• 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!

2012 Poll for those who do not want to vote for Obama [again]....

Who would you most likely support?

  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 13 34.2%
  • Sarah Palin

    Votes: 2 5.3%
  • Newt Gingrich

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • Gary Johnson

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Bobby Jindal

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Mike Huckabee

    Votes: 2 5.3%
  • Jeb Bush

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Paul Ryan

    Votes: 2 5.3%
  • Other conservative or libertarian candidate

    Votes: 9 23.7%

  • Total voters
    38
I got in an argument with my dad during 2008 because he said, "If she doesn't get the nomination this time, she won't run again. It's her only chance."
I asked why, and he said, "She'll be too old in 2012."
I was like, "She's not that old, she's only like sixty."
And he said, "For a woman, that's too old. Nobody would vote for her."

I hope that's not true. I mean, what, do you have to look like Sarah Palin to run for president?

We haven't exactly come a long enough way, have we. :sigh: It saddens me that people feel this way about a perfectly vital woman. Considering women tend to live longer than men, 60 is pretty great for a female politician.
 
A question for people who blasted Obama on experience: Do you think Paul is experienced enough to be president, seeing as he's never held office higher than Congressman?

What positions are "higher" than Congressman?
 
I'd rather vote for Colin Powell than for any of the other choices presented.
 

I don't consider being an executive of a state to be higher than a legislator on a national level. While I agree that a governorship is excellent for executive experience in preparation of being a President, a governor has to focus more on state issues rather than national issues. This can make governors rather provincial in their policies - that is, what they think was good for their own state will be good for the whole country. However, the whole nation has a greatly diverse demographic, and the President represents all of them despite being the one man at the top level of the national executive.

This, I think, national legislators would have a better understanding of. Our Congressmen and Senators have to work together and debate with each other on national issues, and much of it get done through compromise and understand (though not necessarily agreement) of the other side. So I think our Congressmen and Senators have a better understanding of national issues than governors do.

So I would prefer legislators with national experience over exeuctives who have nothing higher than state-level experience.
 
I don't consider being an executive of a state to be higher than a legislator on a national level. While I agree that a governorship is excellent for executive experience in preparation of being a President, a governor has to focus more on state issues rather than national issues. This can make governors rather provincial in their policies - that is, what they think was good for their own state will be good for the whole country. However, the whole nation has a greatly diverse demographic, and the President represents all of them despite being the one man at the top level of the national executive.

This, I think, national legislators would have a better understanding of. Our Congressmen and Senators have to work together and debate with each other on national issues, and much of it get done through compromise and understand (though not necessarily agreement) of the other side. So I think our Congressmen and Senators have a better understanding of national issues than governors do.

So I would prefer legislators with national experience over exeuctives who have nothing higher than state-level experience.

I completely disagree. The executive experience trumps the exposure to national issues. The reality is that it is the staff of those representatives, Congressman, Senator, or Governor, that hold all the knowledge about the issues. After all the campaigning and doing favors for the high-end donors, a politician has little time to be educated on the issues, other than bullet points.
 
I completely disagree. The executive experience trumps the exposure to national issues.

I don't think so. The interests involved in executing the laws of a state pale in comparison to the interests involved in executing the laws of a nation. When you are governor, it is easier to ignore some groups in favor of the interests of your state. When you are the President, you are the sole executive representative for your supporters as well as for your detractors. That changes the whole ball game and requires more of a compromising touch than what a governor requires.

The reality is that it is the staff of those representatives, Congressman, Senator, or Governor, that hold all the knowledge about the issues. After all the campaigning and doing favors for the high-end donors, a politician has little time to be educated on the issues, other than bullet points.

I don't argue that, and in fact when it comes to the Presidency I prefer those who have worked in federal executive departments and agencies to Congressmen and Senators for this reason, that they get executive experience on a national level, but I prefer Congressmen and Senators over governors.
 
I don't think so. The interests involved in executing the laws of a state pale in comparison to the interests involved in executing the laws of a nation. When you are governor, it is easier to ignore some groups in favor of the interests of your state. When you are the President, you are the sole executive representative for your supporters as well as for your detractors. That changes the whole ball game and requires more of a compromising touch than what a governor requires.

That's nonsense. A governor has to lead the entire population of the state, supporters and detractors both, as well. And we see little of a compromising touch at the level of the Presidency as well. Two items in support: executing the war in Iraq and the Healthcare Bill.
 
That's nonsense. A governor has to lead the entire population of the state, supporters and detractors both, as well. And we see little of a compromising touch at the level of the Presidency as well. Two items in support: executing the war in Iraq and the Healthcare Bill.

That's because political parties prefer to those who are uncompromising despite the will of the common people, and this is why we have harsh pendulum swings in politics rather than stable centrist compromise. Also, the current Democratic President is continuing the war in Iraq that the Republican President before him started, and the Healthcare Bill is a matter of compromise within Congress, not the President.
 
the current Democratic President is continuing the war in Iraq that the Republican President before him started

Thank the Lord for that. It is his only redeeming quality. Finish it right, for once.

the Healthcare Bill is a matter of compromise within Congress, not the President.

Don't be coy. You know the president drives a lot of the negotiations, or lack thereof, in that debate.
 
Don't be coy. You know the president drives a lot of the negotiations, or lack thereof, in that debate.

That may be the case. But laws are still written by Congressmen and Senators. I think it's disingenuous to blame the President for signing into law the bills that get passed by Congress. It's for those reasons why Presidents don't get re-elected but we continually get the same unpopular Congressmen and Senators into office - they just pass the buck over to someone else the responsibilities that the office of Congressmen or Senator they themselves have taken on are responsible for.
 
Last edited:
That may be the case. But laws are still written by Congressmen and Senators. I think it's disingenuous to blame the President for signing into law the bills that get passed by Congress. It's for those reasons why Presidents don't get re-elected but we continually get the same unpopular Congressmen and Senators into office - they just pass the buck over to someone else the responsibilities that the office of Congressmen or Senator they themselves have taken on are responsible for.

The same is true of responsibility for the economy turning south (though not for the government funded recovery...)
 
The same is true of responsibility for the economy turning south (though not for the government funded recovery...)

You're right. I don't put any blame on the government for the downturn of the economy. I'm not going to cast my votes based on that either. The economic practices of American citizens has changed greatly in the past 3 years, despite what the government does. The government and businesses will have to adapt to those practices, and the sooner they do so the sooner our economy will become more functional.
 
You're right. I don't put any blame on the government for the downturn of the economy. I'm not going to cast my votes based on that either. The economic practices of American citizens has changed greatly in the past 3 years, despite what the government does. The government and businesses will have to adapt to those practices, and the sooner they do so the sooner our economy will become more functional.

We keep running into each other this morning! Nice exchanges, Sam.
 
We keep running into each other this morning! Nice exchanges, Sam.

Yeah, it's because I have the morning off for once. :) Very good back-and-forth indeed.
 
Really? A year, you say. Do tell.

Paul can't win. He's too weird. Romney is the country's only hope. He would fix the econ etc in a year.
 
Where's Hillary? Dems need some options here!
 
2016, maybe, especially if she takes VP Biden's place. The Democrats are not going to abandon the Messiah.
I could certainly see that. Things would have to get much worse (i.e. certain defeat) for her to run against him in 2012.

Who's the most promising fascist candidate for 2012? ;)
 
You don't vote for Fascists, silly. :kitty:
 
I voted for Christie! Or other on the poll.

Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom