beyond it's own borders/interests?

 

There are few cases where intervening is necessary. Afghanistan was a retaliation and it was justifiable. Japan and Germany, as a fulfillment of the obligations of the end of WWII, are justifiable. Outside of that, I do not believe the United States has any moral obligation anywhere beyond it's own borders/interests, no. We're not the world police, and we should stop acting like it.

 

So if Israel, or any other American ally, faces an existential threat, you would argue that the United States does not have a moral obligation to defend them?

 

 

Also, I think you're mistaken when you say that Gary Johnson does not pick sides on Israel-Iran. You're on your own there, I think:

 

I also happen to think that Israel, you know, we were responsible for the creation of Israel and that was through the United Nations; that they've been a strong military ally, that they will remain such. I do not think a military threat right now exists from Iran, but we should be vigilant to that. And I think it's naive to think that Israel is not going to act in their best interests should there be weapons of mass destruction showing themselves.

Not a good sign for Romney that nobody is voting for him on this board. I remember all the arguments in 2004. There was a poll on the presidential election between Bush and Kerry that went back and forth, and I think Bush won.