• 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!

Who will you vote for in the 2012 presidential election...

Who will you vote for in the 2012 Presidential Election?


  • Total voters
    113
There has been a 3rd party in every election since the fifties and they have not won squat..........Sadly Perot in 92 took the presdidency away from BHWB.
Correct, they have not. That's the standard response from those who fail to grasp the concept that voting for the status quo... if they don;t like the status quo... is tacit approval of the status quo. Voting for something or someone you do not approve of is not only insane, it perpetuates the problem. The person who votes for someone they do not really want becomes part of the problem.
 
Some of the rich fruit by the King of the 1% during the GOP primary has been harvested:



Oh my, this is a great Mitt Romney ad! Obama camp shot it's foot with this one! But it is so funny how it tries to claim that the Ryan plan would end Medicare. :lamo
 
Paul Ryan’s Plan to End Medicare As We Know It -- Version 2.0

"Even though 70% of Americans support keeping Medicare as it is, Chairman Ryan's new budget proposal would again seek to end Medicare as we know it. This time, he has proposed creating a two-tiered system that would replace the current structure of guaranteed benefits with a voucher for seniors to use to purchase either private insurance or traditional Medicare. Although he will claim that this new version protects Medicare in name, the fact is that it would fatally undermine the program.

Fact: The Ryan plan still raises costs for seniors.

The Ryan plan would cap vouchers - or premium support payments - for individuals at growth levels that are lower than the existing increases in health care costs. CBO indicates that the plan would cut future spending by $5,900 per senior, and could lead to higher out-of-pocket expenses and diminished access to quality care. Unless Congress intervened, seniors would be forced to pay out-of-pocket to make up the difference.
The amount of the voucher would be equal to the second-least costly plan available in a given area, meaning that in high Medicare-cost areas seniors would have to pay out-of-pocket to stay in traditional Medicare.

Fact: The Ryan plan still severely weakens traditional Medicare.

In Chairman Ryan's own words he admits, "...we are stopping the open-ended, defined benefit system." In other words, Paul Ryan's voucher system will end Medicare's traditionally guaranteed benefits structure.
Although the plan calls for private benefits to be actuarially similar to those offered by Medicare, private insurers would not be required to offer standardized benefits - opening the door to insurance companies skimming the healthiest beneficiaries from the market.
Under Chairman Ryan's plan, traditional Medicare would risk taking on the sicker beneficiaries. If Medicare wasn't properly compensated it would have to raise premiums, driving away even more healthy beneficiaries and setting off a premium spiral that could unravel the program.

Fact: The Ryan plan still exposes seniors to the profit-making whims of insurance companies.

Henry Aaron, considered one of the "fathers" of the premium support model, and health economist Austin Frakt, have argued that Republican attempts to embrace premium support "lack safeguards for beneficiaries. They threaten to shift costs to the elderly and disabled and force them to shop for coverage in a confusing insurance market."
In order to protect seniors in a voucher system, private insurance offerings would have to be highly regulated and strictly limited - requirements not contained in Chairman Ryan's plan.

Chairman Ryan's latest idea isn't much more popular than his last one - only 25% of those polled expressed support for the idea. However, there isn't much hope that the GOP will end its assault on Medicare any time soon. In Chairman Ryan's own words, "We're just going to keep doing it and doing it..."

Paul Ryan’s Plan to End Medicare As We Know It -- Version 2.0 | Democratic Policy & Communications Center
 
Life must be easy when one doesn't need to use their brain, but only needs to copy and paste from partisan sources.
 
There has been a 3rd party in every election since the fifties and they have not won squat..........Sadly Perot in 92 took the presdidency away from BHWB.

And was the last time a 3rd party candidate was invited to the Presidential Debates. Coincidence?
 
Correct, they have not. That's the standard response from those who fail to grasp the concept that voting for the status quo... if they don;t like the status quo... is tacit approval of the status quo. Voting for something or someone you do not approve of is not only insane, it perpetuates the problem. The person who votes for someone they do not really want becomes part of the problem.

This is exactly the dynamic and why I will not vote for the Republocrats and instead endorse third party candidates.
 
Yes, because voting the status quo all these years has worked so well for us.

I cannot fathom how people somehow believe that we can change the status quo through supporting the status quo.
 
I cannot fathom how people somehow believe that we can change the status quo through supporting the status quo.

Voting for one of the 'big two' for president is not supporting the status quo. It is picking the lesser of two evils. Which must be done to minimize damage while a third party
comes up into the system, first locally, state, then into the legislature. They can not just jump in and take the white house. That's crazy talk.

So once the election results are in, I will know you voted for whoever the winner is, based on throwing away a vote.
 
Voting for one of the 'big two' for president is not supporting the status quo. It is picking the lesser of two evils. Which must be done to minimize damage while a third party
comes up into the system, first locally, state, then into the legislature. They can not just jump in and take the white house. That's crazy talk.

So once the election results are in, I will know you voted for whoever the winner is, based on throwing away a vote.

The system has been set by those "lesser of two evils" against third party participation. Thus political competition has been stifled. Meanwhile you continue to vote for the party which has driven us to this current spot through decades of rule. I will not have voted for whomever wins, I will have voted for the candidate who best echoes my political beliefs and platforms and the candidate who I feel is the best and most qualified for the position. Not some trite “we have to vote for the lesser of two evils!!” logic. The whole “throw your vote away” mantra is an idiotic argument at best; downright dangerous to the proliferation of the Republic at worse. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Now, if you come up with an intelligent argument I may hear you out. But till then, keep the propaganda to yourself.
 
The system has been set by those "lesser of two evils" against third party participation. Thus political competition has been stifled. Meanwhile you continue to vote for the party which has driven us to this current spot through decades of rule. I will not have voted for whomever wins, I will have voted for the candidate who best echoes my political beliefs and platforms and the candidate who I feel is the best and most qualified for the position. Not some trite “we have to vote for the lesser of two evils!!” logic. The whole “throw your vote away” mantra is an idiotic argument at best; downright dangerous to the proliferation of the Republic at worse. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Now, if you come up with an intelligent argument I may hear you out. But till then, keep the propaganda to yourself.


You didn't read a single word I typed, did you?

For a valid third party to ever have any hopes of changing things, by gaining power, they must start small. All of the 3rd parties out there will NEVER win the office of president until they have a substantial following and have people of that party in government throughout the nation. So yes, until you achieve that, voting for 3rd party candidates at the level of president is wasting your vote. Pure and simple.
 
You didn't read a single word I typed, did you?

Can't say it was worth the time.

For a valid third party to ever have any hopes of changing things, by gaining power, they must start small. All of the 3rd parties out there will NEVER win the office of president until they have a substantial following and have people of that party in government throughout the nation. So yes, until you achieve that, voting for 3rd party candidates at the level of president is wasting your vote. Pure and simple.

System is rigged against political competition. You can continue with such ignorant propaganda as "you're throwing your vote away", but I will not support the continued destruction of the Republic. Pure and simple.
 
Can't say it was worth the time.

System is rigged against political competition. You can continue with such ignorant propaganda as "you're throwing your vote away", but I will not support the continued destruction of the Republic. Pure and simple.

By not working to promote a 3rd party and get them to the point of viability, you are supporting the continued destruction of the Republic.
 
By not working to promote a 3rd party and get them to the point of viability, you are supporting the continued destruction of the Republic.

I'm pretty involved in local and grassroots movements to promote 3rd party inclusion into the system. Is there any more foot you'd like to put in your mouth, or are you full?
 
I'm pretty involved in local and grassroots movements to promote 3rd party inclusion into the system. Is there any more foot you'd like to put in your mouth, or are you full?

Which party have you got into power all over the place?
 
Which party have you got into power all over the place?

It's a hard row to hoe. Only a few local places here and there, but with the system so well designed against political competition it's pretty tough.

Why are you moving the goal posts? Can't actually stand to the debate? Didn't think so.
 
It's a hard row to hoe. Only a few local places here and there, but with the system so well designed against political competition it's pretty tough.

Why are you moving the goal posts? Can't actually stand to the debate? Didn't think so.

Ah, a non answer and diversion... Jolly good.
 
Ah, a non answer and diversion... Jolly good.

What do you mean a non-answer? The second sentence has your answer. Why are you just making things up now?
 
What do you mean a non-answer? The second sentence has your answer. Why are you just making things up now?

Not tracking well? A non answer to the question you responded to: "Which party have you got into power all over the place?"
 
Not tracking well? A non answer to the question you responded to: "Which party have you got into power all over the place?"

Why are you changing the goal posts. You first said this had to be done at the local level, now why is it "all over the place". And as I said, not many. The system is well set up against political competition so as for successful campaigns it has only been a few.

And why do you keep making **** up? This has nothing to do with what we were originally talking about. You keep moving the goal posts because you kept making idiotic arguments and putting your foot in your mouth. Poor show, go get some intellectual integrity and come back.
 
I said that it needed to start locally and move up through the levels. You said you were doing it. I asked which party you were supporting and getting into power. No moving the goal posts. Merely a continuation of the conversation.

But when asked you jumped all over the place in order to not answer a simple question.

I realize you probably don't want to say, because you have NOT supported a third party, and thus have not worked to get anyone from such a party elected. Or it is a very extremist party and you don't want to admit to it. Talk about a lack of intellectual integrity...
 
Paul Ryan’s Plan to End Medicare As We Know It -- Version 2.0

"Even though 70% of Americans support keeping Medicare as it is, Chairman Ryan's new budget proposal would again seek to end Medicare as we know it. This time, he has proposed creating a two-tiered system that would replace the current structure of guaranteed benefits with a voucher for seniors to use to purchase either private insurance or traditional Medicare. Although he will claim that this new version protects Medicare in name, the fact is that it would fatally undermine the program.

Fact: The Ryan plan still raises costs for seniors.

The Ryan plan would cap vouchers - or premium support payments - for individuals at growth levels that are lower than the existing increases in health care costs. CBO indicates that the plan would cut future spending by $5,900 per senior, and could lead to higher out-of-pocket expenses and diminished access to quality care. Unless Congress intervened, seniors would be forced to pay out-of-pocket to make up the difference.
The amount of the voucher would be equal to the second-least costly plan available in a given area, meaning that in high Medicare-cost areas seniors would have to pay out-of-pocket to stay in traditional Medicare.

Fact: The Ryan plan still severely weakens traditional Medicare.

In Chairman Ryan's own words he admits, "...we are stopping the open-ended, defined benefit system." In other words, Paul Ryan's voucher system will end Medicare's traditionally guaranteed benefits structure.
Although the plan calls for private benefits to be actuarially similar to those offered by Medicare, private insurers would not be required to offer standardized benefits - opening the door to insurance companies skimming the healthiest beneficiaries from the market.
Under Chairman Ryan's plan, traditional Medicare would risk taking on the sicker beneficiaries. If Medicare wasn't properly compensated it would have to raise premiums, driving away even more healthy beneficiaries and setting off a premium spiral that could unravel the program.

Fact: The Ryan plan still exposes seniors to the profit-making whims of insurance companies.

Henry Aaron, considered one of the "fathers" of the premium support model, and health economist Austin Frakt, have argued that Republican attempts to embrace premium support "lack safeguards for beneficiaries. They threaten to shift costs to the elderly and disabled and force them to shop for coverage in a confusing insurance market."
In order to protect seniors in a voucher system, private insurance offerings would have to be highly regulated and strictly limited - requirements not contained in Chairman Ryan's plan.

Chairman Ryan's latest idea isn't much more popular than his last one - only 25% of those polled expressed support for the idea. However, there isn't much hope that the GOP will end its assault on Medicare any time soon. In Chairman Ryan's own words, "We're just going to keep doing it and doing it..."

Paul Ryan’s Plan to End Medicare As We Know It -- Version 2.0 | Democratic Policy & Communications Center

You crack me up dude!
 
I said that it needed to start locally and move up through the levels. You said you were doing it. I asked which party you were supporting and getting into power. No moving the goal posts. Merely a continuation of the conversation.

But when asked you jumped all over the place in order to not answer a simple question.

I realize you probably don't want to say, because you have NOT supported a third party, and thus have not worked to get anyone from such a party elected. Or it is a very extremist party and you don't want to admit to it. Talk about a lack of intellectual integrity...

There was no jumping. I have been rather active with the Libertarian Party for a while, which is why I will also likely vote Libertarian in the National election as well. I don't understand why you are claiming that I haven't said any of it. Did you even look at my lean? I have been arguing quite consistently for libertarianism for a long time now. I can’t exactly hold your hand on absolutely everything; I expect that you can use your brain, yes? Then do so.

I can talk about intellectual integrity since I have lots of it. I've answered all your questions in full and to satisfactory levels. You've been trying to back out of this ever since you ran your mouth and paid the consequences for having done so. You started bitching because I’m voting third party in the national election.

You tried to show me up by stating not participating at the local level will lead to the destruction of the Republic. I told you I do. And once you got your foot out of your mouth, you once again put it in there by then stating “oh who did you get put in all over the place” mantra. Never mind the logical leap from saying I have to participate on the local level to now trying to place a different constraint of “all over the place”, I answered your question. Now you’ve been stood up again, so what is your recourse? Lie. Say I didn’t answer it when I clearly did. And you’ve stuck with that weak ass line for a few posts now.

Sorry guy, you went up against someone you shouldn’t. You can’t beat me. As I said, get a little of that intellectual integrity and come back. I don’t care for childish arguments which push no philosophy or debate.
 
as it stands right now, i will probably vote for romney. obama is ineffective due to such opposition against him. it doesn't matter if he is good at his job as president, people will oppose him because of personal dislike. romney doesn't have.this baggage and may have a chance to fix our issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom