U.S. Presidential Election

[NuduL 20]

I always feel so confused when i watch presidential debates when one of the candidates is still president.

He's the president. Thats like talking to god. You dont talk over god. He'll kill your crops and make you kill your kids.

[Marine 2580]

Ron Paul 'nuf said.

I feel as if most people who randomly put his name out in the open in the election have no bearing whatever so ever on even half his legislation or views.

[ElectronicDrug 7496]

Ron Paul 'nuf said.

I feel as if most people who randomly put his name out in the open in the election have no bearing whatever so ever on even half his legislation or views.

Come @ me.

[OBrian 120]

Ron Paul 'nuf said.

I feel as if most people who randomly put his name out in the open in the election have no bearing whatever so ever on even half his legislation or views.

Come @ me

Agreed, voting for him as a fill in. Honestly every time Mitt speaks he constantly contradicts himself, its hilarious like watching stand-up. Obama on the other hand, like many others have pointed out is a bit too conservative for my liking. So regardless of his chances at winning, my vote will remain with Ron Paul. IF I even vote. Wayyy to lazy to register.

Edited October 17, 2012 by OBrian

[Skotti 2105]

Judge people by what they do, not by what they say.

In other news:

Edited October 17, 2012 by Skotti

[Goldentongue 3616]

Ron Paul 'nuf said.

I feel as if most people who randomly put his name out in the open in the election have no bearing whatever so ever on even half his legislation or views.

Come @ me

Agreed, voting for him as a fill in. Honestly every time Mitt speaks he constantly contradicts himself, its hilarious like watching stand-up. Obama on the other hand, like many others have pointed out is a bit too conservative for my liking. So regardless of his chances at winning, my vote will remain with Ron Paul. IF I even vote. Wayyy to lazy to register.

But Ron Paul barely gives half a shit about social issues, and has very conservative economic policies. Not to mention his social policies are pretty conservative compared to other libertarians, hence running inthe Republican primary. If you really wanted a libertarian, Gary Johnson is a much better choice.

[Spell 331]

Inb4 all the Canadians start talking about Gary Johnson.

What is wrong with Gary Johnson? Seems to me like a sensible guy. I know he is a third party candidate, but he brings some good stuff to the table.

Because he's under the impression that we can completely deregulate the economy and trust that corporations will act in the best interest of the general public.

Which is a pretty dumb assumption.

Like most libertarians, his policies are built on a fictional representation of society and human nature. Throughout history, and especially in the 21st century, industry has had just as much if not more potential as government to violate human rights, strictly control capital gain and personal wealth, and invade the personal lives of citizens.

For a more specific example, which I've mentioned before:

His environmental platform from Gary Johnson's website:

http://www.garyjohns...ues/environment

When it comes to the environment, the Federal government’s responsibility is no different than in other aspects of our lives. It is simply to protect us from those who would do us harm and damage our property.

In this case, unregulated industrial pollution is a threat to our well being and property through polluted soil, air, water, global warming, and other means. It has been for over a hundred years, and a staggering majority of powerful businesses have show they will push the limits and even break the laws with what they can get away with if being environmentally responsible costs them any sort of revenue.

Now, for the end of the paragraph:

The government should simply stay out of the business of trying to promote or “manage” energy development. The marketplace will meet our energy needs in the most economical and efficient manner possible – if government will stay out of the way.

This completely contradicts his previous statement and every single bit of experience we have with industry. Manufacturers will pollute without concern, and energy companies will chew up fossil fuels as fast as they can without putting any investment in developing cleaner alternatives.

He's out of touch with reality and his economic policies are even scarier versions of failed policies by republicans of the past.

QFT, couldn't have been said better.

I also wish that Obama was a little more liberal, but Romney isn't any better.

To be honest, unless you live in a swing state - your vote for the Presidential election has little to no impact in reality, as nice to say "every vote matters", in all honesty if you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas - your vote doesn't mean shit.

Fucking Florida, Always a Swing State

[Dojima 7619]

lmao @ people saying Obama's too conservative and preferring Ron Paul because of it.

[Super Novacaine 2228]

I live in California, so not like it even matters who I vote for anyway.

[Oreo 2073]

If I was American I'd vote Communist.

[media=]

On a serious note, interesting read on the budgets proposed by both sides;

http://www.forbes.co...-barack-obamas/

Politifact on debt accrued over Obama's term compared to Bush.

http://www.politifac...lf-time-george/

Edited October 18, 2012 by Oreo

[Mitch 2111]

Politifact on debt accrued over Obama's term compared to Bush.

http://www.politifac...lf-time-george/

That article is inaccurate because it doesn't take into account the laws Bush signed that would take place in Obama's presidency (tax cuts, budget reforms, etc.,).

[Goldentongue 3616]

Politifact on debt accrued over Obama's term compared to Bush.

http://www.politifac...lf-time-george/

That article is inaccurate because it doesn't take into account the laws Bush signed that would take place in Obama's presidency (tax cuts, budget reforms, etc.,).

Ezra Klein to the rescue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/28/republican-national-convention-the-one-graph-you-need-to-see-before-watching/

[Oreo 2073]

Politifact on debt accrued over Obama's term compared to Bush.

http://www.politifac...lf-time-george/

That article is inaccurate because it doesn't take into account the laws Bush signed that would take place in Obama's presidency (tax cuts, budget reforms, etc.,).

Did you miss this part or something?

Further, as noted in the prior PolitiFact piece, much of the debt results from policies set under past presidents and lawmakers. So, the blame falls on both parties.

"It’s true. They both contributed," said Ron Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Budgeting for National Priorities Project. "I'm not too worked up about attributing 27 percent to this and 36 percent to that. But, the fact is that both presidents (Obama and George W. Bush) were irresponsible. We’re seeing the impact of that now."

You might as well say that for every other Presidency, they've all had people before them that passed different things that would affect the economy in every way. The article even acknowledges former presidential policies that affected the debt.

If anyone is wondering about the official spending amounts over the past four years, this is a link about it:

http://www.weeklysta...ncy_654846.html

Links lead to GPO and treasury documents with data.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Oreo

[Toxygen 1885]

Oreo get the fuck out, you're retarded.

[Mitch 2111]

Politifact on debt accrued over Obama's term compared to Bush.

http://www.politifac...lf-time-george/

That article is inaccurate because it doesn't take into account the laws Bush signed that would take place in Obama's presidency (tax cuts, budget reforms, etc.,).

Did you miss this part or something?

Further, as noted in the prior PolitiFact piece, much of the debt results from policies set under past presidents and lawmakers. So, the blame falls on both parties.

"It’s true. They both contributed," said Ron Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Budgeting for National Priorities Project. "I'm not too worked up about attributing 27 percent to this and 36 percent to that. But, the fact is that both presidents (Obama and George W. Bush) were irresponsible. We’re seeing the impact of that now."

You might as well say that for every other Presidency, they've all had people before them that passed different things that would affect the economy in every way. The article even acknowledges former presidential policies that affected the debt.

If anyone is wondering about the official spending amounts over the past four years, this is a link about it:

http://www.weeklysta...ncy_654846.html

Links lead to GPO and treasury documents with data.

You sound like a typical republican with their head shoved too far up their ignorant ass. Fortunately, I know you're better than this.

Leaving the Clinton Presidency, our country was in a surplus, even when Clinton signed laws that took place under Bush's presidency (he signed a few laws increasing federal spending for general welfare and a couple tax adjustments here and there iirc). The big picture is that under Clinton's policies, we were making more money then we were spending and we were only at an approximate debt of 15% of our GDP, which could have easily been paid off if we wanted to do so. The Clinton presidency (as much as I didn't like him for cheating on his wife), from an economic standpoint did everything that was right and that was needed of it for this country.

The Bush Presidency did some radical changes mainly because they had both control of the Executive Branch and Congress, passing laws that would cut taxes greatly for people who made more than $250,000 a year. Take a look at the graph in the article that GT posted, Bush's policies, taking into consideration the ones that have already been enacted and the ones that will be enacted, contributed nearly 45% of the debt we're seeing right now.

He is also the one who sent us to war at Iraq and Afghanistan, he's also the one who thought it was the greatest fucking idea to not only INCREASE SPENDING (war), but to CUT TAXES. When you increase your spending and cut your taxes, that's a plan that's destined for debt.

Obama's bailout plan had minimal effect if any to our current national debt, the corporations we've bailed out now have nearly fully repayed all their debts. His recovery measures may not have been the best ideas, but at least they are helping those who need it the most (10% of the US population is unemployed and others). In retrospect, look at Bush - his economic policies only ended up benefiting those who were already well off.

No president in the history of the US has passed laws that would take in effect after presidency that had so many economic repercussions like Bush. Obama has done nothing wrong. Also, stop linking articles written by conservative authors, most of them are either ignorant or have no grasp of the political and economic factors that led us to where we are today.

Many of the Political Science professors at my school are conservatives. However, the one thing those professors agree is that the reason why we are in such a shithole as we are right now is because of Bush.

[Skotti 2105]

Oreo in every thread he tries to talk serious in:

[Longcat 126]

I'll be voting for Obama.

Economically: He's got us on the up and up since inheriting the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Jobless rates are getting lower, deficit growth is slowing. Obama has a known economic plan. Mitt Romney's plan still doesn't make sense. It cuts taxes across the board, increases spending in areas where nobody is even asking for it (Defense budget) and doesn't logically provide for any way to reduce a deficit. Less coming in than going out means you're losing money. He's just whispering sweet nothings in everyone's ears.

Foreign Policy: I do not want a zionist in office. Last time we did, we got into two wars, one of which was entirely unjustified. With Iran-Israel tensions on the rise, I want nothing to do with that, and to have a president who says "WE DEFEND ISRAEL NO MATTER WHAT" is a mistake, especially after the human rights atrocities Israel commits against Palestine. We do not need to go to war for them, and I'm perfectly happy with how Obama has and has not interfered with the different parts of the Arab Spring.

Social: Romney is yet another in a long line of GOP candidates who would love nothing more than to shove his beliefs down the throats of Americans. Women's control over their body is a threat to this guy, especially when it comes to abortions. I don't care when you think a life begins, you don't have the right to dictate that to another person. Gay marriage is also a huge issue. Romney is against gay marriage, yet another area in which he thinks he can legislate the decisions and lives of others who are behaving in a manner that has no effect on him or anyone else. Keep Obama in, keep gay marriage rights on the right path.

Supreme Court: There is a possibility that the next president will get to nominate up to 4 supreme court justices. In the past, this wouldn't have been an issue, but since the Reagan years, the Supreme Court has been less about real unbiased justice or proper interpretation of constitutional values and more about political lines. I'm terrified of the constitutional misinterpretations an outright conservatively dominated supreme court may hand down. Gay rights? Unconstitutional. Roe V Wade? Overturned. Businesses? People (Oh wait...).

So those are my reasons. There are many things Obama has done wrong during his presidency (NDAA, wiretapping, etc..) but as much as I wish there was a perfect candidate for America out there, there isn't. This is the best we have. Romney has flip flopped all over the place, you can check the fact checker websites. He tailors his viewpoints to whoever is listening. Super neo-con during the primaries, suddenly moderate during debates. The man can't make up his own mind or stick to his guns, is he really the guy you want in the oval office?

[Mitch 2111]

Romney is against gay marriage, yet another area in which he thinks he can legislate the decisions and lives of others who are behaving in a manner that has no effect on him or anyone else. Keep Obama in, keep gay marriage rights on the right path.

Is this like a hint at something Longcat

[Longcat 126]

Romney is against gay marriage, yet another area in which he thinks he can legislate the decisions and lives of others who are behaving in a manner that has no effect on him or anyone else. Keep Obama in, keep gay marriage rights on the right path.

Is this like a hint at something Longcat

Yup, I'm fighting your fight for you good buddy Level playing field for all people, regardless of any choice they make or way they are born. As long as that decision does not negatively impact another human being, I'm fine with it, Mitch. Smoke your pot, suck that dick, and get your abortions, you tranny motherfucker.

[Oreo 2073]

Dunno whats with all the bashing, i'm just posting information on the deficit and the economy for anyone interested. I never once took a stand or threw punches at Obama.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Oreo

[Windmill 1521]

Ron Paul 'nuf said.

I feel as if most people who randomly put his name out in the open in the election have no bearing whatever so ever on even half his legislation or views.

Come @ me

Agreed, voting for him as a fill in. Honestly every time Mitt speaks he constantly contradicts himself, its hilarious like watching stand-up. Obama on the other hand, like many others have pointed out is a bit too conservative for my liking. So regardless of his chances at winning, my vote will remain with Ron Paul. IF I even vote. Wayyy to lazy to register.

But Ron Paul barely gives half a shit about social issues, and has very conservative economic policies. Not to mention his social policies are pretty conservative compared to other libertarians, hence running inthe Republican primary. If you really wanted a libertarian, Gary Johnson is a much better choice.

I agree, mostly. I disagreed with most of his policies (most importantly the gold standard) but was still inclined to vote for him. Politicians say what will get them elected, but it seemed like Paul was an exception to that rule. It seemed much less likely that he would be just another man full of promises that puts his career and party before doing the right thing. Not only that, but the media seemed to hate him which I found very interesting.

As it stands, I have no faith in the US government.

edit: But, I will likely vote for Obama just because I don't want to see Mitt Romney in office. Am I the only one who finds Romney extremely creepy?

Edited October 18, 2012 by Windmill

[Avery 794]

Vermin Supreme.

[JFK 546]

Ron Paul 'nuf said.

I feel as if most people who randomly put his name out in the open in the election have no bearing whatever so ever on even half his legislation or views.

Come @ me

Agreed, voting for him as a fill in. Honestly every time Mitt speaks he constantly contradicts himself, its hilarious like watching stand-up. Obama on the other hand, like many others have pointed out is a bit too conservative for my liking. So regardless of his chances at winning, my vote will remain with Ron Paul. IF I even vote. Wayyy to lazy to register.

But Ron Paul barely gives half a shit about social issues, and has very conservative economic policies. Not to mention his social policies are pretty conservative compared to other libertarians, hence running inthe Republican primary. If you really wanted a libertarian, Gary Johnson is a much better choice.

But, I will likely vote for Obama just because I don't want to see Mitt Romney in office. Am I the only one who finds Romney extremely creepy?

[Dojima 7619]

HAHA, the title of that vid.

[fontaine 1744]

Dunno whats with all the bashing, i'm just posting information on the deficit and the economy for anyone interested. I never once took a stand or threw punches at Obama.

Don't worry, bashing is normal from Democrats on Republicans.

But really, I don't understand people some time. For example, check out this recent OBAMA-ENDORSED political ad:

Seriously, this looks like something that would be on SNL. It was hilarious. But why isn't Obama explaining WHY his plans are not working? It seems him and his campaign want to find any stupid thing to make a big deal out of to create a distraction (e.g. binders full of women - taken out of context of a seemingly innocent comment about women in the workplace). If someone from the past--who had no idea about Obama or Romney--watched the second presidential debate, it would appear that Obama was running for his first term. "We will", "we are going to", etc.

One of the biggest things that pissed me off in the 2nd debate was the participation of the moderator. Yes, yes, I agree, Obama did well in this debate. But come on, the whole "transcript" shit she pulled was out of line for a "supposed" neutral moderator.

Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day, but then refrained from labeling it a terrorist attack.

Source: http://factcheck.org...hofstra-debate/

And in this video, she said he was "right in the main, but may have picked the wrong word.":

[media=]

I'm not saying Romney won the debate, I just think some of the stuff that the moderator did was uncalled for.

Edited October 19, 2012 by fontaine