• 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!

What SHOULD BE the primary issue of the 2012 Presidential election?

What SHOULD BE the primary issue of the 2012 Presidential election?

  • Healthcare

    Votes: 4 9.1%
  • Jobs / Economy

    Votes: 24 54.5%
  • Immigration

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Social Issues (i.e.; abortion, gay issues, etc.)

    Votes: 3 6.8%
  • Foreign Policy (includes "war on terror", etc.)

    Votes: 2 4.5%
  • Foreign Policy (includes "war on terror", etc.)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 11 25.0%

  • Total voters
    44
  • Poll closed .
If enough people want more freedom, and a candidate that clearly details his positions on all issues, and explains the benefits of these positions, why not elect Gary Johnson? He's so very honest, kind, and smart. Barack Obama & Mitt Romney favor the 1% and will repay those huge contributors wasting trillions of tax dollars to give them whatever they want. Gary Johnson favors the 100% equally, and is not for sale, 100% trustworthy. Was very popular fiscally conservative 2 term guv of NM.
 
Excellent questions! Healthcare: I see the main problem is why is it so expensive & why doesn't it work better? Should anyone pay anything for so-called treatments that don't help? Legal cannabis with 100% tax (est $19/oz) would greatly reduce medical costs. 126 medical conditions identified where it sometimes works better than pills or operations.

Jobs/economy: Legal cannabis industry would provide jobs, plus savings of 90% for the 50 million admitted cannabis users would result in more money spent for other things. Gary Johnson would eliminate personal & corporate income taxes, replacing them with 23% nat'l sales tax that would likely exclude business to business, used, most food & very low income people. The rest of the Fed.
tax the 100% in cannabis. IRS & dept of Educ. eliminated. All other depts & prgms cut 43% (no favoritism). No more borrowing.

Immigration: middle ground & tax reform, welfare reform

Social issues: 100% equality, no hating. Re-legalize & put 100% tax on cannabis to raise double digit billions. Save $40+B a year by ending the phony war on some drugs. (brought to us by those whose drugs kill the most).

Foreign policy: diplomacy is a win-win situation. Elect peace. Peace is cheaper. Wars waste trillions we don't have, plus the loss of human lives. Kill a million, corporations make billions, costs taxpayers trillions.

Most who act like terrorists work for our govt, doing things like Patriot Act (unlimited warrantless spying on Americans) & NDAA (any American can go to prison for life w/out charges). They hate the Constitution and without it no rights are guaranteed (Gary Johnson would end Patriot Act & NDAA).
This is what Gary Johnson wants. To those who support Obama or Romney instead, do you support the opposite of above? And if so, why? Thanks!
 
The primary issue should be the following:

why are most American voters so monumentally stupid (politics-wise)?

Clearly both candidates are pathetic in the extremis and offer nothing but negatives to America's future.
 
The primary issue should be the following:

why are most American voters so monumentally stupid (politics-wise)?

Clearly both candidates are pathetic in the extremis and offer nothing but negatives to America's future.

Welcome to the Mexican soap opera we call American politics.
 
Wonder what kinda soap opera Mexican politics resembles in that case.

Mexico is more like the movies:

220px-Fast_and_Furious_Poster.jpg

MV5BMTQ5NzI3OTQ3NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODczMjMzMQ@@._V1._SY317_CR4,0,214,317_.jpg

220px-Blow_poster.jpg
 
What SHOULD BE the primary issue of the 2012 Presidential election?

  1. Healthcare
  2. Jobs / Economy
  3. Immigration
  4. Social Issues (i.e.; abortion, gay issues, etc.)
  5. Foreign Policy (includes "war on terror", etc.)
  6. Character
  7. Other

What will be, and what should be, may end up being the same. Time will tell.

Labor
char/10
 
The President can take a stance on it and call for legislation but he can't just do it. We are electing a President in a democracy, not a dictator in a totalitarian state.

Surely you realize by working towards fixing the economy, we allow more innovation which could permit more "green" technology - the same technology you seem to long for so dearly.

I agree the POTUS can't reverse climate change. Perhaps not even humanity can now stop what has been set in motion. But there is a moral imperative to try because billions of lives are on the line. The press ignores the crisis and most politicians exhibit cowardice.

As to economics, I believe the main problems are political rather than purely economic. For example if we had fully funded federal elections and nonprofit news reporting about those elections, we would have a chance to drastically reduce corporate welfare and American imperialism, two of the biggest drains on the economy.
 
I agree the POTUS can't reverse climate change. Perhaps not even humanity can now stop what has been set in motion. But there is a moral imperative to try because billions of lives are on the line. The press ignores the crisis and most politicians exhibit cowardice.

As to economics, I believe the main problems are political rather than purely economic. For example if we had fully funded federal elections and nonprofit news reporting about those elections, we would have a chance to drastically reduce corporate welfare and American imperialism, two of the biggest drains on the economy.

The press ignores the crisis? I hear and read stories daily about it.
 
The press ignores the crisis? I hear and read stories daily about it.

It'd true that I see more stories in the summer. However, what I meant by ignoring the crisis was not a blackout of coverage, but rather the quality of the coverage. For a long time journalists have misreported the story by pretending there are two sides to the story. That is like the pretense that there are two sides on evolution. There is scientific consensus on both issues, outlier crackpots notwithstanding. This false coverage is why the public is not in complete agreement with the scientific community regarding climate change. And why the public doesn't understand the current state of scientific consensus:

"These generalizations are based on a series of Yale University studies over the last few years. According to Yale, Americans’ belief in global warming fell from 71 percent in November 2008 to just 57 percent in January 2010 but rebounded to 66 percent by this spring. The findings mirrored those of the National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change, which showed belief in global warming bouncing from 65 percent in 2009 to 52 percent in 2010 and back up to 62 percent this year.
What accounts for the rebound? It isn’t the economy, which has thawed only a little. And it doesn’t seem to be science: The percentage of respondents to the Yale survey who believe “most scientists think global warming is happening” is stuck at 35 percent, still way down from 48 percent four years ago. (The statement remains just as true now as it was then—it’s the public, not the scientists, that keeps changing its mind.)"

Global warming and the weather: Americans believe in climate change again
 
It'd true that I see more stories in the summer. However, what I meant by ignoring the crisis was not a blackout of coverage, but rather the quality of the coverage. For a long time journalists have misreported the story by pretending there are two sides to the story. That is like the pretense that there are two sides on evolution. There is scientific consensus on both issues, outlier crackpots notwithstanding. This false coverage is why the public is not in complete agreement with the scientific community regarding climate change. And why the public doesn't understand the current state of scientific consensus:

"These generalizations are based on a series of Yale University studies over the last few years. According to Yale, Americans’ belief in global warming fell from 71 percent in November 2008 to just 57 percent in January 2010 but rebounded to 66 percent by this spring. The findings mirrored those of the National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change, which showed belief in global warming bouncing from 65 percent in 2009 to 52 percent in 2010 and back up to 62 percent this year.
What accounts for the rebound? It isn’t the economy, which has thawed only a little. And it doesn’t seem to be science: The percentage of respondents to the Yale survey who believe “most scientists think global warming is happening” is stuck at 35 percent, still way down from 48 percent four years ago. (The statement remains just as true now as it was then—it’s the public, not the scientists, that keeps changing its mind.)"

Global warming and the weather: Americans believe in climate change again

The same people that deny evolution are probably going to deny global warming. They deny science consistently, I guess. :shrug:
 
Jobs. It should be about jobs. Republicans ran on "jobs" in 2010 and they have spent 2 years trying to repeal Obamacare, and have done squat about jobs. What a waste of time and money. Expect more of the same if they continue to keep the House.
 
Deficit reduction.
 
I don't believe it's the role of a supposedly capitalist system government to interfere with economic realities, so as long as we cling to that notion of not being socialist, I'm going to say that protecting minority rights and national security is its "sacred trust." Sadly they can't accomplish the former at all, and the latter requires 54% of tax revenue or whatever apparently.

I'm predicting there will be a single question at the debates on SSM/gay rights, a single question on racial profiling re: illegal immigration *maybe* and no question on reducing the insane defense budget. Trying to do something, anything, about climate change kind of falls under national security, yet again I'm predicting a single question and probably no comments from either candidate during the campaigns.
 
The biggest issue needs to be how best to restore the Bill of Rights.
 
Fat chance with either major candidate.

Gary Johnson would do it - but he has virtually no chance.

Gary Johnson doesn't have millions of dollars to buy TV time to play half truths and outright lies. How can he possibly win?
 
Gary Johnson doesn't have millions of dollars to buy TV time to play half truths and outright lies. How can he possibly win?
I am afraid it's worse then that...I honestly believe the average American voter does not have enough political common sense/courage to appreciate Gary Johnson (or Ron Paul).
 
A true Libertarian, without a sizable number of Congress members to back them up, would be pretty ineffectual in office, anyway. Wouldn't necessarily have to be a majority, but at least a sizable minority.
 
A true Libertarian, without a sizable number of Congress members to back them up, would be pretty ineffectual in office, anyway. Wouldn't necessarily have to be a majority, but at least a sizable minority.

He'd still have the bully pulpit. I think we'd find a lot of libertarians among us if the philosophy were to be known for what it is.
 
He'd still have the bully pulpit. I think we'd find a lot of libertarians among us if the philosophy were to be known for what it is.
To hear a few select liberal friends of mine tell it, the bully pulpit is overrated. The big bad Republicans constantly thwart all the rainbows and unicorns that Obama wants to shower us with.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I do have some friends that think that way. I'm just, ummm... paraphrasing. Yeah, that's it. Paraphrasing. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom