2012 Election Thread

[Desireful 21]

Who do you think should be the next president of teh USA? Debate awayyy

Edited August 11, 2012 by Desireful

[delred 3]

Defiantly Obama, I may not be American but this would seem to me the best way to go.

[William Howard Taft 81]

Neither. Obama can't rally his own party and he can't compromise with the TEA Party. Romney's an idiot and probably can't compromise with the Democrats should he become president.

 

0/10 would not vote for either.

 

Not to mention this is the most negative campaign in recent history. So yeah, I'm not really interested in voting for any major candidate.

[Leo 157]

I'd prefer Obama; keeps the balance of power in check between rightish and center wings in North America.

[Sobend 950]

Neither. Obama can't rally his own party and he can't compromise with the TEA Party. Romney's an idiot and probably can't compromise with the Democrats should he become president.

 

0/10 would not vote for either.

 

Not to mention this is the most negative campaign in recent history. So yeah, I'm not really interested in voting for any major candidate.

I pretty much agree. I might even write in Ron Paul. Still interested in the debates though. If one candidate does well I might change my mind.

 

What are you guys' thoughts on Paul Ryan as VP? Do you like the move? Will this help Romney? Will he even play a role in the election?

[Conspicuous 196]

If i was an American I would vote Obama just so that moron/idiot Romney doesn't take power

[Phoenix Rider 221]

Obama. The lesser of two evils folks. Waaaay less.

 

BTW, is this gonna be our official 2012 Elections thread?

Edited August 11, 2012 by Phoenix Rider

[William Howard Taft 81]

Neither. Obama can't rally his own party and he can't compromise with the TEA Party. Romney's an idiot and probably can't compromise with the Democrats should he become president.

 

0/10 would not vote for either.

 

Not to mention this is the most negative campaign in recent history. So yeah, I'm not really interested in voting for any major candidate.

I pretty much agree. I might even write in Ron Paul. Still interested in the debates though. If one candidate does well I might change my mind.

 

What are you guys' thoughts on Paul Ryan as VP? Do you like the move? Will this help Romney? Will he even play a role in the election?

I've probably already mentioned here that I plan on voting for Gary Johnson. My reasoning is that firstly he has a very good set of policies he wants to enact (and a more realistic approach than, say, Ron Paul) and I think that if he were for some reason elected, he would get stonewalled by both parties causing the more radical elements of each (for i.e., Cantor, Pelosi, Reid) to get the boot, which would be a massive benefit to the country as a whole.

 

I have no interest in voting against people. That's how democracy meets its downfall.

[Desireful 21]

Obama. The lesser of two evils folks. Waaaay less.

 

BTW, is this gonna be our official 2012 Elections thread?

Mkay. Sounds good to me.

[Fredashay 53]

I'm undecided between Boxxy and Vermin Supreme...

[Sobend 950]

Neither. Obama can't rally his own party and he can't compromise with the TEA Party. Romney's an idiot and probably can't compromise with the Democrats should he become president.

 

0/10 would not vote for either.

 

Not to mention this is the most negative campaign in recent history. So yeah, I'm not really interested in voting for any major candidate.

I pretty much agree. I might even write in Ron Paul. Still interested in the debates though. If one candidate does well I might change my mind.

 

What are you guys' thoughts on Paul Ryan as VP? Do you like the move? Will this help Romney? Will he even play a role in the election?

I've probably already mentioned here that I plan on voting for Gary Johnson. My reasoning is that firstly he has a very good set of policies he wants to enact (and a more realistic approach than, say, Ron Paul) and I think that if he were for some reason elected, he would get stonewalled by both parties causing the more radical elements of each (for i.e., Cantor, Pelosi, Reid) to get the boot, which would be a massive benefit to the country as a whole.

Well my idea of voting for Ron Paul was more of a protest vote more than anything. Nobody besides Obama and Romney has a chance of winning. If I had to handpick who would be the next president, I would have to think it over a bit more.

 

On the topic of write ins, Matt Dillon for county sheriff?

[William Howard Taft 81]

I have no interest in voting against people. That's how democracy meets its downfall.

1000x this.

 

Why are we stuck in a two party system full of idiots?

 

That is why, imo. We stopped voting for leaders, we stopped voting for people we believe in. We've started voting for people who stand a chance of winning. Some people call it realism, but I call it an abdication of social responsibility.

Well, it's not even that. It's that the two major parties crimp out the bare minimum candidate they can.

 

Keep in mind that Eisenhower and Kennedy were both big-ticket party candidates.

[Mr Summers 4]

Does the US have a law that bans corporation/ businesses from donating? Okay, I'm guessing that's too far fetched, is there at least some sort of a cap? I recall McCain proposing some sort of campaign contributions cap for businesses

[thepope1322 399]

In regard to the presidential election, ask me after the RNC is over.

 

Does the US have a law that bans corporation/ businesses from donating? Okay, I'm guessing that's too far fetched, is there at least some sort of a cap? I recall McCain proposing some sort of campaign contributions cap for businesses

 

Not directly, but that's what PACs are for. Those are organizations that are not officially affiliated with the campaign but promote the candidate nonetheless. While there's a donation limit for the official campaign, anyone can contribute anything to a PAC.

Edited August 11, 2012 by theking1322

[Arianna 750]

Is either going to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat?

 

Oh

 

Then neither, thank you

[William Howard Taft 81]

In regard to the presidential election, ask me after the RNC is over.

 

Does the US have a law that bans corporation/ businesses from donating? Okay, I'm guessing that's too far fetched, is there at least some sort of a cap? I recall McCain proposing some sort of campaign contributions cap for businesses

Not directly, but that's what PACs are for. Those are organizations that are not officially affiliated with the campaign but promote the candidate nonetheless. While there's a donation limit for the official campaign, anyone can contribute anything to a PAC.

And in that vein, restricting the ability of PACs to spend is probably the most important thing, ultimately. We can kill overlobbying with some pretty simple reforms really.

[William Howard Taft 81]

In regard to the presidential election, ask me after the RNC is over.

 

Does the US have a law that bans corporation/ businesses from donating? Okay, I'm guessing that's too far fetched, is there at least some sort of a cap? I recall McCain proposing some sort of campaign contributions cap for businesses

Not directly, but that's what PACs are for. Those are organizations that are not officially affiliated with the campaign but promote the candidate nonetheless. While there's a donation limit for the official campaign, anyone can contribute anything to a PAC.

And in that vein, restricting the ability of PACs to spend is probably the most important thing, ultimately. We can kill overlobbying with some pretty simple reforms really.

But what lobbyist I mean congressman (well what's the difference, I guess) would ever go for that!

Add it to a super-long bill.

 

That's what all the cool kids do these days.

[reepicheep 324]

To be quite honest, it seems to me like neither would really matter. Romney is just going to adjust to whatever other people want from him and Obama is probably still going to change very little things that actually matter (although he won't be up for re-election anymore so he won't have to please voters). The whole two-party system is, quite frankly, ridiculous, and it'll prevent any real changes because the US will just swing between Republican and Democratic, no party really changing anything.

 

Perhaps I'm being too cynical?

[error404 23]

Why does the USA still use the electoral college? I'd rather use our crappy first past the post than that system.

 

However, that's besides the point; I'd go for Obama, definitely.

[William Howard Taft 81]

As far as Romney is concerned, a lot of people have already been throwing around Medicare as the best attack against Paul Ryan.

 

If that's the best the Democrats have against Paul Ryan, they're in for a long game. Ryan modified his Deficitgate-era plan with the help of Ron Wyden that results in a public-option/voucher hybrid system for Medicare that beats the hell out of what we're headed for right now.

 

Also, Obama calls for bigger cuts to Medicare than Romney does. So you'll have to pardon my skepticism when someone says that Medicare is a good attack plan against Romney at this point.

 

Edit for some sources: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/11/why-the-democrats-mediscare-attack-wont-work-against-paul-ryan/

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/lanny-davis/217469-wyden-ryan-plan-deserves-a-look

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-ron-wyden_n_1768495.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

 

While these are all opinion articles, they themselves are well-sourced.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Georgia Sparkle

[Desireful 21]

As far as Romney is concerned, a lot of people have already been throwing around Medicare as the best attack against Paul Ryan.

 

If that's the best the Democrats have against Paul Ryan, they're in for a long game. Ryan modified his Deficitgate-era plan with the help of Ron Wyden that results in a public-option/voucher hybrid system for Medicare that beats the hell out of what we're headed for right now.

 

Also, Obama calls for bigger cuts to Medicare than Romney does. So you'll have to pardon my skepticism when someone says that Medicare is a good attack plan against Romney at this point.

 

Edit for some sources: http://www.forbes.co...inst-paul-ryan/

 

http://thehill.com/o...deserves-a-look

 

http://www.huffingto...=elections-2012

 

While these are all opinion articles, they themselves are well-sourced.

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan

Ryan's father died when Paul was only 16. Using the Social Security survivors benefits he received until his 18th birthday, he paid for his education at Miami University in Ohio...

[_Zj 43]

I wish I could just start a new country and be done dealing with American stupidity. This place is fubar.

I would go there.

 

Instead of segregating by race or religion we should segregate by intelligence. Leave the dummies behind.

[thepope1322 399]

I would go there.

 

Instead of segregating by race or religion we should segregate by intelligence. Leave the dummies behind.

 

I hate this attitude, it reeks of hubris and arrogance. Just because you're able to think independently doesn't make you Einstein.

 

(This, by the way, is something that Reddit hasn't realized yet)

[error404 23]

I would go there.

 

Instead of segregating by race or religion we should segregate by intelligence. Leave the dummies behind.

 

I hate this attitude, it reeks of hubris and arrogance. Just because you're able to think independently doesn't make you Einstein.

 

(This, by the way, is something that Reddit hasn't realized yet)

Wouldn't it be better if there was a place where the unintellegent simply did not exist? I can't see them having an overall positive impact on society.

Define the unintelligent. When people become more intelligent, then there's bound to be some people who lag behind. Also, take into account people with learning difficulties.

[error404 23]

I would go there.

 

Instead of segregating by race or religion we should segregate by intelligence. Leave the dummies behind.

 

I hate this attitude, it reeks of hubris and arrogance. Just because you're able to think independently doesn't make you Einstein.

 

(This, by the way, is something that Reddit hasn't realized yet)

Wouldn't it be better if there was a place where the unintellegent simply did not exist? I can't see them having an overall positive impact on society.

Define the unintelligent. When people become more intelligent, then there's bound to be some people who lag behind. Also, take into account people with learning difficulties.

The people who do what they're told without question. The people who don't approach problems with critical thinking. People who can take seemingly unrelated issues and use them to explicate a current situation. Although it's difficult to pin down an exact definition, I'm sure you get the vibe. It's not so much what you know in my books, but how you approach problems.

 

(And thanks for the spellcheck.)

It's slightly subjective though, irrelevant issues can be relevant to some minds. If you go down to the core of the human purpose, it is to breed; therefore should our quest for the knowledge of space be abandoned? I can understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure if you're using the right words. Then again, neither can I.