• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If the Presidential Election was today, which pair would you vote for?

Choose Now:

  • Total voters
    58
So I have to choose between two guys who have no principles, habitual liars and are owned by big banks.

F this, im voting third party. It can work if the amount of people who are disgusted with the choices come to an agreement on who that candidate will be.
 
pbrauer said:
Romney isn't going to pick Cain, that would almost like McCain picking Sarah Palin. Get over it.
Click to expand...

You mean a smart decision that significantly bolsters his candidacy?

I'd think Cain would not be unlike that entirely.

I'm honestly unsure if I'd cast it 3rd party or for Romney and Cain at this point if that was the ticket. I'd need to see something out of Romney during the campaign to make me vote for him .
 
If I were elgible to vote in the USA and if the election were today, I would not vote because I am expecting the vote to be in November 2012. :doh

.
 
Gina said:
I don't see that YS said anything like that (the bolded). I won't argue for her, but for myself, assuming that a significant number of people won't think like you is ridiculous. It's all over the media, blogs and forums.
Click to expand...

I mean that whether or not I personally vote has no bearing on whether or not 50,000 other people vote. They're going to do what they want regardless of what I do. The marginal impact of my vote is essentially nil, if we assume that the reason for voting is to influence the outcome of the election. (Granted some people vote for other reasons, but I got over the warm-and-fuzzy feeling of good citizenship a long time ago. ;))

I heard it tonight while listening to coverage of the Wall St. protests. Someone said they were looking for a far-left candidate and otherwise they wouldn't vote.

Great. With thinking like that, one might as well vote for who ever the Republicans finally agree to.
Click to expand...

If those protesters are voting in New York or New Jersey (as most of them probably are), then it really doesn't matter if they vote for a far-left candidate because it will have no bearing on the election. Those states are voting for the Democrat anyway.
 
Gipper said:
Mellie defined my position on the first page. If America was ran like a business, it would be so much more efficient and better.
Click to expand...

Disagree. America is NOT a business, and shouldn't be run like one. Governments can expand/contract the money supply at will, businesses cannot. Governments are responsible for providing public services which rarely turn a profit but are nevertheless necessary, whereas businesses can focus on making money. There are other differences but those are two of the biggest.
 
I find it absolutely crazy that anyone would want a failed lying bastard to spend another 4 years tying to wreck our Nation.

A recent poll says 55% of Americans do not like waht this idiot is doing.

What is it that Liberals don't get.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
I find it absolutely crazy that anyone would want a failed lying bastard to spend another 4 years tying to wreck our Nation.
Click to expand...

I would rather have the ENEMY I already know, than the ENEMY I don't, which is what Romney would be.
 
Redress said:
So you would take some one who has experience, but in something completely unrelated to the government, that operates on entirely difference principals, and has a completely different way of doing things, over some one who actually knows how the system works? And calling his plan "great" when it is vague and could never pass is amusing.
Click to expand...

The system is broken. Why keep electing people who know how to manipulate its flaws for their own benefit? It hasn't been working for either side for quite some time.
 
disneydude said:
Rubio will be the GOP VP choice....I guarantee it. The GOP needs Florida and they are going to need to go after the Latino vote. The only way that Rubio is NOT the GOP VP is if he declines it.
Click to expand...

Nope. Rubio says he wouldn't consider a VP nod. Says he didn't run for senate to get access to another job. Though I think he'd have been good.
 
tessaesque said:
Nope. Rubio says he wouldn't consider a VP nod. Says he didn't run for senate to get access to another job. Though I think he'd have been good.
Click to expand...

We will see what he says next summer. A ticket of Romeny & Rubio would be a very strong ticket that would really give Obama & Biden one hell of a race. Of course, if Romney gets the nod over strong rightwing populist objections and they decide to mount a serious third party effort - it could be really interesting.
 
Kandahar said:
Governments can expand/contract the money supply at will, businesses cannot.
Click to expand...

A measure used much too often. This is usually done through pressure of Keynesian economics to overcorrect simple fluctuations that I would call absolutely unnecessary. Something akin to using a Mac-10 on a housefly instead of a swatter.

Governments are responsible for providing public services which rarely turn a profit but are nevertheless necessary, whereas businesses can focus on making money. There are other differences but those are two of the biggest.
Click to expand...

Not everything a business does can be fisco-centric. You could pretend that the "business government" can use money for projects deemed market failures (i.e. national defense, infrastructure, etc.) as tax write-offs - much like businesses do with charitable contributions, marketing/advertising, and other aspects.

The main thing I want more business-like is accountability. If you can just expand and contract all willy-nilly, there's no incentive to be mindful with your money...and we can see what that leads to.
 
Redress said:
No I do not think. I see no evidence to back up that conclusion.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I've been saving these articles:


BBC News - Melbourne edges out Vancouver to top liveable city list

Note how there are no U.S. cities even in the top 10?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Look at our rank in life expectancy. It's even worse than our infant mortality ranking, which is behind Cuba. The below ranking is one of those things where the higher the worse.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...tes&countryCode=us&regionCode=noa&rank=176#us

One out of 6 Americans in poverty? That's not good

BBC News - Number of Americans in poverty hits record high

We're being left behind in innovative fields. We used to be the forefront of science and technology in all areas.

BBC News - Tevatron atom smasher shuts after more than 25 years


Sure, we still have the strongest military in the world (because we spend way more on it than any other country) but does that really make up for everything else? I don't think so.
 
Redress said:
Actually, remember the cold war? Our style of government against theirs? Remember who won?
Click to expand...

So why are we moving toward the style of government that we defeated in the Cold War; and why are you defending the pair that most seeks to move us in that direction?
 
Voltaire X said:
I'm glad I've been saving these articles:


BBC News - Melbourne edges out Vancouver to top liveable city list

Note how there are no U.S. cities even in the top 10?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Look at our rank in life expectancy. It's even worse than our infant mortality ranking, which is behind Cuba. The below ranking is one of those things where the higher the worse.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html?countryName=United States&countryCode=us&regionCode=noa&rank=176#us

One out of 6 Americans in poverty? That's not good

BBC News - Number of Americans in poverty hits record high

We're being left behind in innovative fields. We used to be the forefront of science and technology in all areas.

BBC News - Tevatron atom smasher shuts after more than 25 years


Sure, we still have the strongest military in the world (because we spend way more on it than any other country) but does that really make up for everything else? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Interesting set of links. Too bad it does not address the issue of the US as a superpower. Nor does it suggest we are getting worse.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
So why are we moving toward the style of government that we defeated in the Cold War; and why are you defending the pair that most seeks to move us in that direction?
Click to expand...

Oh for gods sake, people need to learn what the **** socialism is before they even begin to discuss it.
 
Redress said:
Oh for gods sake, people need to learn what the **** socialism is before they even begin to discuss it.
Click to expand...

That's a typical tactic though --- sorta like if every time you used the world "capitalism" someone or many someone's chime in "People should learn what the hell Capitalism is before speaking about it" when in fact, it means many different things to many different people. There is no one legitimate view of any government methodology. How you interpret the vast amounts of material and failed real life socialist governments (or what was or is commonly call such) does not mean your view is the correct one, nor does it mean someone elses view is the incorrect one.

You nor anyone else owns the correct view of what is or is not socialism, communism or any 'ism for that matter, so just stop.
 
Redress said:
Interesting set of links. Too bad it does not address the issue of the US as a superpower. Nor does it suggest we are getting worse.
Click to expand...

It all depends what your definition of "superpower" is. Wikipedia says: "A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests." So I would agree that the U.S. is a superpower. The whole theme of my post was that we are declining, not that we have already fallen off the edge, and that being a superpower doesn't actually positively impact the life of the average American. Those articles are examples of how we have fallen from where we were 30 years ago.

I'm not saying that it will continue to get worse, maybe this is as bad as it will get, but it would be asinine to deny that this country is a lot worse off than it was in 2000.

Here are a few more links that may or may not illustrate my point:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2009529...ighway-system-badly-need-repair/#.To4CNslk31Q

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/04/usa.ewenmacaskill
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
That's a typical tactic though --- sorta like if every time you used the world "capitalism" someone or many someone's chime in "People should learn what the hell Capitalism is before speaking about it" when in fact, it means many different things to many different people. There is no one legitimate view of any government methodology. How you interpret the vast amounts of material and failed real life socialist governments (or what was or is commonly call such) does not mean your view is the correct one, nor does it mean someone elses view is the incorrect one.

You nor anyone else owns the correct view of what is or is not socialism, communism or any 'ism for that matter, so just stop.
Click to expand...

He did not offer a definition of socialism, and can you point to one definition where we are actually moving towards a socialist government?
 
Redress said:
He did not offer a definition of socialism, and can you point to one definition where we are actually moving towards a socialist government?
Click to expand...

It was enough for you to levy a criticism about someone not knowing what socialism is. :shrug:

I haven't made any claim in this thread other than criticizing you, and others who share your view, that supposedly have the only valid definition of what is or is not socialism. You're view and opinion is no more valid than someone else's so acting like you know the ultimate truth about what is and is not socialism and get to criticize others about their apparently lack of knowledge is invalid. It's an evasive tactic, that's all.
 
Ockham said:
It was enough for you to levy a criticism about someone not knowing what socialism is. :shrug:

I haven't made any claim in this thread other than criticizing you, and others who share your view, that supposedly have the only valid definition of what is or is not socialism. You're view and opinion is no more valid than someone else's so acting like you know the ultimate truth about what is and is not socialism and get to criticize others about their apparently lack of knowledge is invalid. It's an evasive tactic, that's all.
Click to expand...

So neither you nor he can back up his claim. That kinda makes your objection amusing.
 
Redress said:
So neither you nor he can back up his claim. That kinda makes your objection amusing.
Click to expand...

I could care less about his claim, and I'm commenting on your disingenuous reaction to it. It's amusing because I'm right.
 
Ockham said:
I could care less about his claim, and I'm commenting on your disingenuous reaction to it. It's amusing because I'm right.
Click to expand...

No. For you to be right, you would need a definition of socialism that is commonly accepted that is a description of where our government is headed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom