Which Presidential Candidate Do You Plan to Vote for?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Which Presidential Candidate Do You Plan to Vote for?

  • Barack Obama (Democrat)

    Votes: 149 56.0%
  • Mitt Romney (Republican)

    Votes: 60 22.6%
  • Gary Johnson (Libertarian)

    Votes: 22 8.3%
  • Jill Stein (Green)

    Votes: 8 3.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 3.0%
  • Not eligible to vote or don't plan to vote

    Votes: 19 7.1%

  • Total voters
    266

QofQuimica

Seriously, dude, I think you're overreacting....
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
18,899
Reaction score
4,290
I'm in the mood to discuss religion and politics, but we'll just settle for politics this month. Feel free to explain your reasons here, but please play nice when discussing your political views.

I'm going to vote for Romney. Not that I have a great love for him, but the one thing I agree with Obama about is that it's time for a change. :hungover:

Members don't see this ad.
 
Going to be voting for Obama. I'm not in love with him either, but feel he has better ideas for the country then his opponent. Main reasons why are I am more aligned with Obama's tax plans ( though I feel 250k is to low and would prefer to see something like 750k with a bigger percentage increase then letting the bush tax cuts expire), and I don't want to see any progress we made with healthcare be eroded without any other kind of plan in place ( I have yet to see any alternative from Romney). Healthcare wise I would like to see a single payer system for everyone's basic needs, with insurance picking up dental and elective surgery.
 
Wake me up for the religion discussion. I like my social conflict laced with existential questions and the quaint romance of history. Corporate shenanigans over which suit will run PR for the Board of Directors is to boring to warrant participation. My only hope is that the blood that must refresh our tree of liberty doesn't begin to spill until I've lived out most of my quiet days in the shire, sipping a hobbit's ale and smoking my pipe.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The GOP's vision for the future absolutely frightens me and while I'm no fan of the Democrats either, they are the only other game in town. Remember, 30 years ago, Obama would have been a conservative Republican. Compared to the 80s, Reagan today would be a very liberal Democrat.
 
The GOP's vision for the future absolutely frightens me and while I'm no fan of the Democrats either, they are the only other game in town. Remember, 30 years ago, Obama would have been a conservative Republican. Compared to the 80s, Reagan today would be a very liberal Democrat.

what is the GOPs vision for the future you are talking about?
 
I'm in a hardcore blue state so the last time I voted, I wrote in Ted Nugent. I think this election I'll go with a dead president.

cj8
 
what is the GOPs vision for the future you are talking about?

Less regulation especially in the financial sector, lower taxes, gutting of social programs, expansion of the military, repeal of ACA without any viable backup other than tort reform.

Basically, the GOP wants to double down on the GWB presidency instead of actually trying to solve the nation's problems. Romney's positions are no different than what GWB did for 8 years and look how well that worked out.

BTW, you mentioned the deficit, but not a single GOP member has put out a sensible budget that actually addresses the budget. The CBO has analyzed many of these budgets and none of them do what they purport to do. Basically, the deficit today is the result of three things, the Bush-era tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was the first time in American history we had several tax cuts pushed through during wartime and it absolutely crushed our budget.
 
I'm voting Obama. Not happy about it, but I, in no shape or form, can support anything about the Republican Party. They are turning us into a nation of the corporations, for the corporations, by the corporations. I lost all faith in them when they professed that their number one order of business would be to block anything Obama did in order to make him a one term president. Instead of working to try to make things better, they vowed to work to get Obama out of office. What a bunch of scumbags. A prime example of this is the fact that the House brought the repeal of Obamacare up for a vote 32 TIMES. How many times did they bring Obama's Jobs bill up for vote? ZERO! The man cannot even get his legislation on the floor for an up and down vote. That speaks volumes to me. The Republican platform is one of obstructionism at all costs, even if it keeps the economy in the gutter for political gain. Not to mention, with all of the improprieties of the banking system, they want to deregulate it even further! UNBELIEVABLE!!

Nobody seems to remember the great depression and how it mirrors today's recession in so many ways (lowest tax rates in history at the time, housing bubble, most of the money concentrated in a small portion of the population, etc). FDR brought us out of it by spending on infrastructure and essentially putting people to work. He paid for it for by taxing the you know what out of those who could afford it. Socialism you say? All it did was spur the greatest 70+ year period this country has ever known. Over 90% of economists agree that this is the way out for us today. I find it incredible that during the recession, wealth among the richest 10% in the nation actually INCREASED! We are losing our houses left and right and their bank accounts grow by the minute. We are not a democracy anymore, we are an oligarchy.

Doesn't it strike you as unjust when the heirs of Wal-Mart have more money than the bottom 40% of the country? Oh wait, that's right. We're just waiting for the trickle down. My bad.
 
Last edited:
I am hoping that December 21, 2012 comes early...like before November. ;)
 
I really really really don't like either of them. I put other, maybe I'll vote for Scooby Doo.

Nobody seems to be working FOR our COUNTRY. Everybody is just working for their party. Everyone in the house and senate should be fired. You should serve 2-4 years and you're out. Politics should be a public service not a career.
 
I'm voting Obama. I didn't really like his first term though, except for the Health Care Act, and getting Bin Laden. I want to give him a second chance. I cannot vote Romney. To me he is too fake. I believe he will tell you anything to vote for him. I don't know what is his real stand in any issue. He will make a great "Flip-Flopper" in-chief. With Obama, at least I know what I'm getting.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I suppose I'm voting for Obama, although, living in California, it seems a bit pointless. I campaigned for him in 2008; I was living in Maryland there, and did some canvassing in Virginia, a state which actually did turn blue for him. This year I don't have the opportunity to do something useful for his campaign, and I'm also ... disappointed is the wrong word. Tired, I guess, of this guy who I think is just the wrong man for his time.

I don't think Obama has done a good job of deal-making and/or bullying the Republican party into doing much of anything the last two years. I feel like what we need is an LBJ - a hardnosed party boss with a lot of experience in Congress who can whip people into shape and get stuff done. Obama is an ideas man who wants to be a "statesman", but the Repubs aren't going to let him be a statesman, and so we need someone down and dirty if anything's going to be accomplished legislatively.

Add to that how much I dislike Obama continuing Bush's legacy of expanding executive power to do super sekkrit things violating Americans' privacy, plus the whole extrajudicial killing of American citizens on foreign soil, and voting for him leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Nevertheless, I'm sure as heck not throwing in a protest vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul. Or Jill Stein.
 
don't be deluded to think repubs are the corporation party.. democrats have just as much if not more support.

Vote for a president you think can traverse both sides and force them to work together. Obama didnt show that leadership quality when he had a supermajority and now when he needs republican support he can't ask for it in good faith.

+2 - I was surprised by Obama's partisan behavior, and, in my amateur political understanding, take that to be the stool he has kicked out from under himself.

Gary Johnson has my vote, and I (most likely naively) am convinced he would wreck the election with any semblance of proportional financial or media support.

It's my meaningless (as a citizen of a staunch red state), official way of flipping the bird to questionable corporate interests and a media system that has forsaken its journalistic and artistic moral imperative, and is rotting its citizen's minds, for the quick buck.

I just wrote that and then looked over it quickly... maybe I should start getting involved in Youtube comment threads :rolleyes:
 
the republican congress ran on a platform of specifically being obstructionists to the democrats..since the dems were wheelin and dealin behind closed doors with zero republicans and people voted them in, no surprise there. Obama didnt reach out to the repubs when he had a supermajority, so no surprise when he cant get things done with them and he loses it he blames the repubs.

Err, that's precisely false. The President has reached across the aisle numerous times, including on healthcare. Remember, the ACA was originally to have a public option but that was dropped for supposed Republican support. However, it's become clear that the GOP has no intention of helping Obama at all. FFS, they voted against gang rape because it was a Democrat introduced bill.

http://www.mysaline.com/profiles/blogs/thirty-republicans-vote


From the first day, the GOP has never been about governing but rather denying victories to Obama. They even vote against bills they support, including various aspects of Obama's jobs bill. Obama has been running a very center, slightly right Presidency. The problem is that the GOP has lurched to the far right. Like I said before, Reagan would have been classified a liberal Democrat in today's GOP.


BTW, your budget assessment is wrong because the GWB presidency hid between 300 billion and 600 billion in deficit spending under "emergency spending rules" which do not require full disclosure to the GAO.
 
I don't plan to vote (live in CA, so it's a waste of time), but if I did I'd vote for Obama. It's not that I like Obama, but I can't stand Romney. Every time I hear him talk it makes me realize how rich and entitled he is.

Romney's suggestion that college kids should borrow 20k from their parents reminds me he is not in touch with the real world.. my folks don't have 20k to just give me (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/04/27/473096/romney-borrow-money-parents/). Also, on his tour to show off his diplomatic skills he insulted the British among other folks. We already had one fool represent the US internationally (I'll leave you guessing who that was), let us please not have another. At least Obama represents the US well.

My vote would not so much be a vote for Obama, as much as a vote against Romney.
 
Just as a quick note for everyone who wants a drastic reduction in our mobilized armed forces...

The problem with establishing an active standing army in the first place is what to do with it later. If we were to withdraw 90% of our troops around the world and start discharging them, we run into the immediate problem of adding unemployed workers to an economy that is already suffering from high unemployment.

However, if we keep pushing money into funding our military efforts, that deficit just continues to go up and up and up which devalues our money causing inflation. The military thing is really a double edged sword.

Something else to consider is our labor force. Surprisingly, our labor force is very uneducated with only roughly 25% of it having a 4 year degree (at least these were the numbers as of 5 years ago when I was doing research in labor economics...and damn i never put that on my amcas lol). In a global economy where unskilled labor is being outsourced en mass, it is no wonder we're losing jobs here. We need to change the infrastructure of our economy and, given the global labor market, this requires getting a lot people educated beyond a 4 year undergraduate degree to pick up higher skilled jobs. This is where you say "What higher skilled jobs?" Yes they're not there. Why? Because the faster they're created, the larger the cost as all the skilled labor becomes employed. No one wants to pay that kind of money for workers if they don't have to so they don't expand their business that way.

What to do then? We get ourselves some more education. Oh crap, but who can afford to get educated these days? NO ONE! This is our other enormous problem. It is entirely too costly to get an education in this country. I grew up in a lower-middle class area and so I see a lot of the people i went to school with working some major dead end jobs. And whenever I talk to them, I ask them why they're not doing something else and 9 times out of 10 the answer is "I can't afford school." (Also of importance here is the fact that I'm from New Jersey and we have some of the most expensive, if not THE most expensive, public education in the country.) Obviously the labor market can't be transformed if the people are priced out of getting an education from the start. What about the people who take on debt you ask? Lets talk about our new graduates, the debt they hold, and where that fits into this picture.

Lets say, for example, i just got my masters in engineering and I'm making a solid 75 grand a year at my new firm. I'm also holding roughly 300k of graduate and undergraduate debt. This kind of debt is a new thing in this country. People have never been graduating with this kind of debt in the past. In the past people graduated with half that debt (if that) and paid it off relatively quickly. What did they do after that? THEY BOUGHT A HOUSE! Hmm wouldn't it be great if everyone graduating college could, after a few years, go out and buy a house? yes it would but not because its the american dream, but because our economy depends on it! How does that work? Well, the majority of most house hold wealth is in the homes people own. In the past, real estate has gone up reliably and people were able to upgrade their living situation until they sent their kids off and they down graded their house, and kept the difference as retirement money. This upward buying trend was supported by recent graduates coming out into the world looking to put down some roots. BUT they can't anymore. They're too busying overpaying rent on an apartment (because apartment pricing is through the roof since no one can substitute homes) which is an expense (as opposed to an investment when you're paying down your mortgage) so they're never accumulating wealth. While they're doing this, they're getting bent over by student loan interest which keeps them shackled to their living situation. As a result, the housing market NEVER recovers. Everyone looking into cheap real estate as an investment, you're going to be waiting a very long time to see those returns. Invest in automotive companies because the youth very well might be forced to start living out of their cars.

Wow this turned into a bigger rant than I imagined haha. But the rational behind it all is pretty solid. I am ALWAYS open to critiques of this perspective by the way so anyone who sees something about it they'd like to refute please feel free!

-cj8
 
Less regulation especially in the financial sector, lower taxes, gutting of social programs, expansion of the military, repeal of ACA without any viable backup other than tort reform.

Basically, the GOP wants to double down on the GWB presidency instead of actually trying to solve the nation's problems. Romney's positions are no different than what GWB did for 8 years and look how well that worked out.

BTW, you mentioned the deficit, but not a single GOP member has put out a sensible budget that actually addresses the budget. The CBO has analyzed many of these budgets and none of them do what they purport to do. Basically, the deficit today is the result of three things, the Bush-era tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was the first time in American history we had several tax cuts pushed through during wartime and it absolutely crushed our budget.

^boilerplate. It's hard to "solve" the "nation's" "problems" when the sides are fundamentally opposed as to what those terms mean. Libs have a legitimate philosophical argument to their political viewpoints, but it's intellectually disingenuous to act like conservatives don't, too. Claptrap like "one side doesn't wanna solve our problems" actually does nothing to solve our problems.

I'm in Texas, so I'm not voting. Little reason to!
 
I don't plan to vote (live in CA, so it's a waste of time), but if I did I'd vote for Obama. It's not that I like Obama, but I can't stand Romney. Every time I hear him talk it makes me realize how rich and entitled he is.

Romney's suggestion that college kids should borrow 20k from their parents reminds me he is not in touch with the real world.. my folks don't have 20k to just give me (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/04/27/473096/romney-borrow-money-parents/). Also, on his tour to show off his diplomatic skills he insulted the British among other folks. We already had one fool represent the US internationally (I'll leave you guessing who that was), let us please not have another. At least Obama represents the US well.

My vote would not so much be a vote for Obama, as much as a vote against Romney.

The older generations do have substantially more money than we do. That's usually true throughout history, but our potential lifetime earnings are historically low when compared with theirs. The Baby Boomers shafted us.

Regardless, I see some of the wisdom in Mitt's idea of parental loans. It's much preferable to being crushed by debt later on, all for a degree that grows more and more meaningless. I for one wish I had gone to a trade school or joined the military a few years out of high school. Understand the value of a dollar, get some perspective, and maybe not act like a festering dick sore in some of my undergrad classes.
 
Not sure I agree (either that or my peer group is very different). I have substantially more income than my parents and so do most of my peers. My parents live of a minimum social security income. I grew up dirt poor though. My dad made about 12k a yr and my mom took care of the kids. So not everywhere does the older generation have more income

Parental loans are great... if your parents are rich. My parents probably never had 20k in savings, let alone to give me to blow on a start-up (more than 90% fail).


The older generations do have substantially more money than we do.

Regardless, I see some of the wisdom in Mitt's idea of parental loans. It's much preferable to being crushed by debt later on, all for a degree that grows more and more meaningless.
 
Not sure I agree (either that or my peer group is very different). I have substantially more income than my parents and so do most of my peers. My parents live of a minimum social security income. I grew up dirt poor though. My dad made about 12k a yr and my mom took care of the kids. So not everywhere does the older generation have more income

Parental loans are great... if your parents are rich. My parents probably never had 20k in savings, let alone to give me to blow on a start-up (more than 90% fail).

Inspiring story, man. I'm sure your parents are proud of you, as any parent wants their child to be more successful than they are.

But with the painful truth being that college educations just don't pay anymore, do you really think you'd recommend people taking out loans to acquire one? Is taking money from the gov't--that money has to come from taxpayers somewhere--to pay for an essentially meaningless bachelor's degree in today's job market really the alternative if one's parents cannot afford it?

And here's the data I used for my claim earlier:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/07/the-rising-age-gap-in-economic-well-being/
 
The older generations do have substantially more money than we do. That's usually true throughout history, but our potential lifetime earnings are historically low when compared with theirs. The Baby Boomers shafted us.

Regardless, I see some of the wisdom in Mitt's idea of parental loans. It's much preferable to being crushed by debt later on, all for a degree that grows more and more meaningless. I for one wish I had gone to a trade school or joined the military a few years out of high school. Understand the value of a dollar, get some perspective, and maybe not act like a festering dick sore in some of my undergrad classes.

Sorry, but this just is not the case anymore. This study (http://phys.org/news/2012-08-americans-die-virtually-financial-assets.html) from MIT just came out the other day and shows that 46% of Americans die with less than $10,000 in assets. Who, pray tell, can afford to lend their kids money to go to college? Unfortunately only the ones who can afford to send their kids to college without having to loan them the money.
 
Sorry, but this just is not the case anymore. This study (http://phys.org/news/2012-08-americans-die-virtually-financial-assets.html) from MIT just came out the other day and shows that 46% of Americans die with less than $10,000 in assets. Who, pray tell, can afford to lend their kids money to go to college? Unfortunately only the ones who can afford to send their kids to college without having to loan them the money.

This is interesting, tho I do think it's a little different than what I was directly referring to earlier. Senior citizens in their last days have probably eaten up a lot of the wealth they had stored up for retirement. They're probably grandparents or great-grandparents, and I don't know if the dynamics are the same when broaching the subject of their ability to loan their children's children money.

The worst-off also look to have never married in life: it's hard to loan money to children you don't have.
 
I'm voting for Obama, but I'm not a huge fan of him. However, the idea of the republicans holding the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches just terrifies the hell out of me. And yes, I know the affordable care act made it through congress and Roberts voted for it, but if you really believe he's suddenly going to vote with the democrats on everything, you're delusional.
 
I'm voting for Obama, but I'm not a huge fan of him. However, the idea of the republicans holding the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches just terrifies the hell out of me. And yes, I know the affordable care act made it through congress and Roberts voted for it, but if you really believe he's suddenly going to vote with the democrats on everything, you're delusional.

So basically the Republicans have been more ideologically open-minded than the Democrats as of late? I actually find the Right to be that way more than the Left--a seeming paradox, because the political Left are typically patting themselves on the back for their tolerance.

Of course, you could argue Justice Roberts voted with the liberals because the liberal POV was superior, but that argument seems to just reinforce the assertion I made above.
 
Wake me up for the religion discussion. I like my social conflict laced with existential questions and the quaint romance of history. Corporate shenanigans over which suit will run PR for the Board of Directors is to boring to warrant participation. My only hope is that the blood that must refresh our tree of liberty doesn't begin to spill until I've lived out most of my quiet days in the shire, sipping a hobbit's ale and smoking my pipe.

Excellent post
 
Ron Paul!!

But realistically Gary Johnson because he'll actually be on the ballot/running.
 
Something tells me I need to read more, never even heard of Gary Johnson.

In other news, I'm considering voting for Dr. Grumpy as he has recently declared his candidacy (if you haven't followed his blog, some of it might not make sense. Like how he's declared war on the extremely excessive use/abuse of the word artisanal)

http://drgrumpyinthehouse.*************/2012/08/vote-grumpy-2012.html

The following statement was my favorite and I think it actually is the best national debt eradication plan I've seen put forward. It's sheer brilliance.

"Politicians who espouse screaming and yelling at the opposition will be dropped into a desert with an equal number of equally stubborn people from the other side, under circumstances where their mutual survival depends on finding ways to work together and be polite. This will be aired as a TV show called "Modern Sandbox," with advertising revenue and T-shirt sales going toward the national debt." ~Dr. Grumpy
 
Last edited:
"Politicians who espouse screaming and yelling at the opposition will be dropped into a desert with an equal number of equally stubborn people from the other side, under circumstances where their mutual survival depends on finding ways to work together and be polite. This will be aired as a TV show called "Modern Sandbox," with advertising revenue and T-shirt sales going toward the national debt."

This would be so good, and would end so quickly (i.e., don't bet on them finding ways to work together). I move to include journalists/execs who encourage such behavior as well (Rush, Wolf, and the other intense-first-namers). Somewhere along the line national politics became another (poorly produced) reality show, and it's neither good for the nation, nor as thought-provoking and entertaining as it should be for us viewers.+pity+
 
This is interesting, tho I do think it's a little different than what I was directly referring to earlier. Senior citizens in their last days have probably eaten up a lot of the wealth they had stored up for retirement. They're probably grandparents or great-grandparents, and I don't know if the dynamics are the same when broaching the subject of their ability to loan their children's children money.

The worst-off also look to have never married in life: it's hard to loan money to children you don't have.

With the divorce rate as high as it is, I would be more willing to wager that those who are dying single are more likely to be divorced and probably have kids. I cannot find it now, but I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the percentage of people who go through life without getting married is only like 4 or 5%. My wife's mother waited until her husband (my wife's step-father) to retire and then divorced him for no reason, other than she didn't want to spend every minute of the day with him, after almost 40 years of marriage. How's that for "Until death do us part?" More like "Until retirement when I dump you!" The nest egg they had saved together, which has now been split in half, is not enough for both of them to scrape by. It was plenty for one household - not two. Guess who is renting the step father a room in his house?? You guessed it... Me.
 
The poll results here are beyond depressing.
Oh well. Screw the economy then. Sad.
 
I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I used to believe that it was stupid to vote for third parties since they take votes away from those with a realistic chance of winning, though now I believe that those who are disenchanted with both parties need to show support for another voice -- if for no other reason than to show the Republican Party that if they want wider support they need to give up with the 'social issues' BS that diverts our attention so greatly from more pressing matters.
 
The poll results here are beyond depressing.
Oh well. Screw the economy then. Sad.

yea, we all should double down on the GWB policies that WORKED SO WELL.
 
yea, we all should double down on the GWB policies that WORKED SO WELL.


LOL. Without getting too much into a political blame game, um, the economy is sucking more and more each day.
Ask graduate nurses, whose predecessors once had jobs thrown at them right and left, how they feel about the hiring freezes. And that's only one sector of the economical stalemate. It's bad and IT IS NOT getting any better--pro-campaign political-speak aside.
 
In line with City Lights question, how many of you would have chosen differently if McCain had run with someone other than Palin?

She really scared me, and I think McCain seemed to have a good history of working across party lines to get stuff done. I think there could have been a much different outcome had he selected someone else as his VP candidate.
 
In line with City Lights question, how many of you would have chosen differently if McCain had run with someone other than Palin?

She really scared me, and I think McCain seemed to have a good history of working across party lines to get stuff done. I think there could have been a much different outcome had he selected someone else as his VP candidate.


I would ask you to consider not being afraid of someone because they are different, but rather be fearful of those that work to redefine the Constitution and ultimately undermine true liberty, which was paid for with a price many of us have yet to comprehend. It is a frightening thing to have leadership that works to increase its dependence and dominance over the whole of its people. I submit that keener insight is necessary in order for a truly free republic such as ours to survive. If people continue to forsake and abandon this nation's roots and its core concepts, freedom as we and earlier generations have known it will be lost for good. This is pretty much guaranteed. We must always ask ourselves, "What do I/we really have without freedom?" And we must also ask ourselves, "What is constantly nipping at the heals of freedom, such that I/we might lose it?"
 
What exactly do you mean by "redefine the Constitution"? The Founders couldn't agree on what it meant; our current American govt is the result of two hundred and twenty-five years of continual redefinition.
 
I'd just like to clarify I'm not afraid of people for being different. I'm politically independent and generally quite open minded, or so I'm told.

She just concerned me.
 
What exactly do you mean by "redefine the Constitution"? The Founders couldn't agree on what it meant; our current American govt is the result of two hundred and twenty-five years of continual redefinition.

Ooooh sweet are we going to get into political/legal theory, because that sounds fun! We have been redefining our Constitution, and it is naive at best to think it should not change, given the whole we-are-suspended-in-an-evolving-universe situation.

However, who has been doing the changing? Theoretically, and to this day, that's Congress's job. As soon as the first decade of the 19th century, however, saw the first signs of common law. Joseph Story and the 14th amendment later, we have not only a significantly empowered "federal" (i.e. national, it hasn't been federal in 150+ years) government, but one in which its own powers are at best questionably balanced. The momentum and "possession is 9/10 the law" of the judiciary's actions are resultant from Congress's inability to legislate with proper activity and clarity. E.g., recent lack of and/or terribly vague pay-for-delay legislation has caused ridiculous lawsuits and judicial activity in the patent world. You can trace it back to ¶IVB silliness --> poor legislation. In the middle of all this is a whole spectrum of "executive" (in quotes because said activity is strongly inferentially unconstitutional and so not actually executive in function) activity, from Jefferson to Lincoln to FDR to Bush, that also happened more quickly/sneakily than either Congress, the SC, or we the people have been able to notice and/or regulate.

On a more macro-political scale, Congress's inability to explicitly modify the Constitution is highly likely a major reason we have such a convoluted legal literature. Basically, we got stuck in the mud ~200 years ago, and we've simply been spinning wheels and sitting in s*** for so long we're used to it. More speculatively, I link this inability and immobility to a two-party system and an impotent media (impotent because it 1) has for the most part sacrificed its integrity for gladiatorial behavior and 2) has fed us such s*** it's what the collective "we" want at this point, so turning back will take a while), both parties of which, and the media, are bloated and so caught up in present interests that any idea of progress, change, hope, or the good old times is laughable (or tragic, or both, depends on your cosmic perspective).:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I knew I should have just waited for religion...:oops:
 
Would love to see Ron Paul get the nomination. Maybe I am a gullible idiot, but everything he says, things I read about him just scream stand up guy who practices what he preaches (like how he never accepted Medicaid as payment etc) . I am surprised an MD is not getting more love on here.

Romney would have to be my 2nd favorite candidate. A nontrad :D HBS/HLS JD/MBA who rose to the top of the toughest MC companies to a point that he was allowed to setup an independent entity for him to run. It is a pity he feels the need to keep wars going and stupid wasteful ish last that.

Edit: Somehow i feel we are being trolled by QofQ. I bet she is looking over this thread going: "yes...fight for my amusement my beauties".
 
Last edited:
Edit: Somehow i feel we are being trolled by QofQ. I bet she is looking over this thread going: "yes...fight for my amusement my beauties".

Actually, my thought when this started was that a sleep deprived Q and a sleep deprived VC7777 decided to take bets on how long it would take for this thread to derail into something that needed to be locked. :laugh:


We're doing ok so far, I'm proud of us. I was worried the title would attract too much non- nontrad interest from pre-allo. I think it probably helps that none of use seem super excited or impressed with anyone. We mostly seem to be trying to support the lesser of evils (harsh, but whoever will do the least damage)
 
Well I have waited quite awhile to submit my first post and naturally it would be politics, the worst human invention ever. The problem is not republican views or democrat views, it is our culture in general. Full disclosure: I am a married white male who grew up on welfare in a single parent family, my "father" was never present. I have been a Christian since I was 15 and grew up in Texas. I have as many gay friends and I do straight and I support gay marriage. I hate abortion for the 'get out of jail free' card that is often used as but recognize a woman's right to her own body and do not believe in legislating my personal beliefs on everyone else however I do take offense with those who would do the same to me. I am attending college, after sacrificing 6 yrs of my life in the military, with the GI bill and student loans.

Here we go:

Think of the ever growing section of our country that relies on the government for everything from food safety to personal safety. In general we are too stupid to know, or care, that eating processed crap will eventually catch up with us in the form of cancers, obesity, diabetes, etc.

When a disaster strikes, IE Katrina, how many of those affected had any supplies ready? More importantly, how many stayed in their homes because they didnt believe it would be that bad or this house they were in is all they have and they are gonna stick it out? How noble. How stupid. Were they not warned? Oh I know, it takes money to buy supplies and so many of them were poor, fine but how about an evacuation plan? Nope, if i get in trouble by ignoring the warnings the police will save me. How about personal responsibility for the decisions we make? How about personal responsibility for living in the dead end, morbid humor there, of hurricane alley. Is it not apparently obvious to EVERYONE that living in the direct line of a hurricane corridor that is under sea level is a bad idea? How about living in tornado alley in a mobile home? Same thing.

How about healthcare? Why do we think that having our health insurance tied to our jobs is a good idea? We have been conditioned to think it is. What happens when you lose your job or the company fails? You lose your insurance! What if we have our insurance through a private means and not through our job and you lost your job? Well if you were financially responsible at all and have some saving or perhaps some equity you could continue to keep your health insurance at least until the money ran, shocking! But that is a cultural thing. I wont even touch on how health insurance used to be non-profit emergency use only and has turned into a for-profit do everything sinkhole.

How about general moral decency? Why are our politicians allowed to say outright lies and racist remarks with no reprimand at all? Why is it ok for Reid to say "the word is out" on Romney and suggest all the things he is suggesting, with no proof, on the mothereffing floor of the senate???? He may have a source, but last I learned, the floor of the senate is not for campaigning, oh wait that was a long time ago and is no longer. How about all the racist comments uttered by various libs on if you are against Obama you are a racist? I could google and quote the people but I hope this is out in the media enough that I dont need to.

What happened to all the promises of running the lobbyists out of DC? The most transparent government ever and than closed door meetings for the creation of the ACA? The dems had all three branches of our defunct government and they blame repubs/Bush for what? EVERYTHING.

Repubs get out clean in all of this? NOPE. The dig our heels in and plug our ears until 2012 comes along and we can try to retake DC strategy has WASTED 4 years of our lives. I could go on with them too but you get the picture.

I will end my rant with this: show me one single federal entity/program that the government has done right.

Everything from insolvent medicare and the lack of foresight to predict the baby boomer effect to the jackasses who were somehow allowed to use medicare funding for things other than medicare. BTW, medicare is a nice crutch for those unwilling and/or unable to save for their own retirement.

Gross overspending in the military (i served 6 yrs in the USAF, loved it, but the only reason why things get done in the military is through sheer determination and sacrifice by the grunts. The politicians, elected and 0-3 and above, are too far away to have their stupidity have much effect).
Do you know what strategy is used for funding in the military? The lowest bidder strategy. Project comes up, companies make sealed bids and lowest wins. Sounds good in theory but guess what actually happens? Suppose I want to contract out pencils. Two companies bid, one for a thousand dollars a pencil and the other 100. Who wins? The company with the $100 bid. Guess what, you are still buying pencils $100 a pop. Real scenario: I worked on a plane that when planned was to cost $10 million. What it actually cost after being built? $100+ million And we wonder why our country has so much debt we may never actually pay it off, think about that for a second.

I could go on for hours on the ****ty state of affairs our country finds itself in but I wont, you're welcome. I know that was supposed to be about politics but I think the root problem is culture.

Know this, I love this country and I believe it is the best one in the world but our culture is failing us at a unbelievable rate. When doctors are who to blame for healthcare cost and not those that actually set the cost, when drunk *****s doing illegal acts make millions and are famous for being famous, when the first black (half actually but why quibble) president is elected (social progress anyone?!) and only results in blatant racism and ignorance (media on both sides not himself) what are we to do?

And that is where I find myself, in the only country worth living in, feeling powerless to change anything positively because the masses have decided to worship blatant stupidity and take on a victim mentality while not paying for the things they need with hard work but will take "free" handouts so they can buy cigarettes and iphones instead of vegetables and running shoes.

Sorry for the monster wall of text but I am officially tired of this BS.
 

Great post my friend, and I feel pretty much the same way. Greed will destroy this country in the end. As for the election, I'm not voting because like others have posted, republican or democrat, they are exactly the same and work for private interests anyway.
 
Looks like Obama will wrap this election up pretty handily with the nomination of Ryan for VP. That man's budget is frankly toxic to most independent voters.
 
Great post my friend, and I feel pretty much the same way. Greed will destroy this country in the end. As for the election, I'm not voting because like others have posted, republican or democrat, they are exactly the same and work for private interests anyway.

There is one other candidate who will be on every state's ballot. Take a look at Gary Johnson before you rule out voting altogether.

www.GaryJohnson2012.com
 
To be frank my vote is for Obama, following the trend of I don't really like him all that much, but I'd rather have him as opposed to the sketchy lizardman Romney. The reality is that we have had a huge problem since 2000, we've slowly been seeing companies cutting jobs and making the remaining force work triple their previous work. Where as in 2000 where it was common to see 3 entire floors of people doing a particular job, it's now just a single floor doing all the work as the other two floors have been completely obliterated.
And the reality is that it isn't because of outsourcing or anything, it's because of corperate welfare and Tax Cuts that don't force the company to aim to have a lower tax rate by investing into themselves. What we need to do is return the tax rate to pre-bush era and start funneling tax-breaks to companies that are willing to hire skilled workers and maintain them. If this doesn't happen, then without a doubt the middle class is going to be dead.


http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/

And to all of you people that honestly think that reducing regulations is a good thing, I'll ask you to learn a little about the conditions of the early 19th century prior to WW1 when most regulations came into play and the quality of life shot up.


That being said, since the Republican party is beginning to die there is a good chance that a third party will succeed them, similar to how the Whigs were succeed by the Republicans.
 
To be frank my vote is for Obama, following the trend of I don't really like him all that much, but I'd rather have him as opposed to the sketchy lizardman Romney. The reality is that we have had a huge problem since 2000, we've slowly been seeing companies cutting jobs and making the remaining force work triple their previous work. Where as in 2000 where it was common to see 3 entire floors of people doing a particular job, it's now just a single floor doing all the work as the other two floors have been completely obliterated.
And the reality is that it isn't because of outsourcing or anything, it's because of corperate welfare and Tax Cuts that don't force the company to aim to have a lower tax rate by investing into themselves. What we need to do is return the tax rate to pre-bush era and start funneling tax-breaks to companies that are willing to hire skilled workers and maintain them. If this doesn't happen, then without a doubt the middle class is going to be dead.


http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/

And to all of you people that honestly think that reducing regulations is a good thing, I'll ask you to learn a little about the conditions of the early 19th century prior to WW1 when most regulations came into play and the quality of life shot up.


That being said, since the Republican party is beginning to die there is a good chance that a third party will succeed them, similar to how the Whigs were succeed by the Republicans.

Nothing personal but these are the kind of one sided arguments that I find boring. You make good points but cannot resist bashing the other side. Is it not possible that both sides have good and bad points and the solution lies somewhere in the middle? Therein lies the root problem IMO, as long as our government and our mentality is me vs. you we are doomed to a slow spiraling down the drain. Afterall, a house divided cannot stand. :confused:
 
Top