2012 Presidential Election

Home of Zidane's (and others') weekly polls, games and other interactive content.

Who would you vote for?

Barack Obama
35
65%
Mitt Romney
7
13%
Ron Paul
6
11%
Newt Gingrich
0
No votes
Other
6
11%
 
Total votes : 54

2012 Presidential Election

Postby Mako » 15 Apr 2012 22:32

With Rick Santorum dropping out that leaves 3 more republican candidates left competing for the right to compete against Obama. If you watch the main stream news you might think there is only one person left (Mitt Romney), but Ron Paul is racking up those delegates and has a good shot at winning as well. Not sure why Newt is still around though. The big question is, out of these four, who would you vote for. If you are not from the US feel free to vote for who you think would be the best choice anyway, and if you already voted here in the states then just let us know who you voted for. If you chose "other", please post who your preferred choice would be.

Feel free to discuss other aspects of the campaign in this thread as well. Just remember to respect others' opinions and views.
User avatar
Mako
Site Mod
Site Mod
 
Posts: 2194
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 14:32
Location: Michigan
NN ID: Mako91
3DS: 4167-4543-6089
Wii: 0725-3780-1331-9030
PSN: yugoboy91

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Iridium077 » 15 Apr 2012 23:02

If I could vote, Obama.

It's not that I care much for the man - I don't. It's just that everyone running against him is asinine with the possible exception of Paul, but nobody remembers Paul.
User avatar
Iridium077
Waddle Dee
Waddle Dee
 
Posts: 95
Joined: 03 Jun 2011 00:43
NN ID: Iridium
PSN: Jean_Descole

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby cortjezter » 15 Apr 2012 23:15

absolutely... make sure everyone keeps an open mind and respects others' opinions, especially if they're different or totally opposite your own.

last time we had a political thread, things got really out of hand, before and after locking the topic.
User avatar
cortjezter
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4261
Joined: 17 Oct 2005 00:05
Location: Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
Steam ID: cortjezter
Wii: 4659 4316 9119 3027
PSN: cortjezter
XBL: cortjezter

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Hamr » 16 Apr 2012 02:36

In this hypothetical match-up, I would vote against Romney, in large part to spite Bobby Kottick. So, 'Bams.

In the general election, I look forward to wasting my vote on some third-party schmo.
Image
User avatar
Hamr
Boo
Boo
 
Posts: 632
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 15:44
Location: West Coast

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Sailing_Day » 16 Apr 2012 13:53

Well, it depends on who gets the Libertarian nomination. I like Gary Johnson a lot, so I'd vote for him. If not, I suppose I'll settle for Obama, but there's no way I'd vote for Romney. Or Ron Paul, for that matter, everyone talks about him like he's this sort of messianic figure but he's really not that much better than the other republican candidates. I'd certainly vote for Obama again faster than I'd vote for Paul. Even if I did think he was all that, there's no chance at all of him getting the nomination at this point. It's an Obama vs. Romney race.

In any case, I put down "other" because I'm leaning towards libertarian, like I said.
User avatar
Sailing_Day
Octorok
Octorok
 
Posts: 187
Joined: 05 Aug 2006 11:11
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby pummy84 » 16 Apr 2012 19:24

As things stand right now, with it looking like it will be Romney against Obama, my vote would go to Obama. Not because I agree with Obama, but because of where Romney said he would start his cuts to fund tax cuts: the Department of Education. Really? Teachers are already under appreciated and underpaid, and you want to cut education funding? Is this really what we want for our future?
Image
User avatar
pummy84
Octorok
Octorok
 
Posts: 154
Joined: 30 Mar 2011 18:35
NN ID: pummy84
3DS: 4682-8453-7375
PSN: Amasno
XBL: Amasno

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Rock Lobster » 16 Apr 2012 21:06

Most likely Obama. I was a supporter of Huntsman(and to a lesser extent, Cain), but they both dropped out. In any case, I feel that Obama has a number of good ideas that need time to develop, and four more years could make a world of difference.
User avatar
Rock Lobster
Piranha Plant
Piranha Plant
 
Posts: 207
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 20:54
Location: New York, New York
3DS: 0259 0400 3888
Wii: 6019 5729 0684 3855
XBL: Fedoraofcourage

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Mirr0rR3flection » 17 Apr 2012 11:35

I'm voting for Obama again despite all the hate he receives at times. :)
I once lived in a bubble… but eventually… I grew tired of it. So yeah… wishes do come true… well for me at least!Image
User avatar
Mirr0rR3flection
The Wish Maker
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 01:10
Location: The World Beyond This And That
NN ID: Mirr0rR3flection
3DS: 1762-2673-3905
PSN: Mirr0r3flection

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Radiant » 18 Apr 2012 21:18

I'm 100% for Obama. Well, I don't mean that I agree with him on everything or anything to that effect. It's just that when comparing him to the Republican candidates there is not even the slightest question for me (as it stands Huntsman was the only sane Republican candidate and he was gone some time ago.).

I just don't want another president in office who is openly anti-gay (as in trying to ban same-sex marriage and stuff like that) and who also has little to no respect for the separation of church and state.

My strong feelings on both of those issues made this election very easy for me. Although still not a fun one because Obama isn't perfect in those regards either. But who knows maybe when he has a second term and no longer has any pressure to be 'moderate' to get re-elected, some sense may come into him on those matters. So I'll definitely have to go with him.

Sailing_Day wrote:Or Ron Paul, for that matter, everyone talks about him like he's this sort of messianic figure but he's really not that much better than the other republican candidates. I'd certainly vote for Obama again faster than I'd vote for Paul.


I <3 you for saying that.

pummy84 wrote:As things stand right now, with it looking like it will be Romney against Obama, my vote would go to Obama. Not because I agree with Obama, but because of where Romney said he would start his cuts to fund tax cuts: the Department of Education. Really? Teachers are already under appreciated and underpaid, and you want to cut education funding? Is this really what we want for our future?


This, too. I plan on becoming a band director. Education is very important and should be properly funded. When they get less funding teaching jobs like the one I'm aiming for are the very first ones to be cut. Education funding should never be anywhere near that low.
Image
User avatar
Radiant
Piranha Plant
Piranha Plant
 
Posts: 222
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 22:24
NN ID: WoodwindsRock
3DS: 1032-1351-5240

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby gtt » 18 Apr 2012 21:40

I'm voting for Kodos.
User avatar
gtt
Kwisatz Haderach
 
Posts: 1623
Joined: 11 May 2010 22:56
Location: Arrakis, Known as Dune. Home of the Spice.
NN ID: supergtt
3DS: 3394-3550-1815

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Koopzilla » 19 Apr 2012 00:21

Radiant wrote:I'm 100% for Obama. Well, I don't mean that I agree with him on everything or anything to that effect. It's just that when comparing him to the Republican candidates there is not even the slightest question for me (as it stands Huntsman was the only sane Republican candidate and he was gone some time ago.).

I just don't want another president in office who is openly anti-gay (as in trying to ban same-sex marriage and stuff like that) and who also has little to no respect for the separation of church and state.

My strong feelings on both of those issues made this election very easy for me. Although still not a fun one because Obama isn't perfect in those regards either. But who knows maybe when he has a second term and no longer has any pressure to be 'moderate' to get re-elected, some sense may come into him on those matters. So I'll definitely have to go with him.

Sailing_Day wrote:Or Ron Paul, for that matter, everyone talks about him like he's this sort of messianic figure but he's really not that much better than the other republican candidates. I'd certainly vote for Obama again faster than I'd vote for Paul.


I <3 you for saying that.

pummy84 wrote:As things stand right now, with it looking like it will be Romney against Obama, my vote would go to Obama. Not because I agree with Obama, but because of where Romney said he would start his cuts to fund tax cuts: the Department of Education. Really? Teachers are already under appreciated and underpaid, and you want to cut education funding? Is this really what we want for our future?


This, too. I plan on becoming a band director. Education is very important and should be properly funded. When they get less funding teaching jobs like the one I'm aiming for are the very first ones to be cut. Education funding should never be anywhere near that low.

I totally agree with everything. I think republicans are going the wrong way on pretty much everything. It's almost to the point where I can't agree with them on anything. The Tea Party has left them in ruins, they need to reject them soon before it completely destroys them. They are being forced to take extreme right wing stance on every issue. It's so bad that even moderate ideas that are supported by three fourths of the country (and even ones that Republicans themselves proposed even a few short years ago) are considered by them to be extreme left wing socialist ideas or even evil. I want someone who is willing to make compromises and work with the other side to get things done for the good of the country. I don't want an extreme right, or extreme left government, but something in the middle. I suspect that's what most people would want. I would like for there to be 2 viable choices, but they are forcing me to choose Democrats.

I really blows my mind that so many Republicans want to eradicate the Department of Education. I want (and I assume nearly everyone wants) my kids to get a good education. I want future generations to be well educated. How are we ever going to compete with the rest of the world if we don't even think it's worth funding our children's education? Yet getting rid of the Department of Education is something I've heard nearly every Republican candidate talk about, including Ron Paul. Rick Santorum even called President Obama a snob for wanting every kid to have the chance to go to college. I can agree that theres definitely improvements that can be made with the public education system, but defunding it is not the answer. Public schools made this country great, and it should be a priorty to keep them going strong.

So basically, I want at least two parties that I can choose from (actually, I would prefer 3 or 4 major parties.) But I want both of them to be able to work together and get things done. I don't want each one to be so extreme that they are unwilling to compromise on anything. But unfortunately Republicans are forcing me into having no choice, I have to vote against them. The only good I can see coming of this is another party could come and replace them.
Image
User avatar
Koopzilla
Nintendo Power Player
 
Posts: 570
Joined: 13 Nov 2010 01:31
Location: Indiana
NN ID: Koopzilla
3DS: 2793-0595-9972

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby bobafruit » 19 Apr 2012 03:31

don't care, don't care, don't care!

lalalala

don't care.

Did I mention that I don't care? it saves so much time in your day if you just don't care at all about politics. I used to care, now I spend that time focusing on my daughter instead.
User avatar
bobafruit
Octorok
Octorok
 
Posts: 155
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 00:41

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Sailing_Day » 23 Apr 2012 15:20

bobafruit wrote:Did I mention that I don't care? it saves so much time in your day if you just don't care at all about politics. I used to care, now I spend that time focusing on my daughter instead.

Do you realize that the presidential elections affect your daughter's future significantly? It's not even just the economic state of the country or the foreign policy that is going to shape the world she's going to be living in, but the fact that we're such at a pivotal point in this country's history, a crossroads, if you will. What's at stake here is the middle class, the funding for the education your daughter gets (If she's in public school, that is) and many of the freedoms you take for granted.

One of the reasons the politics in our country are the way they are is because people treat it like it's some sort of taboo. It shouldn't be, you should take advantage of the fact that you are lucky enough to live in a country where you can make a difference by talking about the present issues and making an intelligent and informed decision about what you want to see changed by voting. Not everybody has that privilege.
User avatar
Sailing_Day
Octorok
Octorok
 
Posts: 187
Joined: 05 Aug 2006 11:11
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Hamr » 24 Apr 2012 23:43



ick. i can live with many things, but i don't think i could take an east coast rapper in the white house.
Image
User avatar
Hamr
Boo
Boo
 
Posts: 632
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 15:44
Location: West Coast

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Mako » 25 Apr 2012 02:20

I am genuinely surprised by all the support Obama is still getting. Did people forget all the promises he broke after he actually got into office? He said he would do a lot of great things, but all he really does is lie to the American people. All these politicians talk the talk, but when it comes down to it they will do what benefits the corporations and other global elite, not the American people. Mitt Romney will be more of the same because he has almost all the same views as Obama...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c&feature=related[/youtube]

Only Ron Paul is promising real change, and has the voting record to back him up. (We know he isn't just telling us what we want to hear) Ron Paul will limit our federal government, end all foreign aid, get rid of all of our foreign bases and bring troops home to defend our country, end the federal reserve, get rid of useless government departments to reduce our national debt, bring back the gold standard so that we can't print money out of thin air, abolish the illegal income tax, follow the constitution instead of passing things like the Patriot Act and NDAA (Trying to pass SOPA), bring back liberty and common sense, and so on.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoC_rAh9qjA&context=C44253daADvjVQa1PpcFO53p943dEAR21fIJIliHuSjpXUMhTgaQI=[/youtube]

Ron Paul is the only candidate I will support because I agree with everything he stands for. Also, the corporate media not covering him is even more of a reason to support him. I just wish the rest of the country would wake up and realize this as well. For those who don't support Ron Paul; would you please point out what you don't like about him exactly?
User avatar
Mako
Site Mod
Site Mod
 
Posts: 2194
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 14:32
Location: Michigan
NN ID: Mako91
3DS: 4167-4543-6089
Wii: 0725-3780-1331-9030
PSN: yugoboy91

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Tingle » 25 Apr 2012 03:16

@Mako
Few Presidents keep their promises because a) they're politicians and b) the amount of power the President actually has is grossly overstated. I'm not an Obama supporter but I'm just pointing out that you can compile a good sized list of broken campaign promises for most politicians. It's not unique to Obama.

I don't like any of the candidates in this election and that includes Ron Paul. His ideal for America seems to be what the country was like in the late 1800's. Any candidate that touts laissez-faire economics worries me because when the free hand is turned loose, the lower class always ends up getting the middle finger. In terms of foreign policy, I do think that the U.S has over extended its reach, but I don't think that a total withdrawal from the global community into isolationism is the answer.
Tingle, Tingle, Kooloo-Limpah!
Image
User avatar
Tingle
Shyguy
Shyguy
 
Posts: 146
Joined: 25 Aug 2011 01:46
Location: Tingle Island
Wii: 0479 5174 4230 5861

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Hamr » 25 Apr 2012 04:11

Mako wrote:For those who don't support Ron Paul; would you please point out what you don't like about him exactly?
Wants to let Iran and North Korea develop nukes if, y'know, they want. Denies evolution. Anti-abortion. Wants to violate the constitution by dissolving the separation between church and state. Wants to violate the constitution by gutting the judiciary. Anti-science and anti-empiricism. Favors returning to the gold standard because he does not understand that money is a social construct. Is perfectly fine with segregation. Is perfectly fine with repealing workplace laws against sexual harrassment. Wants to allow states to ban contraception/abortion/gay relationships. Supports denying health coverage to people with AIDS. In favor of corporate personhood and unlimited influence in elections. Against the five-day waiting period and against restrictions on owning guns of any sort including assault weapons. At best profited from and passed off as his own newsletters that were racist/homophobic and then spent years defending them. At worst an actual racist/homophobe. Wants to abolish the EPA. Wants to destroy Planned Parenthood. In favor of privatized fire departments, privatized air traffic control, and privatized roads. Opposed to the United Nations. Opposed to the International Criminal cort. Wants to abolish and sell off national parks and privatize the Grand Canyon. In favor of denying health coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Opposed to affirmative action programs in all forms. Wants to violate the constitution and basic principles of democracy by getting rid of the 17th amendment. Wants to abolish the FDA. Fan of Ayn Rand. Wants to abolish Medicare/Medicaid. Claims to be a doctor but believes that emergency rooms should be allowed to just let people die if they cannot pay for services. Is in favor of our ridiculous, undemocratic electoral college. Wants to violate the constitution by turning the country back into a confederacy.

oh, and constantly pretends to be a victim of poor media coverage, as if the only thing preventing him from achieving electoral viability is that most people are just not familiar enough with his ideals, apparently oblivious to how completely removed those ideas are from mainstream public opinion.

'If only more people knew that I want to legalize heroin and the sale of raw milk, then they would vote for me for sure!'

Yeah. No. He is a fringe candidate because he has fringe beliefs, and instead of pretending otherwise, he should own that. Bear in mind that I say this as someone who has a non-zero chance of voting for Roseanne Barr in November.
Image
User avatar
Hamr
Boo
Boo
 
Posts: 632
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 15:44
Location: West Coast

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby bobafruit » 25 Apr 2012 11:48

Sailing_Day wrote:
bobafruit wrote:Did I mention that I don't care? it saves so much time in your day if you just don't care at all about politics. I used to care, now I spend that time focusing on my daughter instead.

Do you realize that the presidential elections affect your daughter's future significantly? It's not even just the economic state of the country or the foreign policy that is going to shape the world she's going to be living in, but the fact that we're such at a pivotal point in this country's history, a crossroads, if you will. What's at stake here is the middle class, the funding for the education your daughter gets (If she's in public school, that is) and many of the freedoms you take for granted.

One of the reasons the politics in our country are the way they are is because people treat it like it's some sort of taboo. It shouldn't be, you should take advantage of the fact that you are lucky enough to live in a country where you can make a difference by talking about the present issues and making an intelligent and informed decision about what you want to see changed by voting. Not everybody has that privilege.


well... mathematically your chance of having any effect on the outcome of an election is probably closer to zero than your chance of winning the lottery (especially if you are like me and counted as a resident of a state that overwhelmingly supports a single party)

Furthermore, the public school is worse than prison and I will do everything in my power to keep my daughter out of such a place, because I still remember what it was like to live through that experience. Funny thing is that the worst experiences I had in my life occurred in what most people would consider a "good" "well-funded" prison... I mean school.

many people say that you don't get to complain because you don't vote. I refrain from giving my support to the whole corrupt system. Voting is a suggestion box at a restaurant that doesn't care what you think.
User avatar
bobafruit
Octorok
Octorok
 
Posts: 155
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 00:41

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Radiant » 26 Apr 2012 01:03

Mako wrote:Ron Paul is the only candidate I will support because I agree with everything he stands for.


Everything? Are you sure about that?

There is no politician I have ever seen that I could say I agree with everything they stand for.

Ron Paul stands against things that are very important to me personally - LGBT rights and the separation of church and state. And there's plenty more beyond that. While those are far from the only issues, I just can not, in good conscience, vote for a candidate that is so against those when there's one that's better. Don't worry, my vote doesn't count for anything in a state where every county votes Republican every single time, anyway.

You may agree with everything he stands for, but it just so happens that he stands against me, so I do not like him. At all.
Image
User avatar
Radiant
Piranha Plant
Piranha Plant
 
Posts: 222
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 22:24
NN ID: WoodwindsRock
3DS: 1032-1351-5240

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Mako » 26 Apr 2012 20:15

Tingle wrote:@Mako
Few Presidents keep their promises because a) they're politicians and b) the amount of power the President actually has is grossly overstated. I'm not an Obama supporter but I'm just pointing out that you can compile a good sized list of broken campaign promises for most politicians. It's not unique to Obama.

I don't like any of the candidates in this election and that includes Ron Paul. His ideal for America seems to be what the country was like in the late 1800's. Any candidate that touts laissez-faire economics worries me because when the free hand is turned loose, the lower class always ends up getting the middle finger. In terms of foreign policy, I do think that the U.S has over extended its reach, but I don't think that a total withdrawal from the global community into isolationism is the answer.

I realize they are politicians and that is what went wrong in our country. When we started out we had some of the greatest minds in our country working together to create the constitution. Today we have politicians leading us; not the smartest people, but the ones who can talk a good talk and look good doing it. I realize the president isn't all powerful, but I would hope that Congress would get behind one who is honest and actually tries to change something instead of the "business as usual" mentality. I also realize Obama isn't the only one who will lie, which is why I said Mitt Romney will be more of the same. Ron Paul on the other hand has had the same consistent message for 30 years now and has the voting record to back him up. He is more than a politician, he is a human being. :P



His idea for this country is to bring back liberty to the American people. He wants a self regulating free market economy, which is the only one that will truly work. Also, I would call his foreign policy non-interventionism instead of isolationism. Yes, they are different.


Hamr wrote:Wants to let Iran and North Korea develop nukes if, y'know, they want. Denies evolution. Anti-abortion. Wants to violate the constitution by dissolving the separation between church and state. Wants to violate the constitution by gutting the judiciary. Anti-science and anti-empiricism. Favors returning to the gold standard because he does not understand that money is a social construct. Is perfectly fine with segregation. Is perfectly fine with repealing workplace laws against sexual harrassment. Wants to allow states to ban contraception/abortion/gay relationships. Supports denying health coverage to people with AIDS. In favor of corporate personhood and unlimited influence in elections. Against the five-day waiting period and against restrictions on owning guns of any sort including assault weapons. At best profited from and passed off as his own newsletters that were racist/homophobic and then spent years defending them. At worst an actual racist/homophobe. Wants to abolish the EPA. Wants to destroy Planned Parenthood. In favor of privatized fire departments, privatized air traffic control, and privatized roads. Opposed to the United Nations. Opposed to the International Criminal cort. Wants to abolish and sell off national parks and privatize the Grand Canyon. In favor of denying health coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Opposed to affirmative action programs in all forms. Wants to violate the constitution and basic principles of democracy by getting rid of the 17th amendment. Wants to abolish the FDA. Fan of Ayn Rand. Wants to abolish Medicare/Medicaid. Claims to be a doctor but believes that emergency rooms should be allowed to just let people die if they cannot pay for services. Is in favor of our ridiculous, undemocratic electoral college. Wants to violate the constitution by turning the country back into a confederacy.

oh, and constantly pretends to be a victim of poor media coverage, as if the only thing preventing him from achieving electoral viability is that most people are just not familiar enough with his ideals, apparently oblivious to how completely removed those ideas are from mainstream public opinion.

'If only more people knew that I want to legalize heroin and the sale of raw milk, then they would vote for me for sure!'

Yeah. No. He is a fringe candidate because he has fringe beliefs, and instead of pretending otherwise, he should own that. Bear in mind that I say this as someone who has a non-zero chance of voting for Roseanne Barr in November.

He has stated many times that he doesn't want them to develop nukes, but at the same time we have no evidence at this point that they are doing so. We don't need another pointless war, especially with China saying they will back Iran... No, he doesn't believe in evolution but neither do millions of other people out there. Who better to know right vs wrong when it comes to abortion than a doctor who delivered thousands of babies? I agree with him that aborting a baby a few months before birth is the same as killing a baby a few months after birth. We should treat this the same. If people don't want to have kids they should practice safe sex and be smart about it. Obviously, things would be different if they were a rape victim.

He rejected the notion of "separation of church and state" because he feels that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited, but at the same time it should not be compulsory to engage in. He sites the issue as "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion" instead. As far as "gutting the judiciary"... I understand he wants the states to have the power, but trying to reverse Roe Vs Wade and others will only end badly. Again, he want be a little bit too religious for his own good, but to say he is anti-science in general is a bit of a stretch. I don't think I would call money not backed by anything a social construct. At least, I don't think people envisioned the Fed being able to print money out of thin air like they are today.

With segregation, he already said it is a done deal. He said the government shouldn't be able to tell you what you do with your private business, but if you were to segregate people you wouldn't be in business long anyway. So the free market handles this. His view of sexual harassment is that it is protected under the first amendment. He states that if the person doesn't like it they can simply quit their job. Who is to say that states would ban all those thing? In the issue of contraception he believes the federal government should have nothing to do with being the ones to give it to people. It should be the individual's responsibility. I already talked about abortion. You have to remember that is should be the voice of the people that chose what is right or wrong. A state isn't going to go against its own people and ban gay relationships.

He doesn't want to deny health care coverage to people with aids, he simple doesn't believe innocent people should have to pay more because of that said person with aids. This means that person with aids would have to pay more in the end. Corporations are not people. I don't really see the benefit of a five day waiting period either and of course he isn't going to go against the second amendment. He already stated countless times that he didn't write those newsletters, but that he signed them off. Still, he would have had to read them at some point. I agree that it looks bad for him on this point, but that was a long time ago and people can change. His plan calls to cut spending to the EPA by 30% of what it was in 2006, not abolish it outright right away. More of a gradual process.

He is against planned parenthood because they perform abortions, which he is against. Again, there are better ways to prevent unwanted children than by aborting them. Privatized fire departments, air traffic, and road systems might give the government ones a run for their money and be more efficient. I can't see why both couldn't co-exist; the government does hate competition though. Against the United Nations? Thank God! International Criminal cort is just more world government/ world corporations, so no thanks. Yes, he calls for selling of federal land in his budget plan. The way the government handles them, would this be such a bad thing? Privatizing them would allow them to run more efficiently and give our government some much needed money. We can't keep what we can't afford.

I don't remember ever hearing him say he would want to deny health care to people with pre existing conditions. Ron Paul believes affirmative action has only made tension worse between races because of the unfair advantage they give to one race over the other. Minorities should be treated as equals not superior. On the 17th amendment: "The original intent of the founders was to have a Federalist system which consisted of individual states and a small central government with very limited powers. The idea was that the states would send the senators to Washington to represent them. If a senator started voting against the best interests of the state which he represented, he could be immediately recalled."

The FDA doesn't really seem to be doing its job right anyway, giving big corporations the benefit of the doubt. Also, he wants to cut spending to the FDA by 40% of what it was in 2006. He doesn't want to get rid of it right away, but that is the eventual plan. I'm not overly familiar with Ayn Rand so I can't comment much about this. Medicare is unconstitutional. About the electoral college: "Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress." I wouldn't say giving the states the power that were granted to them in the constitution is turning America back into a confederacy.

You can't even argue the fact that the media doesn't cover him at all. (At least the main stream media) Actually, a lot of his views go along with what the main stream thinks. For example the majority of Americans want to end all of these wars while mainstream politicians want to start more wars... Ask any American about the income tax and they will all be on the side of Ron Paul there too.

I don't see how people can consider him to be a fringe candidate when he has the majority of support from 18-25 year old's and is growing more popular every day in every age group. Look at all his campaign stops around colleges. He constantly gets thousands of people to go out and hear him speak. For example, Ron Paul had a crowd of about 8,000 at UCLA.

Again, I am not trying to say Ron Paul is perfect as he definitely has his faults. However, he is our best bet to actually get some real change out of the 3 major candidates left...

Radiant wrote:Everything? Are you sure about that?

There is no politician I have ever seen that I could say I agree with everything they stand for.

Ron Paul stands against things that are very important to me personally - LGBT rights and the separation of church and state. And there's plenty more beyond that. While those are far from the only issues, I just can not, in good conscience, vote for a candidate that is so against those when there's one that's better. Don't worry, my vote doesn't count for anything in a state where every county votes Republican every single time, anyway. Any time government gets involved with anything it becomes more expensive. This will be the case with a government run health care as well. We need a free market health care system to make it more affordable.

You may agree with everything he stands for, but it just so happens that he stands against me, so I do not like him. At all.

Maybe I should have been more specific. I agree with all the "major" issues he talks about. Obviously no one is perfect, but Ron Paul is much better than Obama continuing to do what he is doing, or Mitt Romney which will be just like re-electing Obama.

I don't think he stands against those necessary. For example his view of gay and lesbian marriage is that it shouldn't be the governments business to get involved in marriage at all. That should be up to the states, or even better, local communities to decide. He rejected the notion of "separation of church and state" because he feels that prayer in public schhols should not be prohibited, but at the same time it should not be compulsory to engage in. He sites the issue as "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion" instead.
User avatar
Mako
Site Mod
Site Mod
 
Posts: 2194
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 14:32
Location: Michigan
NN ID: Mako91
3DS: 4167-4543-6089
Wii: 0725-3780-1331-9030
PSN: yugoboy91

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Radiant » 26 Apr 2012 21:18

Mako wrote:For example his view of gay and lesbian marriage is that it shouldn't be the governments business to get involved in marriage at all. That should be up to the states, or even better, local communities to decide.


And that's a problem. I don't respect his position on that anymore than I do any of the other conservative candidates. It's NOT something that should be up for states to vote on, it's not something that we should have to be fighting for to begin with.

His position might actually be worse. It's the ideal position for those who are opposed to same-sex marriage to be in. They can take away marriage from the government, and then make it 'religious' and then they can get away from having to deal with the government's rules like anti-discrimination and the separation of church and state. All so they can put the bar up right in homosexuals' faces.

So you could say I actually dislike Ron Paul even more than the rest of them in this regard. He knows how to keep same-sex marriage from getting legalized. And it's all based on this nonsense about not wanting other people's "standards" forced on him. Like somehow another group being able to get married is imposing standards on him. What is it to him? He talks like he'd be okay with it being legalized on state levels, but that clearly isn't his intention.

He's just as ridiculous as the rest of them. Thinking that some how same-sex marriage being legalized will force anything on him. It's not like they're going to come to his door and force him to get a gay marriage. That's how ridiculous this is. He has got it all the wrong way around.

Beyond that, I said "LGBT rights" and Ron Paul has voted against including homosexuality as an protected class in ENDA and has voted against same-sex adoption.

He's no better than the rest of them, sorry to tell you. He's a large roadblock to inevitable progress that wouldn't actually effect him.

He rejected the notion of "separation of church and state" because he feels that prayer in public schhols should not be prohibited, but at the same time it should not be compulsory to engage in.


Except that's exactly what MANY of us separation of church and state supporters advocate. We don't want prayer banned. People can pray whenever and wherever they want. We are only opposed to government-led/school-led prayers.

The separation of church and state is not meant to ban praying. It's not meant to take away people's freedoms. It's meant to do the very opposite.

He sites the issue as "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion" instead.


It's not "no establishment of religion". It's "Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It's very clear in saying that no law can be made respecting (based on) any religion. It's not just establishing an religion, it's making any law based on religion.
Image
User avatar
Radiant
Piranha Plant
Piranha Plant
 
Posts: 222
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 22:24
NN ID: WoodwindsRock
3DS: 1032-1351-5240

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Koopzilla » 26 Apr 2012 22:20

Radiant wrote:He's just as ridiculous as the rest of them. Thinking that some how same-sex marriage being legalized will force anything on him. It's not like they're going to come to his door and force him to get a gay marriage. That's how ridiculous this is. He has got it all the wrong way around.

I've tried to make sense of this myself and the only thing I can come up with is (as ridiculous as it may seem) that Republican politicians are so insecure with their own sexuality that if gay people are allowed to marry then they will not be able to resist the urge to turn gay and marry someone of the same sex. Either that or they want to impose their religious beliefs on everybody which goes into the whole separation of church and state thing. They like to say letting gays marry is giving them special rights, but it's only giving them the same rights as everyone else is entitled to. It's in the first line of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. Yet they take it to mean all men are created equal as long as they are the same religion and have the same sexual preferences as us.
Image
User avatar
Koopzilla
Nintendo Power Player
 
Posts: 570
Joined: 13 Nov 2010 01:31
Location: Indiana
NN ID: Koopzilla
3DS: 2793-0595-9972

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Radiant » 26 Apr 2012 22:39

Koopzilla wrote:I've tried to make sense of this myself and the only thing I can come up with is (as ridiculous as it may seem) that Republican politicians are so insecure with their own sexuality that if gay people are allowed to marry then they will not be able to resist the urge to turn gay and marry someone of the same sex.


Well... I really hate to go down that road and stereotype homophobes as homosexuals themselves, however, it appears that in some cases it actually is that way. Especially when you see them saying things like they have to fight off gay urges. They, in turn, think that everybody 'struggles' with gay urges. Which says a lot about them, because news flash - we don't!

However, I do believe that there is another group of people who are homophobic who aren't homosexuals themselves. I do believe that being completely straight can lead somebody down the road of homophobia, just because that is human nature. It's natural to hate on what is different.

But I wouldn't doubt that there are a great number of anti-gay people out there who actually don't understand sexuality and their own sexuality and they actually aren't completely straight themselves. Especially anybody who tries to claim sexuality is a choice. Let me tell you, I never even remotely choose my sexuality.

Either that or they want to impose their religious beliefs on everybody which goes into the whole separation of church and state thing. They like to say letting gays marry is giving them special rights, but it's only giving them the same rights as everyone else is entitled to. It's in the first line of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. Yet they take it to mean all men are created equal as long as they are the same religion and have the same sexual preferences as us.


Unfortunately. There's always some group that has to be pushed down. It's very sad, and I am infuriated that it's happening in my lifetime in a country that is supposed to be about freedom and equality.
Image
User avatar
Radiant
Piranha Plant
Piranha Plant
 
Posts: 222
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 22:24
NN ID: WoodwindsRock
3DS: 1032-1351-5240

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Hamr » 27 Apr 2012 04:50

Mako wrote:He wants a self regulating free market economy, which is the only one that will truly work


Somalia is basically the only true free market economy in the way that Ron Paul works.

yeah, it doesn't work so well.

"He has stated many times that he doesn't want them to develop nukes, but at the same time we have no evidence at this point that they are doing so. We don't need another pointless war, especially with China saying they will back Iran"

Are you saying that if there were evidence, then he would support intervention, up-to and including a full-scale invasion?

"No, he doesn't believe in evolution but neither do millions of other people out there."

Those people also believe the world is 6000 years old and that men rode dinosaurs like horses. Do you believe those things? Do you believe that the science behind antibiotics is wrong?

Millions of people, and many of the Ron Paul supporters I know, also believe that 9-11 was an inside job. Do you believe that as well?

"I agree with him that aborting a baby a few months before birth is the same as killing a baby a few months after birth."

Except Ron Paul's position is that aborting a zygote a second after it is fertiziled is the same as killing a baby a few months after birth. I cannot tell, are you agreeing with that?

"Obviously, things would be different if they were a r**e victim."

Right, which is why when Ron Paul introduced legislation that would outlaw all abortion everywhere, it included exceptions for rape cases.

Hahah. Just kidding.

"He rejected the notion of "separation of church and state" because he feels that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited"

Right, he rejects the constitution because it is fundamentally inconsistent with his absurd, theocratic belief-system.

"no establishment of religion"

Which making schools set aside x amount of time each day for prayer would be.

"As far as "gutting the judiciary"... I understand he wants the states to have the power, but trying to reverse Roe Vs Wade and others will only end badly."

He does not want the states to have the power in regards to abortion, lol.

"Again, he want be a little bit too religious for his own good, but to say he is anti-science in general is a bit of a stretch."

No, it is not. Even ignoring the ridiculous theocratic stuff, he believes in Austrian economics, the foundation of which is rejecting empiricism and the scientific method in favor of rigid dogma. That is the definition of anti-science.

"I don't think I would call money not backed by anything a social construct."

Money backed by anything is a social construct, even if you were to convert your entire net worth into doubloons or whatever. That is what differentiates it from a system of pure barter. Gold has no inherent value or utility other than that which society arbitrarily places upon it. In the hypothetical scenario where the government collapses and civilization descends into a post-apocalyptic Mad-Maxxian hellscape, gold is not going to magically retain its monetary worth because that monetary worth is based around a system of mutual social agreements. Can you *eat* gold? Can you use gold to shoot the roving bands of motorcycle gangs? Can you live in it? Can you use it to buy anything from the hypothetical Dystopia R Us store? No. In the absence of a societal framework, money of any form is not going to do you any good.

"At least, I don't think people envisioned the Fed being able to print money out of thin air like they are today."

Money is social construct, and its value is largely created out of 'thin air' by definition. The gold standard is just something that a brand of deranged lunatics gravitate toward because it has the word 'gold' in it and they believe gold has some sort of intrinsic value. A good number of them are also conspiracy cranks who are recycling the old belief that the entire world money supply is secretly controlled by a cabal of 8 Jewish bankers, but that is really neither here nor there.

"With segregation, he already said it is a done deal."

A done deal that he and many others would have fought back then and currently want to reverse, using the exact language and concepts that were used to institute and defend it back in the day.

"He said the government shouldn't be able to tell you what you do with your private business"

Right, if you want to not hire black people or sell products to them or allow them to use the same schools or drinking fountains or bathrooms as you, and you want force them to live in an apartheid state, then you should be allowed to do so. George Wallace and the Klan concur.

This civil rights bill will wind up putting a homeowner in jail because he doesn’t sell his home to someone that some bureaucrat thinks he ought to sell it to. My friends, a man’s home is his castle and he ought to be able-- [applause] And he ought to be able to sell it to people with blue eyes and green teeth if he wants to, it’s his home.-George Wallace.

"but if you were to segregate people you wouldn't be in business long anyway."

:lol:

The free market and state governments were given a hundred years to end the international humilation that was segregation. And a hundred years before that to end the abomination that was the slave trade. Of course, as I said, Ron Paul rejects science, rejects history, rejects empricism, and rejects basic humanity, so he can continue to make statements that have zero basis in objective reality.

"So the free market handles this."

If by 'handles it' you mean 'does absolutely nothing to mitigate or end it and in fact serves primarily as an excuse to extend it', then sure.

"His view of sexual harassment is that it is protected under the first amendment."

Yes, because he views the world in absolutist terms. If we have a right to bear arms, then we have a right to machine guns and rocket launchers. If we have a right to free speech, then we have a right to threaten, intimidate, and harrass. If we have a right to run a business, then we have a right to use that business to create a society where there is a permanent racial underclass of secondary citizens. The idea of a something being a right *and* having reasonable limitations at the same time? Practicality? Does not compute!

"He states that if the person doesn't like it they can simply quit their job."

Yes, which is basically short hand for "if you are not willing to quit your job over this, you deserve this'. I do appreciate how Ron Paul does not try to hide the fact that his worldview is based on balls-to-the-wall cruelty.

"Who is to say that states would ban all those thing?"

Um, the fact that there are states that not only banned those things but banned those things and refused to unban them until they were forced to by the federal government and in fact still have those laws on their books. The fact that there are states that are actively trying to ban/re-ban/de facto ban those things *right now*.

Incidentally, I love how you are just like those people who argued that SOPA was fine because 'Just because we give copyright holders the power to take down any site they want for extremely frivolous reasons doesn't mean they will. Who is to say that anyone will abuse those powers? No one! Pay no attention to all the historical attempts they have made to can sites for completely unreasonable reason! It won't happen!'

"In the issue of contraception he believes the federal government should have nothing to do with being the ones to give it to people."

And he believes that if a state wants to ban it, then that state should be allowed to ban it.

"It should be the individual's responsibility."

No, he says the contraception question should be the state's responsibility to take away entirely, because in reality, he does not have anything against the government removing one's liberties and oppressing people, only against the *federal* government doing it*. The state doing it is perfectly fine.

"I already talked about abortion."

So you already said you agree that the federal government should ban it? I must have missed that.

"You have to remember that is should be the voice of the people that chose what is right or wrong."

Is that you, Stephen Douglas? What is that, you think that it should be up to state popular sovereignty to determine whether slavery is abolished in each state?

I deny the right of Congress to force a slaveholding State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a free State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a good thing upon a people who are unwilling to receive it. The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself, whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right of free judgment upon the question is dearer to every true American than any other under a free government

"A state isn't going to go against its own people and ban gay relationships."

Sure, just ignore all those states with laws that do and have done that very thing, and have given every indication that they want to do so again.

'Just because I want to give states the power to ban gay relationships doesn't mean *I* want to ban them, heavens, no!'

"He doesn't want to deny health care coverage to people with aids, he simple doesn't believe innocent people should have to pay more because of that said person with aids."

If that person with AIDS is unable to pay the additional medical bills, then the only way to actually prevent the cost from being passed to 'innocent people' is to deny that person healthcare. Not only deny them healthcare *insurance* but healthcare *period*.

"Corporations are not people."

Fair enough, Ron Paul's view is that corporations have *the same rights* as people and so therefore the constitution says they can give unlimited money to politicians. Right, got it.

"I don't really see the benefit of a five day waiting period either and of course he isn't going to go against the second amendment.

Yes or no. The 2nd Amendment means that I can go out and buy an AK-47, no questions asked.

"He already stated countless times that he didn't write those newsletters"

And you just take his word for it because...?

"Still, he would have had to read them at some point. I agree that it looks bad for him on this point, but that was a long time ago and people can change."

See, I actually do not care all that much about the August 1985 issue of the Ron Paul 'Drive the Darkies and the Queers into the Sea' Newsletter in and of itself. The more telling thing about him probably being a racist, homophobic, anti-science, theocratic dingbat is that he drafts and supports legislation that legitimizes, enables, and facilitates racist, homophobic, anti-science, theocratic policies.

Sorry, but I need more than a (conveniently selective) devotion to 'states rights', which have been used to justify our country's greatest abominations.

"His plan calls to cut spending to the EPA by 30% of what it was in 2006, not abolish it outright right away. More of a gradual process."

If I object to the idea of killing the EPA, am I supposed to be comforted that the method involves a slow-acting poison?

"He is against planned parenthood because they perform abortions, which he is against"

I am aware of *why* he opposes it. I am saying that that opposition is detrimental to society.

"Again, there are better ways to prevent unwanted children than by aborting them."

Yeah, like providing cheap, easy access to contraceptives. Of course, he opposes Planned Parenthood for that too, and supports states banning them. Sorry, 'being able' to ban them.

"Privatized fire departments... might give the government ones a run for their money and be more efficient."

Privatized fire departments already exist. They are not more efficient at anything that public fire departments do other than letting people's houses burn.

Like I said though, the Ron Paul mindset only works if one lives in a world of absolutes: Those people did not pay the fee, therefore they deserved to have their entire houses burn down and lose everything they had in the world.

"Privatized roads... might give the government ones a run for their money and be more efficient"

Toll roads are awesome!

"Privatized air traffic control... might give the government ones a run for their money and be more efficient"

And if it does not, hey, planecrashes are a small price to pay for experimentation.

"I can't see why both couldn't co-exist"

In the case of privatized fire departments and roads, they *do* co-exist. Most people just do not want them.

"the government does hate competition though'

Keep telling yourself that.

"Against the United Nations? Thank God! International Criminal cort is just more world government/ world corporations so no thanks."

Yeah, why would anyone want to engage in diplomacy and punish war crimes? Forget that noise.

"Yes, he calls for selling of federal land in his budget plan. The way the government handles them, would this be such a bad thing?

:lol:

"Privatizing them would allow them to run more efficiently"

Awesome, we can replace Yellowstone with a condominium.

"and give our government some much needed money."

The government does not 'need' money at this particular moment.

"We can't keep what we can't afford"

The annual funding for the entire national park system represents about one-thirteenth of a single percent of the federal budget. The idea that we 'cannot afford it' is specious nonsense.

"I don't remember ever hearing him say he would want to deny health care to people with pre existing conditions."

No, just that corporations should be able to deny it to people if they want to. Given that corporations overwhelmingly want to, well....

"Ron Paul believes affirmative action has only made tension worse between races because of the unfair advantage they give to one race over the other. Minorities should be treated as equals not superior."

Image

"On the 17th amendment: "The original intent of the founders was to have a Federalist system which consisted of individual states and a small central government with very limited powers. The idea was that the states would send the senators to Washington to represent them. If a senator started voting against the best interests of the state which he represented, he could be immediately recalled."

You do realize what the point of Amendments is, right? The original intent of the founders was to have a constitution which the people are able to democratically alter when that constitution gets things wrong, e.g. slavery. Their purpose for setting up a system that is anti-thetical to the notion of a democracy is moot.

"The FDA doesn't really seem to be doing its job right anyway, giving big corporations the benefit of the doubt."

More of those lovely absolutes, I see. 'The FDA is doing an imperfect job, therefore it should not be allowed to do any job at all!' 'Corporations frequently get the benefit of the doubt, therefore we should ALWAYS give them the benefit of the doubt' 'Then everything will work out!'

"Medicare is unconstitutional."

The Constitution grants the cort the supreme right to interpret the Constitution, and the Supreme cort says Medicare is constitutional (based on the fact that the government has the power to collect taxes and provide services for the general welfare of its people). That makes it constitutional by definition.

Ron Paul is confusing 'Unconstitutional' with 'Something Ron Paul does not *want* to be constitutional', which is why he wants to do away with the authority of the judicial branch (checks and balances are unconstitutional, I guess).

"About the electoral college: "Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress."

Uh, thank you for proving my point?

"I wouldn't say giving the states the power that were granted to them in the constitution is turning America back into a confederacy."

He wants to give the states powers that were very much not granted to them in the constitution by taking away the powers that *were* granted to the judiciary and the federal government. Also, the whole hilariously-hypocritical 'we need to be protected from democracy and the voice of the people!' thing.

"You can't even argue the fact that the media doesn't cover him at all."

Why would I argue that? I agree that most of the media does not give him heavy coverage. However, A. the great irony here is that the reason *why* he does not get adequate coverage is not some grand conspiracy by the Iluminati and the Stonemasons and the Lizard People; the reason is that mainstream news is a for-profit entity that thrives on ratings, and there is no money to be made in stories about a candidacy that barely rises above the level of 'Old man yells at cloud'. (Additional irony, I have honestly heard lots of stories about him on NPR, but of course he wants that defunded/destroyed too :lol: ) The free market has spoken.

and B. that the media does not cover him is largely beneficial to him, as he would have far less supporters if everyone were to see him (and his frankly monstrous positions) for what he really is. Also, he gets to play the victim card

"Actually, a lot of his views go along with what the main stream thinks."

Basically none of the things that have been listed are mainstream positions.

"Ask any American about the income tax and they will all be on the side of Ron Paul there too."

They would be on his side in the abstract, which makes sense because Ron Paul lives in a fantasy land and refuses to deal with reality.

Ask them if they would support the sales increasing by about 400%, and they will not be on his side. Ask them if they would support military spending being drastically cut, and they will not be on his side. Ask them if they would support abolishing medicare and social security, and they will not be on his side. Ask them if they support getting rid of all welfare and unemployment 100%, and they will not be on his side.

Congrats, there goes almost all federal revenue, and those programs constitute about 80% of government spending right there, and voters overwhelmingly punish attempts to cut those things *at all*.

Now ask them if they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act, they will not be on his side. Ask them if they want to legalize hard drugs, and they will not be on his side. Ask them if they support repealing the minimum wage, and they will not be on his side. Ask them if they think democracy is something they need to be protected from, and they will not be on his side.

"I don't see how people can consider him to be a fringe candidate when he has the majority of support from 18-25 year old's"

[citation needed]

"Look at all his campaign stops around colleges. He constantly gets thousands of people to go out and hear him speak. For example, Ron Paul had a crowd of about 8,000 at UCLA."

Having been to political events at UCLA, Berkely, and USC, 8,000 people is... not very much.

"That should be up to the states, or even better, local communities to decide."

And if that state decides to ban it, then that is just groovy with him.

Of course it is.

Radiant wrote:His position might actually be worse. It's the ideal position for those who are opposed to same-sex marriage to be in. They can take away marriage from the government, and then make it 'religious' and then they can get away from having to deal with the government's rules like anti-discrimination and the separation of church and state. All so they can put the bar up right in homosexuals' faces.... He's a large roadblock to inevitable progress that wouldn't actually effect him
This is a good point, and it has really been like that since the founding of the country. Whether it be slavery, secession, denying women the right to vote, segregation... states rights doctrine has overwhelmingly functioned as a cover for the politicians to justify positions that are unpalatable and to prevent the rest of the country from dragging said state out of the previous century. Instead of being upfront and just saying "I don't want homos gettin' married", you instead use the euphemism 'I just want the states to be left alone to decide things for themselves'. Y'know, keep it subtle.

This is not to say that there are no states rights or that state governments do not in many circumstances handle specific issues better than the federal government, but I suspect the slavish, semi religious fetishism over states rights correlates fairly strongly with wanting to keep certain groups of people down.
Image
User avatar
Hamr
Boo
Boo
 
Posts: 632
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 15:44
Location: West Coast

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby HylianTom » 28 Apr 2012 02:19

My bottom line is this:
no one - Republican or Democrat - is going to adequately address the resource and sustainability issues we're going to be grappling with in the next decade or two. Oil and gasoline will continue to get more expensive, the economy will remain lukewarm at its very best, and fights over a seemingly simple thing like water are going to become more common around the globe. Our way of life is not sustainable. But we're going to keep on living like we do until we can't any more, and when reality forces us to stop, it's going to be downright ugly.

It isn't a pretty future.

So, I look to one issue that the candidates can touch: the Supreme cort. The appointees that a president puts on that cort sit there for decades, making gigantic, monumental decisions year after year. When I was born in '78, Gerald Ford's appointee, John Paul Stevens, had already been on the bench for three years.

Stevens finally stepped-down from the bench in 2010 - 36.5 years later.

cort appointees that are put onto the bench in this decade will potentially be there when I'm an old man, so although Obama might disappoint me in many ways, and although I won't agree with him on a handful of issues, he'll be gone in 5 years. His cort appointees - with whom I will almost surely agree 90% of the time - will be gone perhaps sometime around 2050, when I'm entering my 70s.

cort appointees from the GOP scare the bejeesus out of me. I'm a homo, I like the environment, and I'm weary of the government having too much police powers. Clearly, the guys they'd want to put-up are going to be hostile to my issues. I'd be an idiot to vote against myself in such a manner.

We're in for some very rough times in the next few decades. VERY rough. And I don't trust Republican nominees one bit to be making decisions on environmental laws, human rights issues, issues of police power, etc in such a difficult time frame.

That's where I stand.
(and is there a bug.. when I try to type "c-o-u-r-t" it shows-up as "cort." weird!)
Currently on: GoNintendo Webisode #354 ... Currently playing: Nothing! E3 Mode!
Image
{I love you, my Jake!}
User avatar
HylianTom
Flicky
Flicky
 
Posts: 51
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 02:38
Location: New Orleans, LA

Next

Return to Polls & Interactive Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users