• 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
Mellie said:
A man who understands the free market and is proven to be a great leader in bringing back a company from bankruptcy winning the presidency is a pessimistic thought?

You do realize your optimistic conclusion is the guy who has dug us deeper in our hole, right? This is the guy who has never been a leader of a company and doesn't have a clue how to run even a small business.... you actually want HIM to be in charge of an entire country's economy for 4 more years? Really?
Click to expand...

There is a large, unsubtle difference between understanding the free market, and understanding how to run a business.
 
Mellie said:
A man who understands the free market and is proven to be a great leader in bringing back a company from bankruptcy winning the presidency is a pessimistic thought?

You do realize your optimistic conclusion is the guy who has dug us deeper in our hole, right? This is the guy who has never been a leader of a company and doesn't have a clue how to run even a small business.... you actually want HIM to be in charge of an entire country's economy for 4 more years? Really?
Click to expand...

Umm... Romney's job was essentially taking over companies, eliminating jobs, and then reselling the companies to make profits. That sounds like a great plan for President.
 
I'm not voting for Obama either.
 
Is it really down to Obama/Biden vs. Romney/Cain? I'm thinking that'll be a close race, and I don't mean that in a good way. I continue to be uninspired. President Obama hasn't said anything useful since 2008. Biden's become a pariah even in his own party. Neither Romney nor Cain stick out from the pack, although I'd be happy with either one as VP. Is this the best the US has to offer?
 
VP Cain.

I love it.

He can go yell at homeless families: "Go build yourself a house, and pay some taxes!!"
 
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...

I couldn't disagree with you more. Words have meanings, often well-defined meanings. Some small details might be squabbled over, but you can't say socialism doesn't have a fixed meaning. I can't point at a ham sandwich and say "that's socialism!". I can't play a round of golf and say "i'm playing socialism". People might argue over whether exact examples are socialism, but that's applying the definition of a term, not arguing over the term itself. Socialism is a political theory where essential property is owned by the community as a whole. That is the definition of socialism, that's what the original people who invented the word meant (to describe a group of French communes, for those of you playing along at home), and the word hasn't been redefined in any major ways since. If someone is using the word to refer to anything other than a political system of community ownership, they're using the word wrong. I can't call America a socialist state because it isn't. I can say it has elements of socialism, but that's different.

Now if you excuse me, I had a big dinner, I need to take an Ockham.
 
Gipper;1059851833 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 said:
What the hell are you even talking about? Businesses donate to charities because the government bribes them, a business government couldn't bribe itself. And advertising increases profit, so that's not relevant here. The purpose of a business is to make money. If they can make money by screwing me over, they'll do it. A government needs to serve its consititients however possible (what that entails is a whole different policy debate we can have another time), even if it doesn't make a profit. Simply put, a business-government isn't going to do anything that doesn't make it richer, it's just not what its designed to do. Unless you're talking about a government corporation of course, but i somehow doubt you are.

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.
Click to expand...
A government is, on some level, responsible to its voters (look at how much the tea party has changed the debate). A company is responsible mainly to its shareholders. I doubt I'd have money to be a shareholder, so I'd rather not have a plutocracy.
Click to expand...
 
Obama wins re-election by a wide margin. (33 to 20) All Hail Obama!

 
It's his evil drunk uncle, Tim Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom