2012 US Presidential Elections

[Lucifer the Wise]

[quote name='Comrade Trollestia' timestamp='1334206223' post='5911052']
Those are some really good descriptions.
[/quote]
But I'm not bitter

[JadenxAtemYAOI]

You forgot Ron Paul's racist newsletters.

[Simping For Hina]

Except no.
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are the peoples you should be caring about, and they are not even that great of candidates.
Republicans aren't stupid, they picked those people on purpose.

[JadenxAtemYAOI]

[quote name='Daemon' timestamp='1334373873' post='5913018']
Except no.
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are the peoples you should be caring about, and they are not even that great of candidates.
Republicans aren't stupid, they picked those people on purpose.
[/quote]
Gingrich: Hater of gays, open racist, anti-gay marriage, pro-life, adulterer, and copyright infringement.
Paul: Lying racist, anti gay marriage, and pro-life.
Romney: Pro-Gay marriage, not racist, coin flipper on abortion, white-collar politician.

So basically we it is.
Gingrich: KKK
Paul: KKK
Romney: Victim of KKK

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='JadenxAtemYAOI' timestamp='1334375248' post='5913048']
Gingrich: Hater of gays, open racist, anti-gay marriage, pro-life, adulterer, and copyright infringement.
Paul: Lying racist, anti gay marriage, and pro-life.
Romney: Pro-Gay marriage, not racist, coin flipper on abortion, white-collar politician.

So basically we it is.
Gingrich: KKK
Paul: KKK
Romney: Victim of KKK
[/quote]

Sounds like someone's a little bitter. ^.^

I could just as easily say Obama is trying to push some Socialist agenda, is anti-religious freedom, and wants to kill us all.

I could, but that would be bullsh**.

By the way, Ron Paul may be insane, but taking one racist's quote out of a newsletter that Ron Paul did not write/say and using that as grounds to dismiss someone as a lying racist isn't exactly logical. The KKK was a group of white supremists that[b] murdered[/b] people. Using it as a insult is going a tad overboard.

[Clair]

[i]I[/i] want Obama to win. It's his last term and he'll try harder to get s*** done.

That's my two cents, anyways.

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='Clair' timestamp='1334422220' post='5913534']
[i]I[/i] want Obama to win. It's his last term and he'll try harder to get s*** done.

That's my two cents, anyways.
[/quote]

Try is a very large word.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything really getting done. People continue to squable over social matters and refuse to compromise while ignoring the economy. But hell, a vote for Romney is essentially a vote for empty space, so I can't argue with ya there.

[Lt. Colonel Remo]

the only problem with letting Obama have a second term is that historically (for the most part at least), presidents do worse in their second term than in their first.

However, I'm not opposing the idea that he might push for more of the farther left ideas in his second term than in his first

And he still seems more rigid than the man who is whatever we want him to be at the time

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Ron Paul or Mickey Mouse. Try disagreeing with me on either of them, kids.

[FTW (For The Wynn)]

[quote name='Clair' timestamp='1334422220' post='5913534']
[i]I[/i] want Obama to win. It's his last term and he'll try harder to get s*** done.

That's my two cents, anyways.
[/quote]
I wish this were true. More often than not, presidents on second term relax more because they won't be re-elected. I cannot say this will be true of Obama, however.

[Lunar Origins]

...Religion? In my [i]politics[/i]?

nty

[Lt. Colonel Remo]

[quote name='Katniss Everdeen' timestamp='1334096606' post='5909318']
Newt Gingrich is a completely and utter waste of oxygen. He is down in the dirt of the Republican party and talks like he is gods gift to conservatives when in fact his policies are completely foolish and obligatorily dumb. He has a six figure tab in Tiffany and Co. and named a Porn company "Entrepeneur of the Year".
[/quote]
I think I should point out that it was Newt Gingrich (when he was Speaker of the House) who came up with the plan to balance the budget during Clinton's administration

So before you interject your personal feelings into it, you should probably look up some of these useful things called facts and base the presidential candidate off of those. [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1334069514' post='5908979']
This election is going to boil down to whether we want a President who, in most economist's eyes, has stopped the economy from tanking at the expense of tripling our deficit, or whether we want a President whose capabilities in handling this recession are undocumented and vague. I just can't find common ground with Romney; it makes sense that I disagree with him socially, but even economically I'm going towards Obama (or, just centrists in general).
[/quote]
I'm not really sure if Obama is really that much better economically

Seeing as Bush (in his [u]eight[/u] years through 2 simultaneous wars) got us 9 trillion dollars while Obama (in about 4 years whilst attempting to end one war and push through the other one) took us another 6 trillion

How much of that 6 might be some aftershock of Bush I cannot say, but economically, Obama isn't anywhere near that potential, and with the Buffet rule being a last ditch attempt to look good (it only really takes about 1% off the deficit, not very feasible) you can tell that he's pretty much riding on the two sided nature of Romney and the supreme court decision to really save himself (and Osama I suppose). Not to mention the fact that he still failed to close Guantanamo, even though it was of the big things he was running on back in '08.

[Dark]

[quote name='JadenxAtemYAOI' timestamp='1334375248' post='5913048']
Gingrich: Hater of gays, open racist, anti-gay marriage, pro-life, adulterer, and copyright infringement.
Paul: Lying racist, anti gay marriage, and pro-life.
Romney: Pro-Gay marriage, not racist, coin flipper on abortion, white-collar politician.

So basically we it is.
Gingrich: KKK
Paul: KKK
Romney: Victim of KKK
[/quote]

I don't think you understand the difference between an "open" something and a "closeted" something. For example, I'm an open atheist. If someone asks me if I believe in a god or gods, I will say no. Some people think Obama is a closeted atheist. If someone asks him whether he believes in a god or gods, he might waver, claim to be a monotheist, give credit to multiple theories, et cetera. He does not openly state that he is an atheist. So when you claim that Gingrich is an open racist, you are implying that he would answer in the affirmative to a question directly asking him if he is a racist or not. And that is just stupid. You could claim he is a racist, sure, but he most assuredly isn't "open" about it.

I don't know when Ron Paul lied or when Ron Paul made racist remarks, but from what I've seen of him in debates and news appearances, he is not at all racist. But, humor me - go ahead, show me the disputed racist comments that Ron Paul made. Oh, and just in case you haven't watched the old Republican debates, please watch them - you'll find that, time and time again, Ron Paul mentions how blacks are over-represented in our jails and that we need looser drug laws to protect minorities, as well as our nation in its entirety. So even if I cede that Ron Paul was racist in the 80s and the 90s , you can't for a second say that he's racist [i]now.[/i]

Romney is pro-gay marriage?

[url="http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Gay_Marriage/"]http://www.thepoliti...s/Gay_Marriage/[/url]

"[color=#3C3D3F][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(236, 236, 236)]I believe we should have a federal amendment in the constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and woman."[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#3C3D3F][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(236, 236, 236)]"[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#3C3D3F][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(236, 236, 236)]My opponent said she would sign a bill in favor of gay marriage, I said I would not. I said that I opposed same-sex marriage."[/background][/size][/font][/color]

There may be some quotes in the beginning that how hesitation on Romney's part, but I took these quotes from the very end, the [i]modern[/i] quotes. So, no, Romney is not in favor of gay marriage, and I don't understand why you'd say something like that.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but your logic that Romney flip-flopping on abortion is at a higher level of morality than being strictly pro-life is stupid. At least Gingrich and Paul have the guts to say their opinions without bound, and at least they stay consistent with their own morals. Romney might claim his position "evolves" over time, but if you'll look at his record - especially with abortion - you'll find that key "evolutions" in his position came right before key elections. Now, I'd love someone pro-choice as President, but not if he's so immoral as to twist his own positions to be elected to office in the first place. It's morally reprehensible.

And I don't understand how anything on your list other than racism and gay marriage has anything to do with the Ku Klux Klan. I don't think the KKK killed abortion doctors in their time, Or were adulterers. You know, just throwing that out there. And I further don't understand how Romney is a victim of the Ku Klux Klan. Is it because he's Mormon? Well, I'm sorry to say, Mormonism is a pretty kooky religion. And unfortunately for politicians these days, according to Gingrich, we have to derive our morals from religion, otherwise there isn't any place left from which to derive them! Because, you know, logic doesn't really exist (for Republicans).

[quote name='Comrade Trollestia' timestamp='1334422406' post='5913536']
Try is a very large word.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything really getting done. People continue to squable over social matters and refuse to compromise while ignoring the economy. But hell, a vote for Romney is essentially a vote for empty space, so I can't argue with ya there.
[/quote]

No one is ignoring the economy - it's the fact that Republicans in Congress are blocking all of Obama's measures to fix the economy, and Democrats in the Senate and the White House are blocking all of the Republicans' measures to fix the economy. And by "fix", I really mean "attempt to fix". Until people understand that we're wasting billions of dollars in oil subsidies, that supply-side economics won't work in this day and age, and that we can't balance the budget by cutting spending [i]and[/i] cutting taxes, we can't function. I'm all for standard capitalism, but deregulation of corporations, at least in the state that we're in, would lead us [i]away[/i] from capitalism.

The sad part is that while the Democrats are (accused of) spending too much time tackling social issues, the Republicans just inherently don't give a damn about the middle class. And if you'd like to argue against that, I can cite every single piece of proposed legislation, all of which would benefit corporations and their heads. And, considering that we've empirically proven that supply-side economics doesn't work, that money is going to sit at the top of the social pyramid until we end up like Greece.

[quote name='iRemo' timestamp='1334423107' post='5913542']
the only problem with letting Obama have a second term is that historically (for the most part at least), presidents do worse in their second term than in their first.

However, I'm not opposing the idea that he might push for more of the farther left ideas in his second term than in his first

And he still seems more rigid than the man who is whatever we want him to be at the time
[/quote]

[url="http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012"]http://www.political.../uselection2012[/url]

I don't care how left he moves in this second term, it won't be left enough. We're a one-party state where there are two factions that have [i]minute[/i] differences over a few social issues.

And if you'd like to make the claim that the whole country has moved to the right, that would mean that all of the candidates are either still to the right, they are left of the center, or perhaps Obama is left and Romney is right. But if that third case is true, they are both centrists and there isn't much of a difference, anyway.

Also, keep in mind that I don't expect the Democrats to win back the House any time soon, so Obama can't really get any legislation passed should he win a second term.

[quote name='GodWynn' timestamp='1334476136' post='5914313']
I wish this were true. More often than not, presidents on second term relax more because they won't be re-elected. I cannot say this will be true of Obama, however.
[/quote]

The exact opposite is true. Every decade or so, we get someone advocating for a one-term, six-year President. The logic is that in a two-term, eight-year President, the first two years are spent getting used to the job, the second two years are spent campaigning, the third two years are often muddled by a difference in ideology between Congress and the White House due to midterm elections, and the fourth two years are the only years where things actually get done. Obama is likely to, if by some stroke of magic the Democrats win the House, push a far more liberal agenda because he doesn't have to appease the Republicans or the centrists. The point is that, because he doesn't ever need to worry about campaigning again, he can push his own ideology - and from what we've seen during his 2008 campaign, he's a sizably liberal man.

[quote name='Hanako Ikezawa' timestamp='1334510614' post='5914613']
...Religion? In my [i]politics[/i]?

nty
[/quote]

No, but this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideology, and our Founding Fathers were all some denomination of Christianity, [i]and[/i] if you don't allow religion in politics, you're stepping on our First Amendment rights. You disgusting liberals - now you're making it so Christians can't speak in the public square of [i]their own damn country[/i]. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Clair]

^ How long do those posts take you to write exactly?

[Lt. Colonel Remo]

[quote name='Clair' timestamp='1334515215' post='5914712']
^ How long do those posts take you to write exactly?
[/quote]
5 years

Exactly 5 years

[Dark]

They take [i]at least [/i]ten minutes, considering I missed iRemo's post.

What you don't understand about the deficit is that almost all of it is coming from Bush's Presidency. Obama had to inject money into the economy twice (QE1 and QE2 - look them up) to, arguably, stop the economy from failing altogether. The two wars we're in, one of them which is entirely unnecessary, are a direct result of Bush's actions, and regardless of Obama's wanting to leave, we simply can't. Not only do Republicans cite our "national defense" as a key issue, but love wars since they directly give money to their lobbyist defense contractors.

If Congress was filled with Democrats, I would be on your side - I would be attacking Obama left and right (no pun intended) for failed policies, for a lack of economic understanding, and for general lack of progress. The problem is that even if Obama wants to change our fiscal budget to give less money to defense, even if Obama wants to raise taxes for the rich and end corporate tax loopholes, and even if Obama wants to push an ever-so-slight Progressive agenda, he simply [i]can't[/i]. And the people stopping him are the Republicans in Congress.

But, despite all of this, I'm not saying I want to elect Obama. I'm saying that, of the two choices of Obama and Romney, he is [b][i]clearly[/i][/b] the lesser of two evils. I would love to have another Ralph Nader sprout from somewhere, but this country is too conservative to accept that sort of candidate.

I'll leave you all with a final thought:

When the economy was failing in 2009, 2010, and part of 2011, the immediate blame went to Obama. Even after Republicans took control of the House, a majority (if not all) of Republicans took the opportunity to bash Obama's terrible economic policy, and cite their own records of improving the economy.

In the past few months, the economy has been growing, albeit slowly. The futures are in the positives most of the days, job creation is happening (but last month was a bit slow), and many economists agree that the quantitative easings prevented another "Great Depression"-like event. So, the immediate credit should be placed with Obama, right? For some Republicans, the answer is a negative. To them, the economy is looking five or six months down the road and [i]predicting[/i] a Republican takeover of the government. That's why the futures are up and why we're in a better position than 2008 or 2009. I don't need to say how categorically incorrect that is, but it just gives you some insight into the minds of conservatives in this country. They don't have to use facts or speak logically - as long as they rule this country, none of that really matters.

[FTW (For The Wynn)]

And it seems that this is what we are again left with. The lesser of two evils.

I'm not sure if any of you remember the elections in 2000. Even my memory of them is sketchy being a kid and all. But, I remember all of the recounts. It seemed like there was a new recount every few days, and it kept going until finally they said that Bush had won. But, a lot of ballots ended up "missing".

So, don't think people won't go out of their way to influence elections. Even people higher up will do what they must to be in control.

[Tentacruel]

I dunno if you could call Romney "evil" per se. Well he probably is, but...


I don't think he would f*** things up neccesarily, but he just seems like a person who doesn't care about America.

Obama, while I'm on the other side as him on social issues (I suppose, Obama is pretty loose on social issues), I think he'd be better for the economy than Romney.

Unfortunately Republicans are ALL CAPS RAEGING and would vote for Satan if he was the Republican candidate.

[Lucifer the Wise]

[quote name='iRemo' timestamp='1334512276' post='5914636']
I think I should point out that it was Newt Gingrich (when he was Speaker of the House) who came up with the plan to balance the budget during Clinton's administration

So before you interject your personal feelings into it, you should probably look up some of these useful things called facts and base the presidential candidate off of those.
[/quote]
The only thing I interjected into it was logic. Newt Gingrich perpetrated over 80 ethics violations as Speaker of the House. He divorced his wife after cheating on her while she had cancer.
Its funny how these past 20 years have been.
After George H. W. Bush utterly failed in the economy by using the same mundane policies of the Reagan years, people began to look on the Liberal side of things and suddenly our shining light Bill Clinton came along and saved our asses (Along with Newt Gingrich's budget plan which was watered down because democrats dominated congress at the time). Now with the Democrats pproducing good results you would think they would choose another democrat for president like what happened after Reagan right? No. In fact we got a Texas conservative who won the presidency amid controversy. Hilarious if you ask me.

[Greiga]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/uYzfN.jpg[/img]

I'll take my warn in order to say that this is arguably the best we have. But I'm willing to give Obama his 2nd term in order to finish up stuff.