Obama vs Romney 2012 - CDC Election

[Tortorella's Rant]

[Dral]

Because I vote based on quality of President like when I interview people for a job and want to find out their job-related qualities, whether they look good or are a smooth talker is irrelevant. In fact, hiring someone to do a job based on their ability to be a smooth talker, or by how much swag they have, tends to have bad results. Oh look, there's Obama to prove that point.

This is why terrible Presidents like Bush and Obama get elected.

[Ossi Vaananen]

Right, and in that you stated that letting some of the US's largest financial and productive institutions fail was sound. Do you have any idea how completely idiotic this notion is? Unless you're some 1st econ student, I'm simply going to assume you're a moron. Otherwise, continue with your education and get back to me in 3 years.

[Dral]

That's the vibe I got from this joke as well, he only understands economic theory in the vaguest form. Not to mention in every post he insults someone by calling them "dumb or stupid" even though the original poster was more coherent. He's clearly 18 and just finished some 100 level economic courses.

Zaibatsu - read Thomas Frank's Pity the Billionaire and you will have a better idea of why the sh*t you spew is so illogical and uniformed. In all honesty you're not worth the crib notes. Have fun voting for Paul/Johnson who don't have an icebergs chance in hell at getting elected.

[Ossi Vaananen]

Of course you realize, unless he's lying about who he voted for, Zaibatsu is at least 30, heh.

Oh well, monkey see, monkey do!

[Dral]

I was insinuating that he was much younger than he claims, or certainly acts it. I'm very much not trying to sink to his level -it's hard.

[Ossi Vaananen]

Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.

And you failed There's really no difference between calling someone stupid and calling someone who's at least 30 a teenager. Give up trying. After all, you're only human too. Besides, it's much more fun to revel in the muck with all the other mud dwellers.

[uber_pwnzor]

I don't understand how this even could be a question, I mean, one of them believes that Jesus came from America and wants to outlaw abortion entirely. If the Democrat candidate was a monkey, I'd still vote for him/her.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Time for me to offer some of my valuable opinion. Sorry I haven't been around as much lately to spout it around the forum.

I find this thread interesting, while I agree with Zaibatsu on Obama, I disagree with him on Paul. As a foreigner, I only support Paul because his foreign policy would neuter Americans tentacles. As for internal policy, I could give a rat's ass if Americans will be dying by the road from hunger, lack of medical care, and poisoned environment - so long as their military is home and not in the Middle East and other places. Of course I'm not quite that heartless, but I think Paul would be wonderful for the world and disastrous for the US, and they deserve it for the last 60 years' of foreign interventions.

Obama. Oh yay, gays can serve openly. Oh wow, some more Americans get healthcare in a system where they charge you hundreds for an aspirin. (Yeah, high medical costs in the US aren't the result of R&D like someone suggested. Americans really are getting screwed royally with a cherry on top. I've said it before and I'll say it again and again - Obama is a social liberal's dream, and that's exactly the platform that keeps him supported. Liberals love gay people and women's rights. Liberals, like conservatives, are being entertained by the political theater while bankers who destroyed the economy are free to enjoy their millions.

This election is good cop, bad cop - at the end of the day, both are pigs.

Romney is so easy to hate, it's a no brainer that Obama will win. And that's entirely by design. Lesser evil - has everyone forgotten this universal truth?

Then he can raid more medical marijuana farms, push around Latin American countries into playing along, and jail black people by the thousands. Someone needs to make the clothes for McDonald's and Applebees" (bonus points for knowing the line).

Hey, how's them fighting age males militants that Obama's bombing on a daily basis? That's surely making things better, yeah?

Come on guys, intelligent people should be able to see through the facade that is Obama and this whole election. Sure, there are differences between Obama and Bush, and Obama and Romney. And sure, we can point to Obama's policies like some did and say "See, he's not just more of the same, he's trying". Would any Democrat say Bush did not do a single good thing while in office? Bollocks. First term, Bush increased funding to Science and Healthcare. Oh he must be a champion of science.

I think what everyone in this thread is missing is that an election is not able to fix the problems in the nation. Even when you get a candidate who wants to, the forces that work against him, from the media to the parties they run for, that winning will never happen. American politics is about managing the people, not about running the country. Right now, liberal winds are strong and Obama is riding them all the way to the second term.

Americans need to go Bolshevik on their masters, and Obama belongs in the same dump as Bush, Reagan, Romney, and the rest of the human filth that made its way to the top of the pyramid.

[King of the ES]

I visited his campaign website and many of his ideals were reasonable, except for gun regulation.

Its sad how this is the first time I've heard of him, yet nut-jobs like Herman Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich have all gotten huge coverage over the course of campaigning.

[Sharpshooter]

Time for me to offer some of my valuable opinion. Sorry I haven't been around as much lately to spout it around the forum.

I find this thread interesting, while I agree with Zaibatsu on Obama, I disagree with him on Paul. As a foreigner, I only support Paul because his foreign policy would neuter Americans tentacles. As for internal policy, I could give a rat's ass if Americans will be dying by the road from hunger, lack of medical care, and poisoned environment - so long as their military is home and not in the Middle East and other places. Of course I'm not quite that heartless, but I think Paul would be wonderful for the world and disastrous for the US, and they deserve it for the last 60 years' of foreign interventions.

Obama. Oh yay, gays can serve openly. Oh wow, some more Americans get healthcare in a system where they charge you hundreds for an aspirin. (Yeah, high medical costs in the US aren't the result of R&D like someone suggested. Americans really are getting screwed royally with a cherry on top. I've said it before and I'll say it again and again - Obama is a social liberal's dream, and that's exactly the platform that keeps him supported. Liberals love gay people and women's rights. Liberals, like conservatives, are being entertained by the political theater while bankers who destroyed the economy are free to enjoy their millions.

This election is good cop, bad cop - at the end of the day, both are pigs.

Romney is so easy to hate, it's a no brainer that Obama will win. And that's entirely by design. Lesser evil - has everyone forgotten this universal truth?

Then he can raid more medical marijuana farms, push around Latin American countries into playing along, and jail black people by the thousands. Someone needs to make the clothes for McDonald's and Applebees" (bonus points for knowing the line).

Hey, how's them fighting age males militants that Obama's bombing on a daily basis? That's surely making things better, yeah?

Come on guys, intelligent people should be able to see through the facade that is Obama and this whole election. Sure, there are differences between Obama and Bush, and Obama and Romney. And sure, we can point to Obama's policies like some did and say "See, he's not just more of the same, he's trying". Would any Democrat say Bush did not do a single good thing while in office? Bollocks. First term, Bush increased funding to Science and Healthcare. Oh he must be a champion of science.

I think what everyone in this thread is missing is that an election is not able to fix the problems in the nation. Even when you get a candidate who wants to, the forces that work against him, from the media to the parties they run for, that winning will never happen. American politics is about managing the people, not about running the country. Right now, liberal winds are strong and Obama is riding them all the way to the second term.

Americans need to go Bolshevik on their masters, and Obama belongs in the same dump as Bush, Reagan, Romney, and the rest of the human filth that made its way to the top of the pyramid.

[dajusta]

I like this video.

[Zamboni_14]

I have a serious (and probably stupid) question about those saying they're voting for Paul. Is that even an option? I didn't think he was running as an independent. I know Johnson is, but other than him I thought the only two choices were basically Obama & Romney.

I'm not trying to be ironic or make a point in asking this, I actually don't know.

[Zamboni_14]

That's the vibe I got from this joke as well, he only understands economic theory in the vaguest form. Not to mention in every post he insults someone by calling them "dumb or stupid" even though the original poster was more coherent. He's clearly 18 and just finished some 100 level economic courses.

Zaibatsu - read Thomas Frank's Pity the Billionaire and you will have a better idea of why the sh*t you spew is so illogical and uniformed. In all honesty you're not worth the crib notes. Have fun voting for Paul/Johnson who don't have an icebergs chance in hell at getting elected.

[CanuckClown]

this has always annoyed me... how people say; "oh well they won't win anyways, so why vote for them?" Last time I checked, you were voting for "who do you think has the best chance of winning." I never look at how good/bad of a chance someone has of winning when I cast my vote. When I cast my vote, I vote FOR the person that best represents my views.. I NEVER vote for the "lesser of two evils" so that "the other person doesn't win." That's what gets us into this mess of getting two BAD options rather than 1 good and 1 bad option.

If Jimmy Carter ran today... he'd probably win. And considering he's gone down as one of the "worst" presidents... that tells you how BAD both options are.

[Zamboni_14]

Jimmy Carter wasn't a bad president as much as he was a president at a bad time. He held the White House just before a paradigm shift - he had no chance at being successful. If you ask me, Reagan was by far worse. He sold the American public out in favour of capital. Similarly, I would argue that Thatcher was the worst for Britain.

Either way, if one isn't going to strategically vote, then they shouldn't vote. Helping to show a decrease in voting numbers has a far greater impact than any "rhino" protest vote.

[CanuckClown]

I'm really not looking to debate the whole Carter-Reagan presidency.. I was using Carter as an example. Really, you could insert almost ANY past president in US history... and they'd defeat both Romney and Obama, that was my point.

strategically vote... so we should compromise our views just so we can vote for the captain of the football team for "most popular?" I'd really love to hear how you think not voting does more than voting for someone other than the two major candidates.

[Zamboni_14]

The "West" is the great democracy of our time. If 10 to 20% of people turn out to vote it kinda serves to questions that BS assumption wouldn't you say? But keep voting for the joke candidates. Lets see how that changes things

Nevermind, at least we'll know you can sleep at night - that seems to be what it's all about.

EDIT: And of course you don't want to debate the Carter v Reagan point. Chances are you don't have the slightest clue, read something about how Carter was bad, and have lived by it ever since. And no, I'm no a Dem or an Obama fanboy.

[CanuckClown]

10-20% turn out... and we are being called "lazy" because we aren't using our given right to a vote (and thus taking our freedom to vote for granted.) Plus, that just leaves the two extremes to make the decision for us.. oh what a joy that would be. More Bush than Bush or more Obama than Obama. Talk about a winning idea.

And yes I will continue to vote for people I support. When history looks back at this time, and people ask; "who the heck was voting for these idiots!?" I'll be able to reply without hesitation that I had absolutely nothing to do with it and was already trying to voice my opposition to the status quo years before everyone else finally grew a freaking spine and actually voted FOR someone rather than AGAINST someone. But hey, you obviously feel you can sleep at night with no problems knowing that you took everything you are, every view you have, every ideal you hold dear... and compromised it all, just so you could vote for Mr. Popular and continue on with the problem that is currently at hand. And chances are, when the same question is asked of you... you won't have the courage to admit that you tucked tail between your legs and just stuck with what was broken because you were too afraid to actually USE your vote the correct way.. you'll just lie about it so your grandchildren don't look down at you as a fool that you are.

and I don't want to debate Carter-Reagan because that actually has nothing to do with the current topic at hand and I was just throwing it out there (or did you miss the part where I followed that up saying it was just and example?)

[Columbo]

that's actually not a stupid question. I believe (and I don't even know 100% myself) that it depends on the state and how they set up the ballot. In Minnesota, everyone and their brother is listed (doesn't matter how small of a party... we can vote for a socialist, communist, green, independent, republican, democrat, etc. as long as they are officially running for office.) But I think some states only have 2 or 3 parties listed on the ballot. And of course you have the "write-in" option as well.