New and Noteworthy
Recent Videos News


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
08-22-2012, 09:32 PM (This post was last modified: 08-23-2012 09:04 AM by mattroks101.)
Post: #1
The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
[Image: this_is_serious.png]

Let's all argue politics!

What? Someone had to start one of these sooner or later. Let us just discuss politics in a serious and mature way. I shall begin by stating that I think Obama is a terrible president. And now, people shall argue (maturely and seriously) about it.

Thanks for all the good times.
[Image: e8809baecb.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-22-2012, 09:54 PM
Post: #2
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
I don't like either presidential candidate, but I'm leaning towards Obama because I'd rather dance with the devil I know than the devil I don't. I will, however, seriously consider changing my vote if either candidate grows facial hair. It has been 100 years since we've had a president with facial hair.

[Image: DIkziCj.png?1]

Twitter: Truthordeal

"Every man's heart one day beats its final beat, his lungs breath their final breath. And if what that man did in his life, makes the blood pulse through the body of others, and makes them believe deeper in something larger than life, then his essence, his spirit, will be immortalized by the storytellers, by the loyalty, by the memory, of those who honor him and make whatever the man did live forever."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Truthordeal's post
08-22-2012, 10:23 PM
Post: #3
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
(08-22-2012 09:54 PM)Truthordeal Wrote:  I will, however, seriously consider changing my vote if either candidate grows facial hair. It has been 100 years since we've had a president with facial hair.

RebornZombie2028
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rebbie's post
08-22-2012, 10:26 PM
Post: #4
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
My analysis of Obama:
Spoiler(Show)
Obama has been, pretty dramatically, an average president.

He is corrupt. He is funded by the bankers. He has failed to regulate Wall Street. The recovery is much less swift than it could have been. He did not stick to his liberal roots. He did an awful job negotiating the healthcare bill. He signed the NDAA. He signed ACTA. He's increased semi-illegal drone strikes. He's failed to close Guantanamo Bay. He lacks conviction on the issue of gay marriage.

He also killed Osama Bin Laden. He also managed to pass an actual healthcare bill, while mediocre, but still overall a positive step in the right direction. He has drastically shrunk the amount of prisoners at Guantanamo. He has become the first pro-marriage equality president. He has passed some form of economic recovery bills, again mediocre, and has offered up several better ones that were struck down by an obstructionist GOP Congress. He has overall supported women's rights. And sometimes he's surprised me with his ability to create compromises (not all the time, though) that appeal to both sides (though again, our current obstructionist GOP would never give him credit for such things).

He is an American Moderate. He's pretty right-leaning in the overall spectrum, and he's corrupt by a couple of select powerful and rich entities such as the banks. But most of our politicians are as well. And considering the state of the country when he inherited it, he's done an overall above average job.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like 1KidsEntertainment's post
08-23-2012, 09:43 AM
Post: #5
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
True. However my problem with him being an average president, is that it's not what this country needs at the moment. Our economy is still in the gutter, we're still fighting a pointless war, and we still have numerous other problems he has not fixed. While he hasn't created too many new problems, he has failed to fix any of the previous ones (unless you count Osama, which I don't). We don't need a president who doesn't cause problems, we need a president who can fix them. And that is why I think he is a terrible president.

Thanks for all the good times.
[Image: e8809baecb.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-23-2012, 11:22 AM
Post: #6
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
(08-23-2012 09:43 AM)mattroks101 Wrote:  True. However my problem with him being an average president, is that it's not what this country needs at the moment. Our economy is still in the gutter, we're still fighting a pointless war, and we still have numerous other problems he has not fixed. While he hasn't created too many new problems, he has failed to fix any of the previous ones (unless you count Osama, which I don't). We don't need a president who doesn't cause problems, we need a president who can fix them. And that is why I think he is a terrible president.

While this might be a viewpoint easily had, you have to understand that this mess we are in is not going to be fixed easily. Obama has had to deal with the terribly uncooperative House and Senate, and the GOP has not been any help in that regard either. And while the results are disappointing for most, you can't swim upstream easily. Without support from the other branches of government, Obama can only do so much without dealing with the other factors of our governmental system.

Even with a new President, this problem will not be magically erased. Hell, a lot of the minor and major achievements Obama managed to accomplish could very well be undone by political opponents out of spite. So while Obama didn't save our country, he had to try to save a country with a difficult legislature department, and could only do so much. Hopefully, if reelected, he'll start pushing through some of the more troublesome problems that plague our country, and pave the way for the next President after that to finish the job.

BTW, I am severely sleep deprived, so apologies for any redundancy or lack of elaboration. I'm literally running on air.

[Image: tumblr_o50z6sCEXP1usrgjso2_540.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ezekieru's post
08-23-2012, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 08-23-2012 11:40 AM by Truthordeal.)
Post: #7
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
My thoughts on Obama:

Spoiler(Show)
JFK and Lyndon Johnson managed to do the good they did(Civil Rights, landing on the moon, the Peace Corps) in spite of all the bad they did(the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam) and the challenges they faced(economic problems, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis) because both had tons of experience in the US Congress. John Kennedy was a Representative for six years and a Senator for eight years. Lyndon Johnson's legislative career was so extensive that his scholarly biography has two volumes of about 800 pages detailing it. Obama held local offices and only served three years in the Senate before he ran for president. He was unqualified for the position. He had almost next to no job experience. And the Democrats really blew their wad with him considering he has natural charisma and excellent writing abilities. He's a great speaker and writer, and with time I'm sure he could've been an incredible politician.

Lyndon Johnson managed to pass a very liberal Civil Rights bill over a Republican majority in Congress; how did a Democrat President, with a Democrat majority in the Senate and a Democrat supermajority in the House of Representatives, fail to pass a comprehensive health reform bill? The Republicans filibustered back then, so it's not as if their threat to filibuster was something new. It wasn't some new form of "nasty" politics, which is the story they'd have you believe. The reason the healthcare bill we have now was watered down the way it was, is because the Republicans had a strong cohesion and the Democrats had a weak President.

The reason I keep bringing up Lyndon Johnson is because he too inherited a war, massive debt, a rough economy and sought to make progressive reforms. He also faced a crisis of legitimacy, only becoming president because John Kennedy was killed. He had an uphill battle, and succeeded because he was the master of the senate. Obama is a newb. He was handed a clear path to reform and he failed. He's president only because he was the only Democrat politician that stood a chance at beating John McCain.

tl;dr: Barack Obama is the Jack Swagger of presidents; he was pushed too early, didn't have the skills necessary to successfully hold the main event spot, and his run has been marred by this fact.

[Image: DIkziCj.png?1]

Twitter: Truthordeal

"Every man's heart one day beats its final beat, his lungs breath their final breath. And if what that man did in his life, makes the blood pulse through the body of others, and makes them believe deeper in something larger than life, then his essence, his spirit, will be immortalized by the storytellers, by the loyalty, by the memory, of those who honor him and make whatever the man did live forever."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Truthordeal's post
08-23-2012, 05:39 PM
Post: #8
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
[Image: 11-Ron+Paul+DosXX.png]

[Image: banner.php]
38chan.net
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-23-2012, 06:43 PM (This post was last modified: 08-23-2012 06:45 PM by 1KidsEntertainment.)
Post: #9
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
(08-23-2012 11:38 AM)Truthordeal Wrote:  My thoughts on Obama:

Spoiler(Show)
JFK and Lyndon Johnson managed to do the good they did(Civil Rights, landing on the moon, the Peace Corps) in spite of all the bad they did(the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam) and the challenges they faced(economic problems, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis) because both had tons of experience in the US Congress. John Kennedy was a Representative for six years and a Senator for eight years. Lyndon Johnson's legislative career was so extensive that his scholarly biography has two volumes of about 800 pages detailing it. Obama held local offices and only served three years in the Senate before he ran for president. He was unqualified for the position. He had almost next to no job experience. And the Democrats really blew their wad with him considering he has natural charisma and excellent writing abilities. He's a great speaker and writer, and with time I'm sure he could've been an incredible politician.

Lyndon Johnson managed to pass a very liberal Civil Rights bill over a Republican majority in Congress; how did a Democrat President, with a Democrat majority in the Senate and a Democrat supermajority in the House of Representatives, fail to pass a comprehensive health reform bill? The Republicans filibustered back then, so it's not as if their threat to filibuster was something new. It wasn't some new form of "nasty" politics, which is the story they'd have you believe. The reason the healthcare bill we have now was watered down the way it was, is because the Republicans had a strong cohesion and the Democrats had a weak President.

The reason I keep bringing up Lyndon Johnson is because he too inherited a war, massive debt, a rough economy and sought to make progressive reforms. He also faced a crisis of legitimacy, only becoming president because John Kennedy was killed. He had an uphill battle, and succeeded because he was the master of the senate. Obama is a newb. He was handed a clear path to reform and he failed. He's president only because he was the only Democrat politician that stood a chance at beating John McCain.

tl;dr: Barack Obama is the Jack Swagger of presidents; he was pushed too early, didn't have the skills necessary to successfully hold the main event spot, and his run has been marred by this fact.

You can't possibly consider the situations to be the same, even if there are a couple of similarities.

What other president has had to deal with his opposing party vowing that they make him a 1-term president "no matter what" before he's even sworn in?

The fact is, YES the filibuster and other obstruction techniques have existed for a while now. They are in RECORD use though. The Republicans have, over the last 3+ years, done whatever they could to sabotage the economy and blame Obama.

Again: I do not think Obama is blameless. He is NOT by any means a perfect president. But as an average President, when almost all other alternatives, Democrat OR Republican, are either "worse" or "horrific", I support him.


(08-23-2012 05:39 PM)John Smith Wrote:  [Image: 11-Ron+Paul+DosXX.png]

*barfs everywhere*

Ron Paul is a mediocre, hypocritical excuse for a Libertarian, gives other Libertarians a bad name, and is in reality only a step away from an anarchist.

I don't disagree with everything he says, mind you. But the whole "Government is always bad" attitude needs to get stuck where the sun doesn't shine.

Not to mention that a LARGE portion of his supporters act like more of a cult than Mitt Romney's religion. And that's saying something.

But hey. He's not as corrupt. So that's a good thing. Sucks though that one of the few uncorrupted politicians is a racist, anarchist, hypocritical nutjob.

And his son is worse.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like 1KidsEntertainment's post
08-23-2012, 11:24 PM
Post: #10
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
I'll support for whoever promotes space colonization. Fuck Obama. Fuck Romney. Political parties are fake. A new world order will dawn and the world will be controlled by starvation. Our countries leaders worship devils and will forsake us all. Voting is nothing but a lie. Whoever the higher ups want to be president will be president. I'm moving to the moon base.

It's all a CONSPIRACY MAN!

[Image: welcome_to_the_nhk_007.jpg]

Seriously though I hate politics.

(02-18-2012 12:30 PM)Airrest Wrote:  There's a certain charm to it that I don't think most people, even on this forum, are going to get or like.
http://www.youtube.com/2GuysAnd1More Swear
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwooGiz's post
08-24-2012, 12:12 AM (This post was last modified: 08-24-2012 12:18 AM by 1KidsEntertainment.)
Post: #11
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
Ooh, I just realized I forgot to put a rule for this section in there... Just a mo'

(08-22-2012 07:59 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  [*]NEW RULE (8/24/12): This forum IS for serious things, and we mean it. That doesn't mean joking around isn't allowed, but it does mean that derailing of threads or entering of threads you don't earnestly have input on is unacceptable. If you can't think of anything on-topic to say, don't say anything at all.

Please do not post in any threads in this subforum if you do not intend to actually contribute. Thanks.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-24-2012, 12:37 AM
Post: #12
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
(08-23-2012 06:43 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  You can't possibly consider the situations to be the same, even if there are a couple of similarities.

Of course the situations aren't the same. What they are is similar, even though Obama had much more political support than Johnson. What I'm getting at is that if we'd had a more competent president, rather than a flash-in-the-pan rhetoricist, we'd be in a much better position. Ted Kennedy, for instance(if you forget that girl he killed) would've been a great pick based on skill. Obama's Vice President, Joe Biden, would've been awesome.

(08-23-2012 06:43 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  What other president has had to deal with his opposing party vowing that they make him a 1-term president "no matter what" before he's even sworn in?

Every president since Thomas Jefferson's administration. If you think Obama had it bad with the birther stink, lookit what they were saying about Lincoln.

Furthermore, just to be a dick and point out the obvious, the Southern Democrats were so pissed at Lincoln becoming president that they began the Civil War. The Northern Democrats were also fighting Lincoln while Lincoln was fighting the war.

The form and language changes, but the sentiment remains the same. Every losing political party seeks to defeat the winning party come next election. That's party politics, and that's had the same audacity since we've had parties. People insist that it was different back then, but it wasn't.

(08-23-2012 06:43 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  The fact is, YES the filibuster and other obstruction techniques have existed for a while now. They are in RECORD use though. The Republicans have, over the last 3+ years, done whatever they could to sabotage the economy and blame Obama.

This is true, but at the same time the use of the filibuster has been growing since the 70's. Take a look at this chart by Ezra Klein:

[Image: aviary%20%281%29.jpg?uuid=GzpEUJ7LEeG8pnJ7y9v4Zg]

Source.

The use of the filibuster goes up in shocks every now and then. If you look at the period beginning in Clinton's administration, when Republicans were the dominant party, the use of the filibuster rose to levels that remained somewhat consistent throughout Bush's administration. The aberrations become the norm, but it has less to do with who the president is and more about Senatorial politics. A lot of people want to attribute this to Republicans hating Obama, but that's really more an effect of "special snowflake syndrome."


(08-23-2012 06:43 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  Again: I do not think Obama is blameless. He is NOT by any means a perfect president.

I'm not saying that Obama should get all the blame for the lackluster change during his administration, but I'm pointing out that he had a much better opportunity than people give him credit for. The reason Obama's administration has yielded mediocre results is because Obama has been a mediocre head of state.


(08-23-2012 06:43 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  But as an average President, when almost all other alternatives, Democrat OR Republican, are either "worse" or "horrific", I support him.

I agree. I'll probably vote for him this November. But I'm only doing it because he's the lesser of two evils.

[Image: DIkziCj.png?1]

Twitter: Truthordeal

"Every man's heart one day beats its final beat, his lungs breath their final breath. And if what that man did in his life, makes the blood pulse through the body of others, and makes them believe deeper in something larger than life, then his essence, his spirit, will be immortalized by the storytellers, by the loyalty, by the memory, of those who honor him and make whatever the man did live forever."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-24-2012, 12:46 AM (This post was last modified: 08-24-2012 12:47 AM by 1KidsEntertainment.)
Post: #13
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
I can agree with 90% of what you said, but I am curious as to what examples you have of a President using "senatorial politics" to achieve their goals when faced with an obstructionist Congress.

That is to say, it's easy to say "He should have been in the Senate longer", but specifically what could he have done? I know several cases where he used the guise of "I don't have the ability to do this" to decline putting people (such as Elizabeth Warren) into positions, and then some time later mustering up the "power" to do so for someone he wanted. I also know some of his negotiations were abysmal, such as starting the healthcare debate with "single-payer healthcare is off the table", rather than using it to appear like Universal Health Care is a compromise/moderate position.

So yeah, my question: Do you have any examples of specifically what a president can do to get what they want in Congress when faced with an obstructionist opposition?

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-28-2012, 12:35 AM
Post: #14
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
(08-23-2012 06:43 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  *barfs everywhere*

Ron Paul is a mediocre, hypocritical excuse for a Libertarian, gives other Libertarians a bad name, and is in reality only a step away from an anarchist.

I dunno if I'd agree that he's closer to an anarchist than other libertarians - he seems not to mind individual states interfering in people's lives.

I do agree he's a crappy candidate though. And it's tiresome hearing how brilliant he is by people who have digested 50 copies of Atlas Shrugged and are ready and willing to sh*t out arbitrary quotes and passages from it to make themselves feel smarter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chrome's post
08-28-2012, 09:08 PM
Post: #15
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
Quote:So yeah, my question: Do you have any examples of specifically what a president can do to get what they want in Congress when faced with an obstructionist opposition?

Whoops, completely forgot to reply to this until I saw Chrome's reply.

There are basically two things that would have helped Obama get through an oppositional Congress, if he had spent more time in the Senate: 1) He would've had a better understanding of how far rules can be bent or evaded by the president. 2) He would have made more connections, done more favors, accumulated some political capital. The second one is probably the most important, and I should mention that this can be acquired with any national level position, not just senators and representatives. When he became president, he didn't have the clout to break up an opposition; if he did, he could have succeeded.

To give an example, the No Child Left Behind Act back during Bush the Younger's administration. For all intents and purposes, it was a very conservative-minded education bill(stressing efficiency over well-roundedness). The reason it passed(and it passed by a large margin) was because he as governor, and Dick Cheney as a former representative and SecDef, had a lot of connections. He managed to sell Ted Kennedy on the idea, more or less(that part I read in his memoirs, so take it for what you will). There are still a few high-ranking Republicans that Obama(or Biden) could have reached out to, like McCain, Boehner or even Joe Lieberman. Anyone would've worked, really. Newt Gingrich, despite his disastrous presidential campaign, was a genius at this sort of thing.



On another political note, I realized earlier today that four years ago the RNC had Giuliani, Lieberman, and Fred Thompson as keynote speakers. This year you have Rick Santorum, Chris Christie and Nikki Haley. There is about shit's worth of decent candidates in the Republican party right now, and even Bushes I and II and Dick Cheney are staying away. That oughta tell you something about the current state of the Republican party.

[Image: DIkziCj.png?1]

Twitter: Truthordeal

"Every man's heart one day beats its final beat, his lungs breath their final breath. And if what that man did in his life, makes the blood pulse through the body of others, and makes them believe deeper in something larger than life, then his essence, his spirit, will be immortalized by the storytellers, by the loyalty, by the memory, of those who honor him and make whatever the man did live forever."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-28-2012, 11:11 PM
Post: #16
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
(08-28-2012 09:08 PM)Truthordeal Wrote:  
Quote:So yeah, my question: Do you have any examples of specifically what a president can do to get what they want in Congress when faced with an obstructionist opposition?

Whoops, completely forgot to reply to this until I saw Chrome's reply.

There are basically two things that would have helped Obama get through an oppositional Congress, if he had spent more time in the Senate: 1) He would've had a better understanding of how far rules can be bent or evaded by the president. 2) He would have made more connections, done more favors, accumulated some political capital. The second one is probably the most important, and I should mention that this can be acquired with any national level position, not just senators and representatives. When he became president, he didn't have the clout to break up an opposition; if he did, he could have succeeded.

To give an example, the No Child Left Behind Act back during Bush the Younger's administration. For all intents and purposes, it was a very conservative-minded education bill(stressing efficiency over well-roundedness). The reason it passed(and it passed by a large margin) was because he as governor, and Dick Cheney as a former representative and SecDef, had a lot of connections. He managed to sell Ted Kennedy on the idea, more or less(that part I read in his memoirs, so take it for what you will). There are still a few high-ranking Republicans that Obama(or Biden) could have reached out to, like McCain, Boehner or even Joe Lieberman. Anyone would've worked, really. Newt Gingrich, despite his disastrous presidential campaign, was a genius at this sort of thing.

Fair point, but I also don't believe you can chalk up Obama's ineffectiveness completely to that. Partially, sure, but Gingrich himself was using those very tactics to get his party to almost unanimously agree to get Obama out of office this year AT ANY COST.

I'm not saying you're wrong though. Perfectly valid points.

(08-28-2012 09:08 PM)Truthordeal Wrote:  On another political note, I realized earlier today that four years ago the RNC had Giuliani, Lieberman, and Fred Thompson as keynote speakers. This year you have Rick Santorum, Chris Christie and Nikki Haley. There is about shit's worth of decent candidates in the Republican party right now, and even Bushes I and II and Dick Cheney are staying away. That oughta tell you something about the current state of the Republican party.

It's pretty dreadful.

Chris Christie is clearly eyeing a 2016 run though. *sigh*

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-14-2012, 11:47 PM (This post was last modified: 09-14-2012 11:48 PM by Discount_Flunky.)
Post: #17
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
As a moderate I kind of hate both parties, but if I have to chose one I'd pick Romney. I honestly believe if nothing else he'll probably get the economy working again, or at least he'll try. Obama is so indecisive it hurts.

My Groups YouTube Channel

My Personal Channel
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-15-2012, 12:28 AM (This post was last modified: 09-15-2012 12:29 AM by 1KidsEntertainment.)
Post: #18
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
(09-14-2012 11:47 PM)Discount_Flunky Wrote:  As a moderate I kind of hate both parties, but if I have to chose one I'd pick Romney. I honestly believe if nothing else he'll probably get the economy working again, or at least he'll try. Obama is so indecisive it hurts.

Romney's economic plan would be a disaster for the middle class. This is not my analysis. This is the analysis of many different non-partisan economic professionals. I don't have the links on hand, but do a bit more research before making a claim like that on gut instinct.

Obama has many flaws, but "indecisive" is not one I'd attribute to him. "Moderate" is one of them, though. "HEY LOOK GUYS, I'M SO LIBERAL!" "Universal healthcare is off the table. Let's put a band-aid on the private insurance system." "I'M SO LIBERAL BECAUSE I PUT MILD REGULATIONS ON WALL STREET" "I held no one responsible for the crash in 2008 and let them all get off with their profits." "I'M SO LIBERAL BECAUSE I SUPPORT TAX INCREASES ON THE RICH" "But I'm totally willing to give that up if the conservatives 'compromise' with me by giving me a small fraction of what I want so I don't appear to be an obstructionist."

But when the guy REALLY wants something, he does it. He DID push Obamacare through. He DID push several bits of legislation through. He DID make the decision to get Osama, even though we weren't sure if he was there (and the wrong decision could have been VERY costly).

Obama has his faults. Romney has a million. Particularly when it comes to anything involving money. Trickle-down demonstrably doesn't work (except for those who are already wealthy, of course, who are funding the vast majority of Romney's campaign (thanks, Citizens United!)), or we'd be the most successful country in the history of the world right now.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes 1KidsEntertainment's post
09-15-2012, 09:01 AM
Post: #19
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
Man, I had this wonderful dream last night.

Ron Paul had somehow gotten the nomination for the Republican party, and the Internet and his cult of personality were in full force behind him. Reddit, tumblr, twitter, the masses of Youtube and everywhere else started campaigning nonstop for him, going on to other sites and spamming Ron Paul propaganda. My college campus was flooded with those stupid "Ron Paul REVOLution" stickers. The media was giving him more coverage than ever before, to the point where there was no way he could complain about being dismissed. In every debate he got his agenda across and his fans spam voted him the winner in every CNN poll.

And then he lost. And he lost decisively. And that was the end of Ron Paul and any of his fandom's boasts that the American people love him.

[Image: DIkziCj.png?1]

Twitter: Truthordeal

"Every man's heart one day beats its final beat, his lungs breath their final breath. And if what that man did in his life, makes the blood pulse through the body of others, and makes them believe deeper in something larger than life, then his essence, his spirit, will be immortalized by the storytellers, by the loyalty, by the memory, of those who honor him and make whatever the man did live forever."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Truthordeal's post
09-15-2012, 04:30 PM
Post: #20
RE: The Serious Politics Discussion Thread
(09-15-2012 09:01 AM)Truthordeal Wrote:  Man, I had this wonderful dream last night.

Ron Paul had somehow gotten the nomination for the Republican party, and the Internet and his cult of personality were in full force behind him. Reddit, tumblr, twitter, the masses of Youtube and everywhere else started campaigning nonstop for him, going on to other sites and spamming Ron Paul propaganda. My college campus was flooded with those stupid "Ron Paul REVOLution" stickers. The media was giving him more coverage than ever before, to the point where there was no way he could complain about being dismissed. In every debate he got his agenda across and his fans spam voted him the winner in every CNN poll.

And then he lost. And he lost decisively. And that was the end of Ron Paul and any of his fandom's boasts that the American people love him.

Ugh, that WOULD be wonderful. Now I'm sad that it's not reality.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)