Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Obama vs Romney 2012 - CDC Election


  • Please log in to reply
2022 replies to this topic

Poll: Obama vs Romney (329 member(s) have cast votes)

Who would you vote for?

  1. Obama (279 votes [85.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 85.32%

  2. Romney (48 votes [14.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.68%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,244 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:31 AM

I would go with Romney but I am happy either way.

Ideally with a democratic congress that will not rollback the tax increases from the fiscal cliff but will work with him to slash and burn the US government.
  • 0

#62 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:35 AM

I would go with Romney but I am happy either way.

Ideally with a democratic congress that will not rollback the tax increases from the fiscal cliff but will work with him to slash and burn the US government.


If the Dems actually won control of congress, i'd bet that the Pres. would be able to roll back the Bush tax-cuts.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#63 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,046 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:30 PM

If the Dems actually won control of congress, i'd bet that the Pres. would be able to roll back the Bush tax-cuts.

You already lost your bet.. 2009-2011 came and went with no Bush tax cut rollback. :lol:

Posted Image

Edited by zaibatsu, 29 August 2012 - 12:32 PM.

  • 2

#64 CanuckClown

CanuckClown

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:33 PM

Economic booms and busts are inherent to our way of life - it matters not who is in power. People want to blame the last crisis on Bush, or Obama, or whomever. the reality is that mortgage backed securities became a reality for an entirely different reason. The increased polaraziation of wealth - a smaller middle class, a growing working/lower class and more billionaires than ever - resulted in more capital in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Of course, with said polarization a problem arises. What does one do with their capital? (After all, if it is not used to augment itself is ceases to become capital.)

The first question is why is there a smaller middle class in N. America/West today? The reasons are numerous but I would suggest that the biggest reason would be due to the free trade agreements so typical since the 60s; which took hold like never before in the 80s. This was a reaction to the increased power of the middle class. They were receiving higher wages than ever before, and as a result profits were down. The easiest was to combat this was to break labour. This was done by way of opening up other labour markets. That is, increasing the supply of labour to the point whereby its pricce decreased. Interestingly enough this shift corresponds with the shift of power to Merchant and Fincance capital and the decrease of power in Production capital. Companies such as Wal-Mart and Visa have become bigger than ever, whereas most people have no idea as to the name of the Chinese company who made their jeans or hats and has since been branded and sold by another company. This have become possible because of the deregulation of markets.

Moreover, companies like Visa, Mastercard and any other creditor grew and grew in part 'cause of the wage stagnation that resulted from the disciplining of labour. People continued to earn less relative to the cost of living but remained focused on a certain way of life/level of consumption. Hence, a crisis of effective demand (no one to buy goods) was avoided for a good amount of time. Moreover, as the geography of multinational companies grew and grew, the more important finance became. Having the right amount of money and the right speed and time became critical in order to ensure a seemless realization of profits.

What this all amounts to, as I stated earlier, was record profits. The amount of capital accumulated by a small amount of people has become simply astounding. Here is the problem however. The more capital one accumulates the harder it becomes to find places to put it back into circulation. That is, there are less and less markets where one can realize a return. So what is one to do? The simplified version, in my opinion, is to invent a market. And there you have the birth of derivatives, sub-prime mortgages and so on.

I have rambled for far too long, so I will only say this: It is in my opinion that not a single President, Prime Minister, Chancellor or what have you, in the past 30 years, could have stopped this trend from happening. There are certain things that could slow it: wars, natural disasters and so on (allowing for the reopening of markets), but aside from that politics is a sideshow with very little impact in my opinion.

And for the Ron Paul lovers out there: being a libertarian would simply speed up the process highlighted previously. There is a reason the saying "a capitalist will sell you the rope you use to hang him with" exists. If markets are deregulated 100% then all hell would break loose.

/rant.
  • 2

#65 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,046 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:36 PM

And for the Ron Paul lovers out there: being a libertarian would simply speed up the process highlighted previously. There is a reason the saying "a capitalist will sell you the rope you use to hang him with" exists. If markets are deregulated 100% then all hell would break loose.

I would be about as worried about Ron Paul 100% deregulating the "markets" as I would be of Romney or Obama invoking a second holocaust.
  • 1

#66 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,904 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:38 PM

^ :). A direction I could have responded with, although sadly this will only be responded with Zaibatsu's fluff.
Well articulated CanuckClown.
  • 1

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#67 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,046 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:46 PM

^ :). A direction I could have responded with, although sadly this will only be responded with Zaibatsu's fluff.
Well articulated CanuckClown.

Pot.. meet kettle. :lol:
  • 0

#68 CanuckClown

CanuckClown

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:48 PM

I would be about as worried about Ron Paul 100% deregulating the "markets" as I would be of Romney or Obama invoking a second holocaust.


I don't understand why markets is in quotations. Care to elaborate?

As for the 100% deregualtion: the per centage doesn't matter. Any moving towards greater deregulation satisfies my point. Unless you care to articulate why I am wrong I don't see the point of you responding in the first place.
  • 0

#69 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,904 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:51 PM

Pot.. meet kettle. :lol:


Difference is I have two degrees and I'm starting a 3rd in September. So far you have just created smokescreen after smokescreen, insulting people, and calling educated responders "trolls". I've come to the realization I'm dealing with an 18 y/o who probably just finished some 100 level courses and feels smart by dropping the term Keynesian.

I stand by what I've said, that Ron Paul isn't qualified and Gary Johnson isn't to be taken seriously.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#70 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:00 PM

This thread has been of great amusement
  • 0
Posted Image

#71 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,046 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:04 PM

Difference is I have two degrees and I'm starting a 3rd in September. So far you have just created smokescreen after smokescreen, insulting people, and calling educated responders "trolls". I've come to the realization I'm dealing with an 18 y/o who probably just finished some 100 level courses and feels smart by dropping the term Keynesian.

I stand by what I've said, that Ron Paul isn't qualified and Gary Johnson isn't to be taken seriously.


If that's all you really said, and not the first paragraph.. and this..

fluff.


.. after this..

It's late here and I'm tired so I'm not going to provided the statistic I should to shut your kind up.

Clinton's years led to economic boom and a mainstay for your economy in the NAFTA signing. And yes, borrow, keep the money flowing through the economy, keep building roads and having people work. Bush tanked the economy through 2 wars one of which was completely unnecessary. He also led the campaign for less economic regulations leading to the housing crisis which effected the world as more than 8 trillion was tied up in equity.

By borrowing Obama has prevented the American economy from tanking even further. He has kept the American auto industry a float, as Ford, Chrysler and GM reported highs this last quarter. I shouldn't have to explain to you why an industry that big is vital to the American economy. The stimulus plan worked, and has seen job growth every term.

Ron Paul and his tea party crackheads led the campaign to prevent the debt ceiling from rising. To their narrow minded uneducated selves, lowering the debt ceiling would prevent further economic backslide. In reality, or to anyone who remotely understands economics, raising the debt ceiling would have prevented the default of Aug 2011 and ensure that American currency wouldn't be devalued. Ron Paul's answer is to cut social programs - which in a recession means further damage towards the middle and lower class.

Throw in your current nominee, Mitt Romney. The man without policy as he refuses to talk about anything of substance, and instead panders to the American population with the Republican National Convention themed after "American Exceptionalism" - a smokescreen if I've ever seen one. We don't know how Romney would run a government because he refuses to take a stand on anything. We know that he wants a smaller government but that says very little as to how it would be implemented in terms of policy. Instead the media attempts to determine how he does business in Bain capital, a corporation guilty of slave labour and buying up failing companies only to liquidate all assets into a profit. But now Bain capital is off side so we can't explore as to how he would run a government as he claims to have successfully run a business. Oh not to mention, religion and social views are off side as well - my assumption because Mormonism defiles women and Romney has stated he believes only blacks require welfare. Add to all this Romney doesn't pay his taxes and keeps his money offshore, clearly a guy who cares about his fellow Americans...
McCain was a guy I could respect - what happened?

No, I didn't cover Gary Johnson as he's not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter. Libertarian government essentially means no government at all. A broad theme with little substantive plausibility.

Oh and you didn't answer my question - how do you reduce the deficit if you refuse to cut defense spending (the largest form of spending) or increase revenue (tax the rich). Instead the republican side has attempted tax cut after tax cut and plans to juggle two wars while possibly starting a 3rd in Iran.

Obama has had four years to deal with 2 wars (he has a noble peace prize I might add), the worst economic depression since the 1930s as well as dealing with a tea party congress which refuses compromise on anything substantive. Obama has achieved a lot despite these set backs, and I believe he can do much more with a 2nd term without the pressure of having to pander to the far right.


.. then I would have let you just speak your opinion of ignorance (sorry I don't buy the "education" rant you gave, you don't seem educated at all) and laugh it off to myself.

It's amazing how much of a fit some people on this forum throw when you give an opinion they don't like. :lol:
  • 0

#72 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,046 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:12 PM

I don't understand why markets is in quotations. Care to elaborate?

As for the 100% deregualtion: the per centage doesn't matter. Any moving towards greater deregulation satisfies my point. Unless you care to articulate why I am wrong I don't see the point of you responding in the first place.

Well you decided to use the straw man of 100%.. why would percentages suddenly not matter? I bet it's because it's no longer a convenience to your argument.

Deregulation is better when the markets are left alone, and government isn't playing favourites through subsidies and bailouts. That way, each business is ( :o) actually responsible for itself if it wants to succeed, and not given a golden parachute or extensive subsidies. This is why as I get older I'm becoming less and less favourable to Keynes' vision.. it's one thing to have a vision, it's another to have it taken over and caricatured to the corporatist point seen today.

It's doubtful Ron Paul wants complete deregulation, it's nearly impossible that he'd even be able to accomplish it pretending he did.. what I'm trying to figure out is where your belief of regulation ends? I'm perfectly accepting of a little of A and B in moderation, but right now all I see is you and extremes.

Edited by zaibatsu, 29 August 2012 - 01:15 PM.

  • 0

#73 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:20 PM

You already lost your bet.. 2009-2011 came and went with no Bush tax cut rollback. :lol:



Your attempt to use this bunk argument has already been sufficiently addressed in a previous thread.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#74 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,244 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:25 PM

If the Dems actually won control of congress, i'd bet that the Pres. would be able to roll back the Bush tax-cuts.


Actually they are getting rolled back as part of the fiscal clliff implementation at the end of the year. Only a last minute bipartisan agreement to get the budget balanced (ya right!) will stop it's implementation.

So when congress comes back unless the Republicans have supermajorities in both houses you can expect the Democrats to have learned a thing or two from the Republicans and obstruct any and all efforts to restore the tax cuts.

Ergo my view of wanting Romney and his VP to encourage spending cuts but enough democrats to ensure they don't waste that by simply wasting the savings on reversing the cuts. The states needs to get there books in order more than anything and I feel of the current options that would do the best.

Mind you, if Obama gets elected he could have some fun on his own by simply rejecting every budget congress puts out and unless they had a super majority to push it past him anyways he could veto the fiscal cliff into being a long term policy.
  • 0

#75 NoShowWilly

NoShowWilly

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,432 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 06

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:28 PM

obama broke reddit.
  • 0

#76 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,904 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:34 PM

obama broke reddit.


Lol, he was pretty good today. He sure picked the right questions to answer, some of them were pretty loaded and some were ridiculous - "toilet paper in or out?"

I guess the one that intrigued me most was the unemployed recent law school grad, and how Obama would fix that situation. I like the idea of promoting wind and solar energy programs. He also got a little shot at the Republicans with their proposed tax plan.

His best answer was probably towards revisiting Super-PACs and ending Citizen United. Good showing.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#77 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:42 PM

Actually they are getting rolled back as part of the fiscal clliff implementation at the end of the year. Only a last minute bipartisan agreement to get the budget balanced (ya right!) will stop it's implementation.

So when congress comes back unless the Republicans have supermajorities in both houses you can expect the Democrats to have learned a thing or two from the Republicans and obstruct any and all efforts to restore the tax cuts.

Ergo my view of wanting Romney and his VP to encourage spending cuts but enough democrats to ensure they don't waste that by simply wasting the savings on reversing the cuts. The states needs to get there books in order more than anything and I feel of the current options that would do the best.

Mind you, if Obama gets elected he could have some fun on his own by simply rejecting every budget congress puts out and unless they had a super majority to push it past him anyways he could veto the fiscal cliff into being a long term policy.


Fair point.....although, i'll believe it when I see it.

I think the whole bi-partisan experiment that was tried in the 1st term will be chucked out the window in the 2nd. It was honourable and I applaud the effort, but if Obama wants to actually get anything sane and practical done, he'll have to twist arms, break ankles and go full out afro-ninja/jedi-warrior to get things moving through congress, or just leave them behind and do what Bush did to get things done through the Office of the President.
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#78 NoShowWilly

NoShowWilly

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,432 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 06

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:43 PM

Lol, he was pretty good today. He sure picked the right questions to answer, some of them were pretty loaded and some were ridiculous - "toilet paper in or out?"

I guess the one that intrigued me most was the unemployed recent law school grad, and how Obama would fix that situation. I like the idea of promoting wind and solar energy programs. He also got a little shot at the Republicans with their proposed tax plan.

His best answer was probably towards revisiting Super-PACs and ending Citizen United. Good showing.


lol thanks for quoting some of it. i have not been able to get into the thread yet.
  • 0

#79 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:51 PM

Ha, and you really don't think Romney would have?


Romney will be worse. I'm saying they're both terrible, they're the exact same, they will do whatever makes them the most money and give them the most power. Yes this does include revoking rights. Watch out America, this election is going to be crucial for your country.
  • 0
Posted Image

#80 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:52 PM

I must have misread the OP....

I could have sworn the question was Obama or Romney. :unsure: In fact, I was pretty sure that it specifically said no third options....


I hope not, this isn't fox news
  • 0
Posted Image

#81 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:54 PM

*
POPULAR

3 hypocritical Republican paradoxes that I can't see how anyone in their party can justify:

1) They claim to want to balance the budget, BUT always support huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations despite that they are proven to increase the defecit.

2) They claim to want to slash government spending as much as possible, BUT not only do they always refuse to cut defense spending, they persistently insist on increasing it.

3) They say that government should have virtually no involvement in people's lives, BUT they want a constitutional ban on abortion.

Even if I supported this party's economic policies (which anyways I don't), if I was an American I just couldn't bring myself to vote for them, because they're some of the slimiest, most dishonest crooks in the country.
  • 5

#82 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:56 PM

Romney will be worse. I'm saying they're both terrible, they're the exact same, they will do whatever makes them the most money and give them the most power. Yes this does include revoking rights. Watch out America, this election is going to be crucial for your country.

Romney will be worse. I'm saying they're both terrible, they're the exact same, they will do whatever makes them the most money and give them the most power. Yes this does include revoking rights. Watch out America, this election is going to be crucial for your country.


If they're exactly the same, why is the election so crucial?

But on the other hand, I do agree with you about the disappointing similarities between the two candidates and their ideologies. And by ideologies, I mean willingness to do anything they are "paid" to do. Still, Romney takes this to a whole new level.
  • 0

#83 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,369 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:57 PM

Off topic. But I had a dream where I was at a pub with Mitt and Ann. Mitt was a dick and Ann was wearing a Canucks jersey.

Not sure what the hell that means, if anything.
  • 0
Posted Image

#84 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:58 PM

Romney will be worse. I'm saying they're both terrible, they're the exact same, they will do whatever makes them the most money and give them the most power. Yes this does include revoking rights. Watch out America, this election is going to be crucial for your country.


How so?
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#85 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:59 PM

I hope not, this isn't fox news


Ha, I only said "no 3rd options" as in "I'm not including 3rd options in the poll", because whenever someone does that on an American election issue, it always seems to get the most votes. I'm interested in seeing how people would vote between the two options that actually are relevant (which in and of itself is unfortunate). Of course, if people want to express their support for a 3rd candidate in a post, by all means!
  • 1

#86 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,592 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 29 August 2012 - 03:08 PM

To be completely honest, for me it would be a tough call if I had to pick between the two. Romney comes off as a raving lunatic much of the time, but his record as governor of Mass. is solid economically and I hope some of his socially conservative preaching is just rabble-rousing.

On the other hand, we can trust Obama not to outlaw abortion, etc, but he has shown a systematic inability to deal with the Republican congress or manage the deficit responsibly. If I were an American, I would vote for Ron Paul; if I had to choose between the major party leaders, I would probably vote for Obama.


Ron Paul is also anti-abortion. "Paul says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception.[147]He terms himself "strongly pro-life",[148] "an unshakable foe of abortion",[149] and believes regulation or ban[150] on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[143][151] His abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."[152]
  • 0
"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/

#87 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 03:13 PM

How so?


They will do whatever they can to gain more power and money. They're puppets for companies.
  • 0
Posted Image

#88 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,228 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 29 August 2012 - 03:26 PM

I could have sworn OP is the one who writes what candidates go on the Presidential ballot.. oh, snap.. :picard:

But I will note next time OP puts two options and tells you no third one, especially if those options are "jump off a bridge" and "blow yourself up", you'll religiously follow his instructions. :bigblush:

Obviously we don't care if he doesn't want to include anyone besides Obama or Romney. I'm also not going to vote on the poll because it doesn't include anyone I'm actually voting for.

As long as Ron Paul doesn't endorse Mitt Romney or back out from the race I'm voting for him. If he does, then I vote for Gary Johnson come October.


Posted Image
  • 2

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#89 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,336 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 03:39 PM

Posted Image


Sorry for straying off topic OP. Ron Paul while he sounds interesting. Would be the most ineffective president off all time. No one from either side of the isle would work with him and we all know that. He'd be a lame duck from day 1 and accomplish zip.
  • 0

#90 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 03:50 PM

If they're exactly the same, why is the election so crucial?

But on the other hand, I do agree with you about the disappointing similarities between the two candidates and their ideologies. And by ideologies, I mean willingness to do anything they are "paid" to do. Still, Romney takes this to a whole new level.


Because a vote for either one of those frauds will bring the country down even more. People need to wake up, stop watching MSM, vote for someone that makes sense. Ron Paul/Gary Johnson 2012.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.