Ok, so I guess we're talking politics (again).
Just a simple thing, what do you think of the candidates? Who would you vote for?
Ok, here's my go:
Barack Obama: I've no real quarrel with him. It's just that he brings false hope - mainly because he can't do anything because the Republicans control Congress. And his speeches make him sound jsut like an average politician.
Mitt Romney: Click. (http://www.notefromlapland.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/q-icon-no.gif
Ron Paul: Well, not only is he the most logical choice left, but I would've voted for him anyways. However, he isn't getting the Republican Nomination because he has less than 2% media coverage. His voice will be heard at the convention, that's for sure.
I remember when folks on here used to play video games.
(Disclaimer: I posted this post before this thread was moved into Kavar's... I would never intentionally post in this forum, it's the cancer of LFN.)
@OP--best thing that could happen is that BO moves on and reenters the private sector, where he can now make good money to help pay off the debt he's helped to accelerate. As to the republicans controlling Congress? :rofl: You do realize that the dems controlled BOTH houses for at least 1/2 BO's term and accomplished precious little. Now the reps only have the upper hand in the House, yet magically control Congress? RP is still something of a fringe candidate, whose best idea probably involves the Fed (it should, at the very least, be audited).
@Lynk--most of us still do. ;)
I voting for George Washington. That's the only choice I got. :D
We can either vote for a left/moderate republican or a right/moderate democrat. So basically the same person.
Here's the political compass of the election this year. Not a great source but an easy source. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
Paul is a racist whose austerity ideas would crash our economy if enacted as quickly as he wanted.
Annnddd I'm out.
I doubt there will be that much difference betwen BO and MR when it comes to economic policy (austerity is fine to talk about, but not even Thatcher was able to enact it). Sure, there will probably be slightly less tax increase and more spending decrease, and maybe the military white elephant is cut less in the eventual deal, but there will be a compromise eventually (hopefully after the economy picks up). BO at least manage foreign policy well enough, keeps the state out of the bedroom, and prevents the supreme court from being too unbalanced so he'd have my vote. Of course, I'm from one of those failed socialist countries that has survived the recession fairly well.
@Tot:The problem with the Reps in congress is less about how many seats they have, more about their willingness to ignore precedent in the name of obstruction.
@murph---but considering how BO and the dems treated them when they had control, big deal. I don't believe it's merely obstruction, though that's how it's painted by the media and the American Left in general.
Since BO has been trending towards the right-wing of his party in general (a couple of policies are exceptions of course), I wouldn't say they were treatet that badly. That said, my problem is less with either of the parties using majorities to get their way in the house (exceptions apply for brinkmanship with potential disastorous consequences). I have a lot more problems with the filibuster freakshow, where every piece of legalisation needs a supermajority to pass, as that is A: Pulverising any sense of responsibility for whoever is the majority B: Preventing even necesarry routine legalisation from being enacted. Sure, this means I'm furious with the Reps now and want to see them punished for it at the elections, but it's mainly because I don't want it to become precedent.
The main problem is that both parties are going in very divergent directions. The dems (and some reps) want an overly involved central govt making all the decisions, regardless of Constitutional boundaries. Many reps want a smaller role for the federal govt. Speaking of precedent, BO's handling of the auto bailout turned that on its head, all to pay back his union supporters. However, given that the Reid and company have shirked their fiscal duty by failing to submit a budget for much of Obama's first term (in addition to near unanimous rejections of anything sent up by the WH), that's not a precedent worth emulating either. So, yeah, the govt is dysfunctional. I put the blame on the trend of establishment types in both parties that seem to want an overmuscular sugar-daddy style federal govt (or even state/local/.etc..) that we simply can't afford.
A large government can be afordable, if you are willing to pay for it (see the nordic countries, huge state, nice standard of living and enough growth, but with the taxes to pay for it). Also, the US is not just strugling with an unwillingness to pay for what it wants, it's also terribly inneficient (example: the state pays more for healthcare than almost all countries pr person despite having a largely private sysstem).
Anyway, that's not my problem, I don't live in the US and if the US decides it wants a libertarian system, then fine, if it wants a nordic style welfare state, then that's fine too. What is less fine is a gridlock that prevents the politicians from achieving either, while incentivising them to block everything and thus leaving the US stuck in a really bad situation. Basically, I want the US to be more governable, however a system change isn't really on offer in this presidental election. I'm not too fond of what the Dems have done either, but they haven't declared their undying love for the filibuster or the downright frightening brinkmanship during the debt celling debacle, yet. So I'm hoping for a BO win, not because he'll be all that different from MR, but because it might give the Rep brinkmenn a corrective slap (ideally I'd want a way to give the Dem nutters a slap too, but two party system and all that).
All I'd say about gridlock is that it's still a 2 way street. Congress is not a rubber stamp for the Presidency, regardless of which parties control which branch. I'd like to see a move toward more efficient governance, where laws and bills aren't unwieldy and devoid of riders to cram unpopular programs onto necessary bills. But, running a country like Norway or Sweden isn't the same as the US/PRC/etc.. If CA had Norway's oil reserves, with access unfettered by greenie wackos, I'm sure they'd be a little less insolvent than they are now.
Anyone else > obama. :carms:
Anyone else > obama. :carms:
I believe that we need a much more libertarian approach in the gov't. Let the people have freedom of choice with their lifestyles and petty topics and let the government deal with the real issues (i.e. Trillions of dollars in debt/dying economy, the border situation, etc...). We don't need our hands held and to be told what to buy/eat/wear... political correctness and the overzealous, media dictated police-statesque regulations have to go.
To quote Thoreau "A government which governs best is that which governs least."
Nah, that'd make too much sense.
Better to keep the masses distracted with divisive BS so they'll never realize they're being controlled.
If anyone should have won the Republican Primaries, it should have been Ron Paul. It's a shame he didn't receive the attention he deserved. At this point, it's obvious that the 2 remaining runners will be: Obama and Romney.
and = >
If anyone should have won the Republican Primaries, it should have been Ron Paul. It's a shame he didn't receive the attention he deserved.
That's because he might actually try to fix stuff, and fixing stuff is anathema to the bipartisan agenda of maintaining the status quo and profiting from it.