The 2012 Presidential Election: Who do you think will in?

[Battlecow]

Assuming what "declinism" means, we aren't in a good position, globally.

Greece is on the verge of collapse, if it goes, a lot of other EU countries go which hurt the Euro, which will send ripples.

Building our global economy on debt was a bad idea, and it isn't sustainable.

Basically, everyone has always said that everything is on the verge of collapse. I think it's near-sighted, historically, to say that we're "Destined for complete annihilation unless we..." because everyone has been saying that at every point (bar a few) throughout history.

I'm actually getting hung-up on someone who thinks that everyone should turn to god when the chips are down and will use his office as governor to do promote religion and spread misinformation.

Why do you feel the need to be so goddam fractious? It's like 99% of America feels this responsibility to unconditionally hate absolutely everything about 99% of their countrymen. Rick Perry will not change anything about the way our government handles religion. What do you think will happen if he's elected? Worst case scenario, he makes noises about prayer in schools or says something about Jesus once in a while and you get to wail about the end of civilization some more. No one is going to force you or anyone else to pray if you don't want to. It is NOT a big deal.

 

[Crimson King]

Basically, everyone has always said that everything is on the verge of collapse. I think it's near-sighted, historically, to say that we're "Destined for complete annihilation unless we..." because everyone has been saying that at every point (bar a few) throughout history.

I think you are understating it.

Until the past 10 - 15 years, we have NEVER had a global economy. Sure, with the depression, the various economies were a little shaky, but they were off through inner reasons as well.

Also, we have never accumulated as much debt as we have right now (which is roughly our GDP) nor have we created an economy that relies heavily on credit.

With all these factors in mind, we are looking at a very scary house of cards. If we had defaulted a few weeks back, the companies that we owe money to would lose their debt as well as the interest we were paying on them. If, for the sake of concreteness, we borrowed $100, but we can't pay it back. But, have an interest on it at 7%, which is all we can really afford, so we pay $7 a year. They then rely on that money to fund their government programs.

This is how we work now.

EDIT: This is not me saying "WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" This is me acknowledging the system that we rely on and erroneously build up is faulty and not stable/permanent.

Whoever leads us, should really consider this a priority concern.

 

[Battlecow]

Eh, I don't disagree

Mitch Daniels was my dream candidate... such a G.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Why do you feel the need to be so goddam fractious? It's like 99% of America feels this responsibility to unconditionally hate absolutely everything about 99% of their countrymen. Rick Perry will not change anything about the way our government handles religion. What do you think will happen if he's elected? Worst case scenario, he makes noises about prayer in schools or says something about Jesus once in a while and you get to wail about the end of civilization some more. No one is going to force you or anyone else to pray if you don't want to. It is NOT a big deal.

If the President of a country is using his office to promote a particular religion, I believe that he has overstepped the mark by far. In the context of a secular government (ie. the separation of the church and state) this should not happen. And in all honesty, if Rick Perry is making noises about prayer and Intelligent Design, he will likely do his best to implement them. And maybe he'll succeed. If he doesn't, it's not harmless, he is wasting valuable time and effort promoting stupid things that go against religious freedom when he could be doing useful things.

And then Alt F4's point about Perry's personality could be brought up here. If this guy is ******** enough to bash his head against the wall of the separation of church and state, then is he the sort of guy we'd want to run our country? He's stupid on 2 levels, firstly that he is trying to infringe upon religious freedom and secondly that he doesn't realise that there are safeguards in the constitution to prevent this. And I don't know about you, but I don't like electing people who are mentally challenged.

 

[Battlecow]

So he'll probably try to do something because he's made noises, and he's stupid because he's going to do something even though he hasn't yet? Sounds like you've already decided that he's stupid. Then again, you probably assume that about all religious people from the get-go.

And FWIW, the prayer stuff is probably as much about mobilizing the base as it is about actual religious belief. And since Obama's religion is fake as well, according to y'alls, I don't see the problem.

 

[Ocean]

The economy is not a republican or democrat issue; it's an American issue. We have to tax high for a bit and spend less. Both parties must suffer.

do you mean the government must spend less, or the people must spend less?

 

[Crimson King]

Obviously the government must spend less. People should spend instead of saving as much as they do, but that won't happen.

 

[Ocean]

okay good, was just making sure that's what you meant.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

So he'll probably try to do something because he's made noises, and he's stupid because he's going to do something even though he hasn't yet? Sounds like you've already decided that he's stupid. Then again, you probably assume that about all religious people from the get-go.

When you're trying to get yourself elected for President, making noises is what you do. And people judge you based on the noises you make. And people expect you to back up those noises with action. So yeah, you'd expect him to follow up some of the noises he's made.

And no, I don't assume all religious people are stupid from the get-go. I also thought the debate hall was supposed to be relatively flame free.

And FWIW, the prayer stuff is probably as much about mobilizing the base as it is about actual religious belief. And since Obama's religion is fake as well, according to y'alls, I don't see the problem.

Mobilising what base? A prayer base? He's not getting people to pray for him being elected, he got people to pray for rain. Additionally, I think there is reason to believe that some of what he does/says is motivated by actual religious belief. Obama's religion may well be fake, and that appears to be inline with his positions on things such as Intelligent Design and abortion. But with Perry, his actions and words seem to indicate that he's either pretending to be a religious fundamentalist, not just in terms of the noises he makes but also in the bills he signs into law and doing a very convincing job of it or he's actually a religious fundamentalist. Either way is bad; one he's crazy, the other he's a liar. And I don't think liars or crazed maniacs should be elected to office.

 

[rvkevin]

Additionally, I think there is reason to believe that some of what he does/says is motivated by actual religious belief.

FYI:

Well, obviously, Israel is our oldest and most stable democratic ally in that region. That is what this is about. I also as a Christian have a clear directive to support Israel. So from my perspective, it's pretty easy. Both as an American and as a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel.-Perry

Either what he says is religiously motivated or he's lying, which are both plausible alternatives.

 

[Battlecow]

Mobilising what base? A prayer base? He's not getting people to pray for him being elected, he got people to pray for rain. Additionally, I think there is reason to believe that some of what he does/says is motivated by actual religious belief. Obama's religion may well be fake, and that appears to be inline with his positions on things such as Intelligent Design and abortion. But with Perry, his actions and words seem to indicate that he's either pretending to be a religious fundamentalist, not just in terms of the noises he makes but also in the bills he signs into law and doing a very convincing job of it or he's actually a religious fundamentalist. Either way is bad; one he's crazy, the other he's a liar. And I don't think liars or crazed maniacs should be elected to office.

Ugh. You people are all over Obama's ****, so you claim that his religious beliefs are faked, because that way he's part of your smug little atheists' club, but if Perry's beliefs are fake, he shouldn't be elected into office because he's a liar. So blatantly and obviously contradictory.

And mobilizing a base is where you take your "base" (i.e. the people who are already hardcore in your corner- rabid atheists for the democrats, rabid fundamentalists for the Republicans) and get them up in arms and excited to keep the donations and volunteer hours flowing. All politicians do it. Out of curiosity- are you European?

And Perry's a "crazed maniac" if he holds sincere religious beliefs? **** that. I'd bet that a solid third of Americans are just as religious as Perry, and people like you would have us write them all off. National unity? Common ground? What are those? Did tolerance go out of fashion with the ultra-liberals in the 2000's or something?

 

[#HBC | Mac]

Here's my deal with Ron Paul:

He'll very quickly go from saying something I totally agree with and think no other politician would dare say, and then immediately say something completely bat**** insane.

One minute he'll be talking about how we need to stop our interventionist foreign policy and stop the war on drugs and I'll be right behind him. Then he'll say that there's no such thing as a separation of church and state, and that we should have christianity as the US official religion and ban atheists from office. WTF

Ron Paul will be arguing in favor of WikiLeaks and saying that they are doing America a service and that they should be protected, and I totally get behind him. Then he says that he wants to abolish the IRS. (!?)

He speaks firmly about free speech issues and how they need to apply to the Internet, and how attempts to regulate information on the Internet are condemnable. Then he'll say that he doesn't believe in evolution, despite him being a medical doctor!

I rather wish there was a Bizzaro Ron Paul that had most of his policies, but none of his crazy.

Can you provide some links to back some of this up?(specifically negative points about Ron Paul [the US official religion thing and the ban atheists from office]) I showed this post to my roommate who tentatively supports Ron Paul and he's curious.

 

[AltF4]

Can you provide some links to back some of this up?(specifically negative points about Ron Paul [the US official religion thing and the ban atheists from office]) I showed this post to my roommate who tentatively supports Ron Paul and he's curious.

Yea, of course! As usual, Wikipedia is a great source of information: (with references, of course)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Religion

Here are some snippets:

In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America", Paul wrote, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[147] If made law, this provision would purportedly permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery and whether to ban atheists from public office, but would not interfere with the application of relevant federal law

 

[Aesir]

lets not forget his early writings show how much he loves minorities.

 

[Sucumbio]

Occupy Wall Street. Dylan Rattigan has suggested that this burst of energy in the form of organized protests (which is becoming alarmingly large) is the third "wave" of energy to fix the imbalance between corporations and the state. The first was the Tea Party, crying foul at the bail outs. The second was Obama who swore he'd fix the economy. Now, we have real Americans... all kinds of people from all walks of life, making their own mark on history. However this plays out, it'll no doubt effect the campaign for re-election, especially in terms of who gets behind what. Can anyone -besides- Obama support this movement and not appear two-faced?

 

[Battlecow]

Those guys have no idea what they want. The whole thing's silly.

 

[Aesir]

^ Please Clarify.

 

[Battlecow]

They're protesting for the sake of protest. Half of them want to not have to pay off their student loans (lol), some of them have some misguided idea about how if they camp out on the street long enough, Wall Street fatcats will stop pursuing profit, and some of them are just bored.

 

[blazedaces]

They're protesting for the sake of protest. Half of them want to not have to pay off their student loans (lol), some of them have some misguided idea about how if they camp out on the street long enough, Wall Street fatcats will stop pursuing profit, and some of them are just bored.

Can you prove any of this?

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

That's incredibly near-sighted, though not an a-typical viewpoint. I'm sure there are some misguided participants, but the movement itself is far from haphazard or non-specific.

From their own website: http://occupywallst.org/

Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.

 

[Aesir]

Fed up movement = boredom? Interesting.

I mean it's not like wall-street carries a brunt of the blame or anything, that's just crazy talk.

 

[Battlecow]

That's incredibly near-sighted, though not an a-typical viewpoint. I'm sure there are some misguided participants, but the movement itself is far from haphazard or non-specific.

From their own website: http://occupywallst.org/

That's incredibly haphazard and non-specific. The only thing they think is that average people are fed up with rich people, and that they're going to camp out until someone does something about it. No goals, no plans, no nothing, just a bunch of ol'-fashioned proletarian rage. Also, lol @ "many genders." Best and the brightest out there, no doubt.

Fed up movement = boredom? Interesting.

I mean it's not like wall-street carries a brunt of the blame or anything, that's just crazy talk.

Sure they deserve a bunch of blame, but the people out there protesting don't have any specific strategy or goal in mind. Egypt was trying to get rid of Qaddafi; these guys just want wall-streeters to stop making money. GL with that.

 

[Aesir]

Sure they deserve a bunch of blame, but the people out there protesting don't have any specific strategy or goal in mind. Egypt was trying to get rid of Qaddafi; these guys just want wall-streeters to stop making money. GL with that.

You don't really need a goal for an effective protest for starters, and secondly they do have a goal a rather ambitious one, but a goal nonetheless. Economic inequality, Political donations/lobbying, and Corporate greed. All of these things are problems that have been rooted in our economy since the early 80's, granted these are things the government can handle but how can the government do anything when it's already bought and paid for by abundant influence these companies have? Granted there needs to be accountability in the government but frankly any sort of change would be a short lived victory, there needs to be a fundamental change in wall street for anything meaningful to happen.

 

[Sucumbio]

... there needs to be a fundamental change in wall street for anything meaningful to happen.

This.

And to clarify their strategy is passive-aggressive. They're ... an IRL facebook page? "Like" this page to show your support. They're being joined by union leaders, politicians, small business owners, etc. etc.

And while they do it, fat cats at the NYSE all sit back trying to be calm as the Dow goes up 10 points now that UHC is public. All clapping as news comes in that EU has got a "real" plan -this time-. Please. There's no solution to the rut America's in without axing the ties between Big Business and Political Policy, and to do that, Wall Street either needs to commit suicide, be blown to bits, or ....

be the brunt of a peaceful demonstration. Either way, noise is being generated, and it'll play a huge part of the re-election campaign.

But of course my original question was... can anyone -besides- Obama back what's happening and not appear two-faced?

I think the answer is a gigantic No, sir. And that in itself should be proof enough that America needs to re-elect Obama.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

No one will be elected, because the world will end in 2012. Prove me wrong?

 

[Battlecow]

OK, ideological grandstanding noted. I still say that the protesters need a concrete goal other than "We dislike wall street and something should be done about that by someone" to be taken seriously. If only ballin' hadn't left the DH... *sigh*

They want a lot of very different things, but you're saying that one of their core, basic desires is for economic equality? That's great. But throwing a tantrum about how you WANT WANT WAAAAAAANT economic equality isn't going to do anything for you there; you have to present some sort of idea for how you want it. Do they want us to become socialists? Do they think that simply raising the minimum wage or something would do that for us? What the hell do they want?

 

[Sucumbio]

well now that you mention it, tomorrow seems to be the day that actual... actions will take place.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=159977090763817

What do they want? They want the world's wealth more evenly distributed, instead of 1% controlling the other 99%.

I for one would love to see Wall Street crash. I've got my M308 ready to buy, just waiting for my last paycheck of the year that's considered "extra" and that's it. Gonna buy the firearm, stockpile some survival supplies, MRE's, water, etc. And I'm gonna dig in. Let the economies of the world fail. Let eggs go from 2 bucks a dozen to 10. Let gasoline run out. Let power and running water be turned off. Back to basics. There's plenty of game in these parts. And plenty of kin to shack up with and make a compound with and survive. Really survive.

Ok so that probably won't actually happen, because most of these protesters can't live five minutes without their iPhones and their youtubes and whatnots. The point is, they're ready to take action, even if it's totally passive aggressive (most of the action in the facebook page is just more demonstrations).

I will say this, however. It IS having an impact. The mayor has decreed to disband the OWS movement.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/230...y-kelly-brookfield-office-properties-frid.htm

Now if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go turn on MSNBC and watch the **** go down. :D

 

[Battlecow]

You serious?

Lol crazy brawl kids.

 

[blazedaces]

Regardless of the claims made by some against it, slowly the occupy wall street movement is organizing. Slowly people are coming together and forming a concise list of specific demands. Slowly it is picking up speed. And regardless of what people claim, most Americans do feel they agree with the plight that occupy wall street stands for...

And as pointed out already, it has had serious political consequences already.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

You serious?

Lol crazy brawl kids.

You damn right, I'm serious. I'm planning for the worst-case scenario, of course. The Zombie Apocalypse. Cause let's face it, if you're prepared for that, you're ready for anything!

 

[Battlecow]

OK, I'll admit that I have plans for a Zombie Apocalypse as well, but come on... IRL, you shouldn't be looking forward to that eventuality.

Also I don't see the connection between $10 a dozen for eggs and "NEED GUNZ!"

 

[Sucumbio]

hahaha we're getting silly.

I'm not -really- looking forward to it, I'm just enthusiastic for change. I'm also perverse. I boasted "I've never been in a REAL hurricane" and then Katrina landed on my front door step. I dunno, I just like turmoil for some reason. I was that guy in high school who ran around and got everyone mad at each other. (you mean an ***hole?) yeah... yeah. heh. but enough about me!

And of course, if eggs are 10 bucks a dozen and you happen to procure some, there will be people who would rather steal yours for free than try to buy them for so much. So, the guns-n-stuff is for protection from looters. And cannibals.

BTW notice how the mayor proclaimed to "clean up the park" and yet... they're still there.

 

[Sucumbio]

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144727794/new-republic-santorum-might-actually-pull-it-off

I mean, he's growing on me, really. I don't know much about him yet, but so far he's not said anything remarkably stupid that I am aware of. And I find myself leaning further away from Obama, and looking more closely and what my alternatives will be come election time.

 

[rvkevin]

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144727794/new-republic-santorum-might-actually-pull-it-off

I mean, he's growing on me, really. I don't know much about him yet, but so far he's not said anything remarkably stupid that I am aware of. And I find myself leaning further away from Obama, and looking more closely and what my alternatives will be come election time.

Just taking examples from what I saw today (link):

Santorum also had a tense moment when a student asked him about health care and the Christian responsibility of caring for the poor.

The student said he didn’t “think God appreciates the fact that we have 50 to 100,000 uninsured Americans dying due to a lack of healthcare every year,” citing a 2009 study out of Harvard University.

“Dying?” Santorum answered before going back and forth about the validity of the study.

“The answer is not what can we do to prevent deaths because of a lack of health insurance. There’s — I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance,” Santorum said to a crowd of 100.

“People die in America because people die in America. And people make poor decisions with respect to their health and their healthcare. And they don’t go to the emergency room or they don’t go to the doctor when they need to,” he said. “And it’s not the fault of the government for not providing some sort of universal benefit.

 

[Sucumbio]

ha! Very unsympathetic stance. I wonder if this is more to impress the republicans (as he's far from being the winner). It's funny but they all uttered the same phrase at their closing remarks in Iowa.

"[to get America] back on track."

Back on track. As if somehow America is not on the right track currently. That Obama has led the country astray, into ruin.

I take his point, but I think it's ... too generalized. Not everyone fails to do what's right and therefore ends up uncovered, unable to afford proper health care, and therefore dies. Some people really do get the tough breaks, can't afford decent quality health care, and as a result, die. His statement is uncaring to a fault. But is he right?

Should the government be spending the citizen's dollars on ensuring that everyone has an equal chance at being the healthiest they can be? I say yes... I think that a society in general needs its members to be healthy in order to be productive, and so the greater number that are healthy the better. But his stance is characteristic of the Republican age, where people's "hard earned money" ought not to be used to pay for someone else "lazy" shortcomings. It's a terribly oversimplified stance, and I am sure that whoever wins if it's not Obama will repeal "Obamacare" without much hesitation.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144727794/new-republic-santorum-might-actually-pull-it-off

I mean, he's growing on me, really. I don't know much about him yet, but so far he's not said anything remarkably stupid that I am aware of. And I find myself leaning further away from Obama, and looking more closely and what my alternatives will be come election time.

He hasn't said it? Well, there's this gem... The fact remains that most of what Santorum has opened his mouth about has been stupid. I have heard virtually nothing about his economic plans, but I feel it's safe to assume that he follows the same sort of ridiculous "small government is the answer to all our problems" crap every other republican is peddling. In fact, almost all we've actually heard about Santorum has to do with the point he seems to consider important: "family values". Working against anything his religious affiliation deems "impure". Banning abortions, contraceptives, working to ban pornography... Lemme just say that if this guy gets his way, that gets rid of one of my predominant hobbies! The man is a conservative christian NUTBAG with no new or even old but effective ideas on the economy and very little clue when it comes to foreign policy or the environment.

 

[Aesir]

I like hypocrites so lets vote for him.

 

[rvkevin]

Some people really do get the tough breaks, can't afford decent quality health care, and as a result, die.

No they don't, at least according to Santorum. I quote, "I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance." This is why its an absurd comment. He's not arguing for a certain response or lack thereof to a certain situation, he's denying the situation itself. It's like Republicans who deny the science of climatology on the basis that the solution would be too economically disastrous. The two issues are not connected. There is the situation on the ground, which is a matter of fact. And then there is the response, which is a matter of values. It's "reasonable" to say that he doesn't value the health of poor people, so he wouldn't be in favor of universal health care, but it is unreasonable to deny the fact of the matter that people die due to lack of medical access due to a lack of healthcare.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I take his point, but I think it's ... too generalized. Not everyone fails to do what's right and therefore ends up uncovered, unable to afford proper health care, and therefore dies. Some people really do get the tough breaks, can't afford decent quality health care, and as a result, die. His statement is uncaring to a fault. But is he right?

The problem with this Republican sort of philosophy is that it's like blaming drivers for their deaths in automobile collisions. I will agree that If the drivers did things differently, then maybe people wouldn't have died. But at the same time, isn't it just gross and stupid to argue against regulating automobile safety to save lives, even if it is their fault that they died?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh here's another great Santorum Moment (tm):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61804-2005Apr17?language=printer