|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 06, 2012 11:09 AM |
|
|
|
Is there ANY chance that Gary will get the magical 5% of the popular vote?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 02:02 PM |
|
|
It is very unlikely.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 03:06 PM |
|
|
I have a couple of questions for Corribus.
Are you voting purely for Tax reasons for Romney? I can understand wanting to get a slightly better rate if you're earning over 250k per year.
As far as spending goes he has shown nothing that he'd to to actually reign in spending (other than cut off PBS, which has an annual budget equal to less than 4 hours of current pentagon spending, 6 hours if you throw in NPR spending)
Clicky 
What's more, he officially seems to be planning to nearly double military spending.
Source: The Blaze, Glen Beck's website.
And you really want to put the party that places onto the US House of Representatives science committee a person who outright dismisses evolution, the big bang theory and embryology as 'lies straight from the pit hell'. Why place somebody so dismissive of theorems he disagrees with on a philosophical level only on a board that is intended to promote scientific progress?
A common attack currently against Obama is not having the security in place needed at the embassies that were attacked, but they come from the people who actually cut that security budget specifically.
Basically:
If you vote for either man you vote for more war.
Voting for the lesser of two evils may be acceptable to you, but it's not to the people around the world who are being bombed by Obama.
Why vote for him also when you agree with me that about 90% of the stuff done by either party is the exact same with only small trappings that thinly veil their similarity?
Why not take a stand and get others to push for a good 3rd party candidate? Why not vote for good independents on the house and senate level as well? Kick both of these bum parties out.
I also have a couple of questions for The Gootch.
Are you voting purely for party lines?
Why vote for Obama?
Because he was given a nobel peace prize while continuing a war and starting (brief) military action in Libya?
Because the continued/expanded the Bush Policies of indefinite detention even for American citizens? Because he started using drones to attack less precisely but save American lives at the cost of citizens of countries America is not even at war with? Obama is officiall a War Criminal now.
How about his backing of the brutal government of Bahrain?
How about his continuation of "Free Speech Zones" where basically you're not allowed to say whatever you want within a certain radius of a major political speech (Republican or Democratic).
How about Obama escalating the government's efforts to keep constant surveillance of civilians according to the ACLU?
Obama is currently attacked by the NRA for restricting gun laws but has instead loosened them by allowing guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Basically:
If you vote for either man you vote for more war.
Voting for the lesser of two evils may be acceptable to you, but it's not to the people around the world who are being bombed by Obama.
Why vote for him also when you agree with me that about 90% of the stuff done by either party is the exact same with only small trappings that thinly veil their similarity?
Why not take a stand and get others to push for a good 3rd party candidate? Why not vote for good independents on the house and senate level as well? Kick both of these bum parties out.
I've asked some hard questions and offered my opinions and I want to poke your brains and maybe get some thought on election day before you both head to the polls. I am unlikely to change any lines of thinking you already have in place and have reinforced throughout election season but I'm still curious for your responses.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 03:32 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:41, 06 Nov 2012.
|
Shy,
I think the easiest way to answer your question of why I'd vote for Romney over Obama is because Obama has done nothing over the last four years to merit another four. He made a lot of promises in 2008, not the least of which was that his would be a transparent administration - and it clearly hasn't. The economy isn't really any better than it was four years ago and I think the healthcare bill Obama signed was an unqualified disaster. I vehemently disagree with his "big govt is better" philosophy, and his philosophy of direct wealth redistribution.
Romney makes a lot of proposals I like. I like the idea of shifting a lot of federal responsibilities to the states. I like the idea of simplifying the tax code. I like the idea of cutting the budget. Yes there is the possibility that Romney won't come through on these promises. Yes he has been cagey on the details. But frankly I'm ready to try a guy who might be unable to fulfil his promises over a guy who has already been shown to NOT be able to fulfil his promises.
I think going over budget analyses is useless. I am voting based on vision, and I prefer Romney's vision over Obama's.
EDIT: By the way, it goes without saying that I disagree with a lot of conservative social viewpoints. This is the problem with being a libertarian and small govt guy, to say nothing of being a fiscally conservative atheist. With the current two party system, it's virtually impossible for me to find a candidate who has social and fiscal views I agree with. That said, the president has more sway over fiscal issues, and so I usually vote for fiscal conservatives over social progressives, all things being equal.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 03:51 PM |
|
|
Corribus,
While I understand cracked articles aren't always the best sources, check out number 8.
(the whole article is quite interesting in general)
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 04:10 PM |
|
|
by the way, do you have a system of partial information (updated as you count votes), or do we have to wait until all votes are counted?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 04:13 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:14, 06 Nov 2012.
|
There are exit polls which the news agencies use to project winners (basically, asking exiting voters who they voted for). Don't know what international coverage is of these, though.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 04:31 PM |
|
|
I think the news agencies will be a little more patient in calling the outcome of this election, for fear of looking stupid for calling something earlier (such as with the outcome of "Obamacare") and then having to retract the statement.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 05:47 PM |
|
|
For some reason I can't find any reasonable page with such an (updated) poll being available. Care to point me in the right direction? 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 06:08 PM |
|
|
The polls are still open. Wait until about 8:00 PM EST for predictions.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 07:16 PM |
|
|
I have a feeling that Obama will win again. Dont ask how would I know this as it is just a feeling.
If I was to choose, I would vote for Romney. Thats because I would want america to take a more aggressive stance to russia and china.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 08:03 PM |
|
|
Stolen from Conan's Facebook page.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 08:43 PM |
|
|
@ Cor: Not to shatter hopes or dreams or anything, but if Romney is elected I can assure you that he will not do anything of importance. He'll be trying to get reelected in his first term, which has influenced presidents for generations. Obama probably won't get much done, but I'm rather certain that since he won't fear not getting reelected again, (two term limit and all) he will get more done than he did in his first term.
Plus, Obama is sexier. I would totally get that man a beer.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 09:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@ Cor: Not to shatter hopes or dreams or anything, but if Romney is elected I can assure you that he will not do anything of importance. He'll be trying to get reelected in his first term, which has influenced presidents for generations. Obama probably won't get much done, but I'm rather certain that since he won't fear not getting reelected again, (two term limit and all) he will get more done than he did in his first term.
I see - so according to you I should vote for a guy who didn't do anything in his first term because he was too concerned about the future of his personal political career? That doesn't say much for his integrity or his leadership qualities. Sure, Mitt Romney may not do anything he promises because he's concerned with re-election, but if you're going to be so cynical as to use that as the basis for whom you choose, then why vote at all? I'd vote for a 3rd party candidate before I went that route.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 10:10 PM |
|
|
And who did I vote for, one might wonder? What with my "cynical" view point on everything, why should I vote? Well, just because Romney and Obama don't have the moral integrity to do what they promise doesn't mean that these people don't exist. Many third party members actually have the stones to enact their ideas and programs, but the odds of them being elected are basically non-existent at this point.
And Cor, what I said (and you quoted) was true for basically every single president that wasn't elected into a time of military crisis, a notable exception being Clinton (who I would happily ignore the two term limit for). The presidents that we consider "Great" often achieved what made them great in their second term, while there is a very strong precedent for not doing anything or making a situation worse in the first.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 10:14 PM |
|
|
So you want to reward Obama for his potential? Gnomes, do you work for the Nobel Peace Price committee?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 10:21 PM |
|
|
Award who for what? I'm saying of all the realistic candidates Obama has the most potential... but I still don't think he has enough to qualify him as the president. I voted third party, thank you very little.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 10:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you want to reward Obama for his potential? Gnomes, do you work for the Nobel Peace Price committee?
But isn't that what anyone, ever, gets voted in for anyway? It's not like you get to be president first and then we vote.
One can never know if the elected candidate will get through what he stands for, but that's not really the point either is it? Isn't the point that you find an ideology which matches your own the most and then vote for that, if such ideology exists, otherwise vote for no one?
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 10:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The presidents that we consider "Great" often achieved what made them great in their second term, while there is a very strong precedent for not doing anything or making a situation worse in the first.
Gnomes, we've only had term limits since 1951. Using your logic, prior to 1951 no president would have been likely to do anything great because they would have always been worrying only about being re-elected. We know that's obviously not the case, but moving on - since 1951 there have been a total of.... 4 presidents, by my count, who have served two full terms (Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II; Johnson and Nixon were both re-elected but neither served two full terms). Even if you could somehow objectively prove that all four of these were better second term presidents than first term presidents*, your sampling size is so low that it wouldn't really mean much.
And beyond even that, so what? We should just automatically vote for the incumbent, no matter how awful, just because "well, historically presidents do better their second term!"? That's got to be the strangest logic I've ever heard.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 06, 2012 10:49 PM |
|
|
Cor:
1. There was a precedent for having only two terms. This was only broken by (as far as I can tell) two residents before the limit was imposed. This precedent was very, very strong and started with Washington. The law just made this "Formality" (it was basically a law already) an absolute rule. Most presidents have had to deal with the issue of being reelected and passed most of their policies in their 2nd or (for some of them) 3rd term. This is an undeniable trend.
2. This means that the incumbent WILL have greater potential than he would if this was, say, his first time in the election process. It does not mean that he will have more potential than his opponent (though since Romney/ Obama are basically the same person, I would say it does in this case), but he will have greater potential than he did before his first election.
3. His opponent's potential relies entirely on his personality, policies and his consistency. If he would seem to be the better choice based on these areas and he seems to have a much more outgoing, "I don't care, I'm going to get what I promised done" attitude, then I would say he is a better choice potential wise as he is more likely to push his agenda.
^That is my logic for determining who would be better.
In this election, Romney has shown no clear goals for anything except his position on gay rights and (maybe) the military, has contradicted himself repeatedly (sometimes on a week-to-week basis) and his personality is both condescending and rather submissive. In other words, he has **** for potential. Obama is only slightly better because he has a slightly more clear policy standpoint and he has the artificial boost of not needing to run for reelection. Might I mention that they both suck and that Clinton should run again just for the lulz? (Mr. Clinton would end up winning too...)
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
