Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60

Thread: Why [insert candidate] should become the next POTUS

  1. #1

    Default Why [insert candidate] should become the next POTUS

    We where starting to have too many threads on this topic and because of how the discussion was going merging them did not seem sensible. So here is the all purpose why should you so and so win thread.

    You can find the original threads for Obama, Romney, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

    This thread is to talk about why you believe your favourite candidate should be selected, not why you think people shouldn't vote for the other guy(s).

  2. #2

    Default

    I feel like I could write a novel on why Obama is the best choice in this election, and then after all that, Near would still tease me for voting for a conservative -_-

    I guess that hints at the gist of it; US politics are so right-shifted, so extremely conservative beyond all rationality already, that it's hard to make a strong argument for anyone but the person who will most revert us to the first-world mean. The rest of the world may not get everything correct, but should we grant that they get much correct at all, the mean is likely closer to ideal than where the US is now.

  3. #3

    Default

    I honestly cannot wait until all the election BS blows over. I hate this time of the year and I hate the ads. If I honestly could care less who wins, because neither of them are going to be able to fix the mess we are in.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by WingDog View Post
    I honestly cannot wait until all the election BS blows over. I hate this time of the year and I hate the ads. If I honestly could care less who wins, because neither of them are going to be able to fix the mess we are in.
    I don't know about you but theres no political ad's in Sleeping Dogs, BF3, TF2, GTA4, JC2, Civ 5, Bastion, Limbo, Heavy Rain, GT5 XL. (Edit: Forgot Skyrim.)

    Video games, seriously.
    Last edited by Fire2box; 18-Oct-2012 at 17:41.

  5. #5
    ElijahLee

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    I don't know about you but theres no political ad's in Sleeping Dogs, BF3, TF2, GTA4, JC2, Civ 5, Bastion, Limbo, Heavy Rain, GT5 XL.

    Video games, seriously.
    There is some in GTA IV, see the polictial ad's on the "gheto side" (aldereny) and the radio ones too with "MICHEAL GRAVES" and all that, but your right none in the other games,

  6. #6

    Default

    I am a little biased on this topic because I worked for Romney during the 2002 Winter Olympics. The connection was actually pretty close, I was on a venue management team. He did an amazing job leading a huge team and we had a very successful Olympic Games.

    Through all of the fighting and bickering I see more reasons to vote for Romney over Obama. Mind you that I voted for Obama 4 years ago. Obama has had his chance and really has shown us little positive leadership. Yes he had done a little good but there has been more bad than good.

    For me, removing my personal experience with Mitt, I say it comes down to two things. First, a question if values. The US Constitution is far more important to me than most any other issue. Romney will better defend the Constitution, which is part of the oath the POTUS must take. Obama, on the other hand, tracks much more toward socialism than the form of government that our founding fathers established. If you are interested in changing the form of government to Socialist or even Communist, Obama is the better choice. I you are more in favor of democracy, the choice is clearly Romney.

    The other huge reason, probably the biggest of all for me, is the huge deficit that has now grown by more than 4 trillion dollars under Obama. We are now at the point that the nation has more public debt than the TOTAL of all goods and services purchased in the Unites States in a year. This is nothing short of crazy. Both candidates talk about reducing the deficit but only one of them has actually had that as one of his responsibilities and he has flat failed, that is Obama. He claims he can reduce it but he expects to do this by increasing taxes, especially on the wealthy. This is a huge mistake because any tax increase will further slow or kill the economy, then we are in much worse shape.

    Romney actually has a plan to decrease tax and by doing so increase the number of jobs and tax revenue. His detractors say this is not possible but they are flat wrong. Lower taxes leaves more money in the hands of more people, money that can be and would be spent much more readily. This in turn means more business for those businesses that are struggling, and makes it possible for them to hire more people. Regardless, it also leaves more money in the hands of businesses which results in more spending. With a more vibrant economy money literally flows through the economy with greater frequency. Every time every dollar flows through the economy it is taxed. While the concept is hard to grasp it actually works very well.

    So I count at least 4 trillion reasons to not vote for Obama.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Garzilla View Post
    The other huge reason, probably the biggest of all for me, is the huge deficit that has now grown by more than 4 trillion dollars
    Obama actually manage to lower the deficit. You meant the word debt, not deficit. You entire post just seems like the media cycle understanding of the Republican message.

    Romney's fiscal plan lack something substantive, and that is that is doesn't exist. At least not in any form that can be analyzed by the public. It's more of a bunch of very vague promises.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Garzilla View Post
    For me, removing my personal experience with Mitt, I say it comes down to two things. First, a question if values. The US Constitution is far more important to me than most any other issue. Romney will better defend the Constitution, which is part of the oath the POTUS must take. Obama, on the other hand, tracks much more toward socialism than the form of government that our founding fathers established. If you are interested in changing the form of government to Socialist or even Communist, Obama is the better choice. I you are more in favor of democracy, the choice is clearly Romney.
    There are so many things wrong with this paragraph. The idea that Obama is a socialist is laughable when he's to the right of every pretty much every other first world leader. The idea that he doesn't "defend the Constitution" is absurd; the man is a former Constitutional law professor and the opposition has no special claim on the Constitution. The idea that the founding fathers, who wrote extensively about how incompatible the aristocracy of England was with the government they envisioned would reflexively support the current GOP is a conservative fantasy divorced from actual history. The idea that socialism isn't compatible with democracy (not that this is even an issue in the US since we are further from "socialism" than any developed nation) is roundly refuted by the counterexamples of modern-day Scandinavia.

    So, basically, nothing in that paragraph is actually true.


    America doesn't exist in a vacuum where the rest of the world doesn't exist or if it exists we're just better than everyone else. We can make real, serious comparisons about our policies to analogous countries, and the results thereof. We would be wise to do so.

  9. #9
    Cygnus

    Default

    I've been noticing a quite hilarious and amusing fact this election season: US politics has become a spectator sport.

    Newscasters give everybody the play-by-play of all the debates, or as I like to call them, games. People root for their team and instantly tell people that root for the other team that their own team is much better. It isn't much about the issues anymore, but just seeing your team winning.

    It makes me lose faith in this country

    Just to throw my canidate in: Obama. I only care about gay marriage, all the other issues I really just don't give two shits about. I know, I know. I'm a horrible citizen.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SubterraneanSun View Post
    Obama actually manage to lower the deficit. You meant the word debt, not deficit. You entire post just seems like the media cycle understanding of the Republican message.

    Romney's fiscal plan lack something substantive, and that is that is doesn't exist. At least not in any form that can be analyzed by the public. It's more of a bunch of very vague promises.
    Sorry, stupid iPad assuming what it thinks I am typing, yes I meant debt.

    I do agree that the deficit has been lowered but then this is a collaborative effort of the President, Secretary of State and private business that is actually doing the trade. It could be incidental but there is some evidence to show that the administration has has at least a reasonable impact.

    I am actually not spewing the media cycle Republican message. I am not very happy with either party at this point and in fact I have never voted strait party, at least that I recall. I have a very good friend who ran for US Senate as a Democrat, I know two Republican senators pretty well, one I did not vote for last time but I will if he keeps up the record that he has developed. The other one is an absolute idiot, Sen Hatch, and way outstayed his welcome.

    I do agree that Romney has not put out a lot of substance or detail in his fiscal plan. The problem is that Obama also really has not given a lot of detail other than to say that he would raise taxes. But where is the rest of his plan. I am sure he has at least a partial plan that is already at play, and I believe he is unwilling to discuss it openly because it would upset a lot of citizens. Specifically, I was talking to a good friend and business associate earlier today. He has the unique perspective of having been a somewhat recent IRS agent. We also mutually know several people who work for the IRS in just about every capacity. For the last 4 years they have practices an ultra aggressive form of tax collection that had been stopped in previous administrations. Now I agree that there are likely far too many who are not paying a fair share, but the current tactics go well beyond this into the realm of bullying. My associate sees hundreds of cases where the IRS wrongly makes accusations and assesses tax every year, and he has a fairly small practice.

    But I do agree that Romney, and I assert that Obama, are both being very vague when it comes to detail. There are a number of reasons a candidate will not give details. Of course there is the possibility of there being no plan but this is just one of many just reasons. No plan will be easy enough to portray in a debate format, just not enough time, and they are going to have enough complexity that most voters flat will not be it. Some of us are smart enough to get it. There is one other fact that we do, however, seem to forget when complaining that a candidate is not revealing details. That fact is that the POTUS has little power to actually enact or pass a financial plan on his own. He must use the power of the legislative branch to make this happen, and the details are likely to differ from the original plan. So the real question is would you rather a president who pandered as a candidate, made specific promises that he was not able to keep because he was not the one to make the actual decision? Or would you rather a president who did not make fake, empty promises that there was no way for him to keep, even though this meant there was a little less detail in the plan?

    Again, I would love to analyze Romney's and Obamas plans but then the vast majority of Americans lack the capacity to understand such a plan in a manner that would do it justice. Heck there are many top economists that can't agree and in many cases have no apparent understanding themselves. The evidence to support my stand is the fact that if we had a plan it would have been implemented and the problem would be solved. There is no evidence that Obama has such a golden plan, and if he did why has he not implemented it?

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by Fruitkitty View Post
    There are so many things wrong with this paragraph. The idea that Obama is a socialist is laughable when he's to the right of every pretty much every other first world leader. The idea that he doesn't "defend the Constitution" is absurd; the man is a former Constitutional law professor and the opposition has no special claim on the Constitution. The idea that the founding fathers, who wrote extensively about how incompatible the aristocracy of England was with the government they envisioned would reflexively support the current GOP is a conservative fantasy divorced from actual history. The idea that socialism isn't compatible with democracy (not that this is even an issue in the US since we are further from "socialism" than any developed nation) is roundly refuted by the counterexamples of modern-day Scandinavia.

    So, basically, nothing in that paragraph is actually true.


    America doesn't exist in a vacuum where the rest of the world doesn't exist or if it exists we're just better than everyone else. We can make real, serious comparisons about our policies to analogous countries, and the results thereof. We would be wise to do so.
    Fruitkitty, I never said that Obama is a Socialist or that he has failed to "defend the constitution." I merely said that Obama tracks more as a Socialist. I have many friends and acquaintances who have a purely socialist ideal of government and they will be voting for Obama because Obama comes closer t there values than Romney. The entire idea of Obamacare was a social program, again not implemented as a socialist type program but very close.

    Regarding the issue of "defending the Constitution," this is an oath that every President must take yet it would seem that Obama has failed in doing just this. Now I did not previously accuse Obama of failing to defend the Constitution and I suppose that every president in our lifetimes has fallen short. My assertion, without going into detailed analysis, is based upon the extreme number of executive orders that have been issued by Obama. These orders have generally served two purposes. First, it has been a clear means for Obama to further an agenda that was not passed by Congress and the Senate. To a degree this is potentially understandable, however, it usurps the power and purpose of the Legislative branch and it exceeds the authority of the Executive branch. Second, many executive orders create agencies and operations that live outside the canopy of the Constitution. These actions also usurp the authority of the Legislative branch and exceed the authority of the Executive branch. When a President acts outside of his authority or creates any agency or process that lives outside the Constitution, and thus having no Constitutional limits or restraints, he is failing to defend the Constitution of the United States.

    The fact that Obama is a former Constitutional Law professor has no bearing on the simple facts. I do believe he is just doing what presidents have gotten away with for years, although to a greater degree, so I do not blame him exclusively. However, given his credentials he should be more interested in fulfilling this duty.

    I never said that the opposition has any special claim on the Constitution, I merely said Romney will better defend the Constitution. This is merely my opinion although it is well supported.

    I actually do agree that our founding fathers would literally freak if they knew how the GOP was operating as a party. I also believe the same would be true for both parties. At this point there is so much corruption that it is ridiculous.

    I am we'll aware that democratic systems can often integrate to some degree with socialism. This is not at all my point. I simply believe that I am entitled to the right to choose, this is also called liberty and it is the cornerstone of this nations foundation. Just as an example, the Affordable Care Act imposed a penalty for inaction for the first time in the history of our Federal Government according to Justice Roberts. I have far too many complaints about this specific Act to go into detail here, although there are some provisions that should remain.

    Absolutely everything in the paragraph you are questioning is true, you obviously jumped to a number of conclusions that do not reflect my actual statements. There is one major point that is based fully on my opinion and i will remind you that I absolutely have the right to my opinion. The fact that you disagree, if you do, with any opinion has no bearing on whether that opinion is true or false, it is just an opinion. I do agree with some of your assertions.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 18-Jan-2012, 00:18
  2. Your ideal candidate For US President?
    By Fire2box in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-May-2011, 05:26
  3. Things every elected candidate should know
    By Butterfly Mage in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 29-Oct-2010, 19:26
  4. (Insert Greeting Here)
    By tenlet in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-Oct-2008, 00:13

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.