You want your politics to be more in the center than anything else and right now the United States is very conservative and progressing evermore to the left. Right now, Ronald Reagan is shifting in his grave and has been for quite a while now. So even if you disagree with Obama's politics, you should still vote for him, if anything to reign in your political spectrum.
@Pinworm45: He's a constitutionalist and respects the rule of law, which is not something I could hold against him. As the constitution says issues like abortion are up to the states themselves to decide. If you would like to regulate abortion on a federal level you should pass constitutional ammendments for it.
Oh noes, he's a creationist, surely that means he must be the worst candidate ever!
Worst? Not necessarily. Unable to properly lead a county in the modern age? Absolutely. I also have absolutely no idea why you bothered to compare him to Obama, as at no point did I say he was better. In fact, I want Ron Paul to win, because while I think he's a bit of a lunatic, he's an honest Lunatic and he wants to stop a lot of bad things that are wasting money. America needs 2 things right now in Politics: An honest leader (even though I extremely disagree with a lot of things he's honest about), and an end the wastes of money that are destroying the States financially. He has my support, but part of that is only because the competition is so bafflingly horrendous.
Healthcare is just as important as the Bill of Rights. I don't believe people who have been dropped by insurance companies after 20 years should lose all their benefits. Imagine if you were paying an insurer for 20 years & they drop you cause they feel like it. You can't do anything about it cuz it's private. Only thing you can do is sue, and you don't usually win.
You'd think that the states that regulate every insurance company in every state would handle these concerns. I'm amazed, beyond all measure, that the government is not terribly competent at doing anything.
The problem is Romney has to hate gay people to be taken seriously as a republican candidate
Can anybody name the Republicans who hate "gay people"? I'm quite curious.
Ron Paul is scarily religious and wants to disband, among other ESSENTIAL THINGS, the Dept of Education.
In what alternate universe is a Cabinet Agency created in the 1970's as pay-off to the NEA "essential"? You can't point to improvement in educational statistics since its creation.
there is no one who is good to vote for. just face the fact that barack obama is slightly less of a danger to the republic than everyone in the other party and vote for that asshole.
The next president will be just as hamstrung by an infantile and corrupt house/senate. As long as there are lobbyists and special interest groups, our government will never function for the people.
News flash: Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. At least Herman Cain knew he was just in it to sell books.
Ron Paul is scarily religious and wants to disband, among other ESSENTIAL THINGS, the Dept of Education.
Also, anyone who idealizes "free markets" is absolutely retarded. He'd trade an authoritarian government for authoritarian corporations. At least we can vote out our corrupt leaders.
Yes, he wants to disband the Department of Education. Do you even know why?
The Department of Education is a sham and a farce! No Child Left Behind was one of the dumbest fucking ideas ever, as it has done nothing but continually degrade the educational value of public schools. Teachers don't actually teach kids - they teach them the test to make sure the schools get their funding rather than shutting down. Sure, the solution would be "then actually teach the kids something", but it just doesn't work that way. No one is going to look at it with that point of view in a teaching position when they are more concerned with potentially losing their jobs because a kid doesn't grasp what they are teaching and fails the tests.
Also, STANDARDIZED TESTS ARE FUCKING STUPID! I personally was never the greatest in social studies growing up, but I aced everything in math. Does that mean I should fail a standardized test because I was incapable of grasping social studies when I was a kid? I learned plenty about it when I got older because I personally WANTED to know more. I hated that I couldn't grasp it as a teenager, and in turn, I sought that education MYSELF when I left high school.
There's also the issue of money, particularly how the public education system and the Department of Education are used to squander millions of tax dollars from Americans in order to line the pockets of bureaucrats while barely any of that money is funneled back to the system they orchestrate! Here in Texas, we get the double whammy of Rick Perry's bullshit governorship and the Federal Government's half-assed attempt at an education system bending us over and sticking it right up our ass with a needle-tipped busted condom! Texas schools aren't failing because the teachers aren't teaching. They are failing because they do not get near the funding they need in order to thrive due to getting cockblocked in two ways!
Hell, that's not EVEN mentioning FORCED MEDICATION! FOOOOOOOOOOORCED! No one should be forced to medicate their children. That's the choice of a parent. Let me reiterate what I just said in a different statement:
A MAN WHO WAS A LICENSED PHYSICIAN DOES NOT BELIEVE IN FORCED MEDICATION!
If the school systems because privatized and/or personalized (private schools, home schooling, state-funded rather than federal-funded), it means that the schools can get more attention overall as well as ensure that the children are learning. Making a classroom smaller means that you make a classroom easier to teach. It also puts a much bigger chunk of responsibility in the hands of parents, who NEED to be taking more action in their childrens' lives and education. The current system does not allow for that, and parents take advantage of it to continue acting like they are 16 years old!
No, Ron Paul's wish to disband five branches of government are more than sound - they are necessary in order to bring our country back to a place it needs to be: individual freedom, individual prosperity, and individual responsibility. Personally, anyone who sees it another way is looking at all the other candidates and saying "no, I like believing that I'm entitled to shit and don't have to work for any of it".
@duder123: What do you think any politician is? You are not helping your case by resorting to name calling or being so ignorant as to think any of these politicians are altruistic and looking out for you. Remember, this is their job, their career. They are gonna do what it takes to get ahead, and part of that is pleasing the public, but also pleasing their sponsors. Just like TV, websites and wrestling.
I say we go with Obama, he is a real G. Like Jeff. He popped a cap in Bin Laden and dropped his carcass into the ocean. Got out of Iraq, which should have been done by Bush. And is setting up to get out of Afghanistan. We got bigger problems then some hoods running around in the desert and he is gearing up to deal with those, and Europe agrees with him, Iran and North Korea are gonna be a problem. As for the economy, it is incredible how stupid the country is thinking that one candidate is gonna have a quick fix. You can't just turn shit around in a year or 4, the economy has to be something that is strong and sustainable. The downfall that culminated in 2008 started back in early 2004, with increases in buys of SUVs and the housing market starting to get out of control in 2003.
I think what people also need to remember is that we got used to having things that we can't afford. People want someone who is gonna cut spending and not raise taxes. But guess what, they don't want to cut anything! Oh and people get pissed and think we are in danger by cutting our military spending. That doesn't guarantee security. You need more money for the CIA and cops if you are worried about terrorism.
And Health Care. You do not have something like people's health be something that is all about profit. It definitely cannot be given the same free range as if you are selling ipods. It should be a public right. How would you feel if police and firefighting were a private industry? Look at what happens when you allow the military to be joined by for profit shit. We get games like Blackwater, enough said.
Well "educational statistics" is kind of vague and might be missing the point. The Dept of Education is responsible for a number of different things, including:
providing k-12 and post-secondary financial aid to students,
collecting data about schools' performances for Congress and the public,
making recommendations for education reform, and
enforcing anti-discrimination laws for schools receiving federal funds.
I'm actually a law student interning with the Office for Civil Rights right now, which is a branch of the Dept of Education. We're responsible for this last bulletpoint, making sure schools that get taxpayer money aren't discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability or national origin. I'm probably a little biased for the ED since I'm working there, but I think it does some pretty important things.
My comment was probably a little extreme, calling the ED "ESSENTIAL." It was a knee-jerk reaction to the political rhetoric. Both sides tend to oversimplify.
Actually, Dept of Education should be COMPLETELY defunded immediately. Their ideas on education have failed, miserably, for the 31 full years they have had their doors open.
Let's go over the list:
1) Providing K-12 and post-secondary education financial aid? They own student loans for college students, which are one of the more consistently horrifying parts of college where students graduate with debt that they cannot hope to pay off --- and with absolutely no real means of getting out from under it. As far as K-12 funding --- it's a small percentage and the results have been abysmal given the comical amount of money spent on public education.
2) Not worth the money spent on this.
3) The recommendations have thoroughly sucked for 31 years thus far.
4) Useless paper pushers that are the drain of FAR too much of the spending on education. The country would be served well by immediately turfing half of the administration staff post haste.
The Dept of Education is one of the lease useful agencies out there and we'd be best served with it not existing. As it did until it was created in 1979 and opened its doors in 1980 --- again, as payoff to the NEA. Shut down that, Dept of Energy, DHS, Dept of Commerce and you have a solid start.
The next president will be just as hamstrung by an infantile and corrupt house/senate. As long as there are lobbyists and special interest groups, our government will never function for the people.
As long as the government sticks its fingers where it doesn't belong, there will be lobbyists. Why would an agency not lobby when they can get massive benefits in doing so? The current administration has shown, clear as day, how beneficial it is giving the right money to the right people to get the government to give you tons of money for a product that cannot succeed.
You can't fault the lobbyist for trying to get the government to sell its goods to them for a small price. The ONLY person you can blame is the government for selling itself.
Obama is still underwater in the approval category. Generic Republican leads him presently.
Obama is in a TON of trouble. And Fast & Furious, Solyndra, etc are going to be REALLY hard to explain away. And with SCOTUS hearing the Obamacare suit, no way that comes out helping him (either it's unconstitutional or his opponents REALLY want to unseat him to end a thoroughly hated bill)/
Remember when people were all excited that Obama would be president? That things would change? Well, I was a cynic then, and it turns out I was right. Which isn't something I'm too happy about. I'm not a cynical person, quite the opposite. In some cases I might even be called a wide-eyed idealist, but when it comes to influential politicians... they're all sellouts.
Who would want to outlaw anal sex? It's sweet and a great alternative to pussy sex or mouth whoppie. Stupid that a politician would even waste the time to try and govern sex between two consenual people.
@MikeinSC: Mormonism has absolutely zero intellectual backing.
And our planet is in a natural cycle of heating and cooling, the debate is whether or not our involvement has sped up or intensified the process. It's happening regardless.
Either way, I'm not really in Obama's corner anyway, or anyone for that matter. But to say that Mormonism is anything but fraudulent is absurd.
@MikeinSC: Mormonism has absolutely zero intellectual backing.
And our planet is in a natural cycle of heating and cooling, the debate is whether or not our involvement has sped up or intensified the process. It's happening regardless.
Either way, I'm not really in Obama's corner anyway, or anyone for that matter. But to say that Mormonism is anything but fraudulent is absurd.
Not saying it is not intellectually vacant. It has nothing factual on its side (though, in their defense, Mormons tend to be the nicest people I've ever met, so if it works for them, more power to them).
I'm saying that the current empty suit in the WH believes in even LESS intellectually rigorous pursuits than Mormonism.
You better crawl back under your little redneck rock, boy.
Aww, somebody showed little Thumper here how to use a keyboard. I guess the effort to recreate Shakespeare will take more time and far more monkeys.
Political arguments on the internet are silly and this thread just further proves that. On a related note, it sucks that the first time I can vote is also a time when I don't like any of the people running.
@MikeinSC: You make such good arguments, type things that make you seem like a intelligent person.
Than you say some fucking dumb shit when someone starts to troll you. I can't take you seriously when you're having a shit flinging fight with someone. Make you look childish and just hurts yourself more than it makes you look like a "big man" on the internet.
@Brodehouse: Rick Perry is a George W Bush that drinks.
If that's true, he's got my vote. We all remember the stupid shit that came out of a sober Bush, so imagine the entertainment value a drunk one could bring.
Remember when people were all excited that Obama would be president? That things would change? Well, I was a cynic then, and it turns out I was right. Which isn't something I'm too happy about. I'm not a cynical person, quite the opposite. In some cases I might even be called a wide-eyed idealist, but when it comes to influential politicians... they're all sellouts.
Generation Irony loves be be jaded as fuck about everything, but the fact was still that in the first half of Obama's term, we had one of the most productive Congresses in several decades. Further achievements were blocked by silly parliamentary wrangling (like the filibuster, turning a 59-41 vote into a losing vote) and petty obstructionism. Democrats are far from perfect, but we do accomplish things under their governance.
@MikeinSC: Mormonism has absolutely zero intellectual backing.
And our planet is in a natural cycle of heating and cooling, the debate is whether or not our involvement has sped up or intensified the process. It's happening regardless.
Either way, I'm not really in Obama's corner anyway, or anyone for that matter. But to say that Mormonism is anything but fraudulent is absurd.
Romney is Mormon. That isn't good. That states a willingness to believe practically anything.
I'm glad we've made so much progress away from bigotry since JFK. If I recall correctly, the man is running for presidential office, not pope.
As John F. Kennedy said
[N]either do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it. . . . [C]ontrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views – in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise. But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election. If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I'd tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
Every candidate should be judged on the basis of their policy as it pertains to leading the country from presidential office. It even talks about no religious test in the Constitution. If you guys want to argue the losing battle of politics on the internet, go for it, but last I checked religion =/= politics. This goes for every candidate.
Log in to comment