Lol..:)...well I just asked her and although she is a US citizen she is apparently not allowed to vote. I guess she's stuck with our pillocks instead.

Normally you have to be not only a US citizen but a resident of one of the states/territories. Residency requires an address and proof that you live there.

If someone is a US citizen but living overseas (Military excluded as they are covered under different rules) they may be able to vote.

In this case the citizen would have to fill out a Federal Post Card Application which can be obtained from www.fvap.gov.

They would then be issued an absentee ballot.

In order to vote in the 2012 election they would have to apply by 10/15/2012 and request a ballot no later than 10/30/2012.

A vote for Obama is a vote against neoconservatism. Team R has clearly not learned it's lessons from 2008 and does not deserve the executive office. As such, I am proud to vote against them.

I don't like either of the choices that much, but.... wait, what? My vote shows Romney, I meant to vote for Obama. Argghh... this ballot is too complicated!! :dead:

Heck i'll vote the Buna-STEED other ticket too. But only if I get to fly armed government drones from my home.

I voted not for who I necessarily support, but who I think is going to win.

:hmmm: I took the test at ontheissues.org - good site, as it doesn't only mention the candidate's election propaganda but also shows their voting history on certain issues.

The result:
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/1881/testpres.jpg

Romney got only 3% - less than Palin :D

If Roseanne Barr doesn't run, who got some pretty good ideas about Wall Street :arrgh!:, I'd write-in Ron Paul. While he got some wacko economic ideas, he's the one I agree the most on social issues. At least he's a guy who differs the most from the others, a change I could believe in.

---

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/910...ngmachines.jpg

I would vote Ron Paul. I don't agree with him in many things but still he is better than Obama or Romney (or Robama as someone said...).

EDIT: Not most, MANY :damn:

Note to self: remember proofreading, remember proofreading, remember...

I vote for Obuna and Steedney.:yeah: McBee has my vote as well.

Undersecretary of Health for Canines Honorable Niki McBee? :hmmm:

Voted for Other...not happy with the current choices. Obama's foreign policy is pretty much the same as the previous administration's, as is their stance on civil liberties, lobbying, Wall Street regulation.

Romney's far from the worst the GOP has to offer, but he's no Jon Huntsman.

Unlike you, I actually agree with Paul on most things. AT least ont he big three that are most important, Economy, Foreign Policy and Liberty.

On its current diet of printing and borrowing, the U.S could well have disorderly default this decade, all it take is for its lenders to lose confidence and for the dollar to be abandoned as the worlds reserve currency. Unfortunatley these two things are already happening.
Its simple mathmatics, you cannot sustain or fix a system dependant on borrowing with yet even more debt and currency devaluation.
While I have my doubts about Pauls 'gold standard' legalizing competing currencies could at least offer the average american a saftey net should the Greenback fail.
The U.S needs to balance her budget by drasticly cutting spending. That means shrinking goverment and ditching as many government programs and agencies as it possibly can.

Is either Obama or Romney talking about this? nope, instead they are praising Ben Bernakes Quantative easing program and talking about raising the debt ceiling, government medicare.... oh and maybe getting involved in costly new wars in Iran, Syria and god knows where else..

In terms of national security, The U.S only needs to be able to secure her own boders and defend herself at home, she does not need an overseas empire of premptive war and nation building that she can no longer afford. No nation 'needs' an empire. History has proven time after time that all empires will collapes in the end.

Civil liberties need to be restored, the constitution is what makes America 'sweet land of liberty' while the Patriot acts and NDAA now matter how you dress them up, only steer it towards a "sweet land of tyranny'. Its a huge step in the opposite direction that should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago. There are many more effective ways to prevent a 9/11 part 2 without infringing the rights of law abiding U.S citizens. Surrendering civil liberties for security is a VERY poor trade off, one could very easily argue that simply by doing this - the terrorists have won.

As for education, immigration, dugs, abortion, gay marriage and all the rest, IMO these things are just deck chairs on the Titanic right now.
The main focus should be Economy, Civil liberties and Foreign policy. (the Titanics hull integrity :)) if these are not properly fixed, I fear everything else will go down with the ship.

The U.S has a choice, cut down now in an orderly fashion on a volentary basis, or break down in a disorderly fashion forced by economic suicide.
The window of opportunity for the former is closing fast.

We must stop beliving these false claims of 'economic recovery', as of 2011 is has become abundantly clear the band-aid fixes of 2009 are starting to wear off.

Ron paul might not be perfect, but he is the only congressman who has been yelling this stuff from the rooftops for the last decade. So why should anyone trust him? Simple answer is 'track record'. Not to mention he predicted a 9/11 in 1998 and he predicted the 2008 housing collapes in 2001, what more do we need?

I have no intention of voting. I have no faith in either party, the election system mired with special interest and corporate money, nor any of the candidates.

Obligatory video link. <- I believe this is the awful truth of it.

:hmmm: A choice of two evils, I think Obana would get my vote :yep: