American Presidential Election 2012: Who do you love and adore the most?

Capitalism is much more suited to dealing with incompetence. If you don't have what it takes then you die off, simple as that.

 

And at least there is 'Equal oppertunity' for the little man. That is of course if you disregard the corporate busybodies at the top pumping money into every source to stifle liberal and individual thinking and preventing others aspiring to profit from their proffession or talent.

I'm not stating which system is better. I merely stated that even if a system looks perfect, there will be people to overthrow, dominate and corrupt it. The rich all cuddle up warm together and kick everyone out in the cold, because money makes this putrid world go round.

 

Replace 'corporate busybodies' with 'government' and you've basically just defined communism.

 

That's correct, See? There's something to corrupt both and possibly all systems out there. Of course I would much prefer Capitalism over Communism personally, but I don't particularly have faith in either once certain people get their claws into it.

 

Well, I'm not sure even that general statement is a fair assumption. I mean, I don't know most of the individuals that compromise the human race on a level personal enough to refute your claim entirely, but it seems likely that neither do you have the sufficient knowledge to prove it.

I feel as if many people think that it is they, not others, who are one of the few smart people in a world of idiotic sheep. However, that type of thinking just doesn't add up. The principle, of course, is a good one; "think for yourself."

Now, that is something on which we can agree.

 

I think I have sufficient personal reasons to despise a majority of the human race. Of course you wouldn't know that, but it's not like I assume every person I meet is going to be part of that majority. I do not presume to know everyone, but I'll tell you this; The Human race has utterly destroyed any prospect of equality and freedom of expression without any means of aspiring to change it. For that, there is a deep loathing in my soul for it.

Still, It doesn't mean I act like an ass to people I meet. I'm a pleasant person, but I was just having a political discussion. I mentioned some of my personal views. World banks, 'positive' discrimination (Hypocritical much) and backward societies. I research quite extensively. Saying I do not have the knoweledge to prove it was a little bit of a fast conclusion my friend. Some things need to be kept private/away from this site out of respect for the rules.

But thank you for your opinion.

 

Time to wipe the slate clean before this gets personal, be a hypocrite, (people who care know why), and just say my own thing.

Yes, Romney is pretty bad at this whole being a good guy thing.

Yes, he said some things that made people sad.

Yes, much of what he said that was controversial is true.

For example, he said that 47% of households receive financial help from the government. This is the case. He said that these people will always vote for the current government. That is also the case. Why would they vote for a person who would make them get less financial help? Yes, they may need it, but there's a reason why there has been only one president who held government for one term. And that was for a variety of reasons unrelated to who was president at the time.

He also said that people wrongly believe that they are entitled to food, housing, and the like. That is also the case. People work to get food and housing. The government may provide these things, but that is not to say it must, nor that it always will.

All of these things are true. It's just that they don't always get you votes.

Especially when they are true.

 

According to who? What's your source on that? CITATION NEEDED (and no, Fox News does not count as a source. It should be a rule of the internet that if you cite Fox News you automatically lose the debate).

 

This is very very true. Or at least I am very adamant that this statement is true.

Just validating here.

 

This is politics.

What are facts?

They are the opinions of statistical companies. It was once proven, by survey, that 85% of Canadians were starving to some degree. There's a lot of stuff you can do with this.

As for fact checking, math.

% of children: 24.1%
% of seniors: 13%
% unemployed: 8%

Based on this, we can get about 30% of households, assuming 2 children per household, and 1 senior per household, as well as 1 unemployed person. We can do this since miniors (0-17) are not considered in unemployment.

Then, consider that a large portion of people have low-paying jobs, and don't necessarily even qualify for income tax, and yet are employed. And that people recieve government subsidies, both for a lack of income and for super-large incomes. This can easily add up to 47%.

Ironically, it includes Romney.

This statistic is in no way accurate, but can easily be shown to be reasonable.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble guys, But I just want to start by stating this: American Politics are so full of crap, it's not even funny.

It's obvious to see that when they say one thing, they go around and do something else. NAME one thing that Obama actually did to positivley impact your life, and maybe I'll back off. But for now, Obama is nothing more than a sellout. If you pay close attention to the 2008 debates, and all the things Obama promised to do, versus what he actually did, he's just full of crap (wish I can say the s-word here, because that's more deserving). Obama did NOT end the wars in the Middle East, because we still have troops over there killing off innocent people (KINDA LIKE VIETNAM). He destroyed our economy, basically (The average family can only sustain themselves for 2 weeks unemployed), and gas prices are still sky-high (Over 6 dollars for a gallon of gas in Long Beach, California?!). So what if he helped out small businesses and donated to minor causes? The bigger problems are still there, like big, open wounds.

As for Romney, he isn't off the hook, either. It's obvious to see he's in there to cause some damage. Take a good look at the debates, and you'll see that the two are no where near enemies, as it is portrayed in the media. Smiles, handshakes, and hell, even AGREEING with what the other canidate says. If you were really out there to try and fix the big problems (economy, balancing the budget, etc.), wouldn't they both have radically different ideas about how to fix such problems, instead of nodding in agreement? Romney and Obama aren't taking this too seriously.

Mark my words, though. The debates might seem a bit mundane now, but wait until we reach the domesitic problems (gay marriage, abortion, bla bla bla). Only then will you see the slew of comments and mudslinging that we have been awaiting. But ask yourself: Should two grown men really argue about such CRAP on national television? If anything, it teaches us that no matter who you vote for, it will always be the same. Democrats and Republicans, it seems, are out for their own personal needs, and not for the needs of the country. Essentially, they are one and the same ("Demopublicans", as quoted by Peter Joseph).

 

That's true.

Well, for me personally, he implemented a Health-Care system that allows me to stay on my parent's health insurance plan for longer than I would have otherwise (I am now covered until age 26). For my little brother, that same health care law will make it (in 2014) so insurance companies cannot change his coverage based on any pre-existing condition (he has Autism). For my mother, that same health care bill will enforce equal coverage for her even though she is a woman (previously, women have been charged a substantially higher rate than men).

For my friend, Obama repealed DADT, meaning my friend can serve openly in the military (he is now in the National Guard).

 

Yea, I honestly don't see why Republicans try to say he's the worst president in history, etc. One thing that always makes me laugh is when they try to say he's spent more money than every other president combined, LOL *Looks to George Bush*.

I just wish that the politicians on Capitol Hill will pull their heads out from the sand, step down from Misinformed mountain, and remember what this nation was truly founded upon, Compromise.

 

Did you really expect all of that to be fixed in 4 years? America (and many other countries) have so many problems, it'll take a lot of time to fix. We can't blame the rising gas prices on anyone except ourselves. When something gets rarer, it'll cost more.

At least he tried to fix the smaller, more manageable problems instead of focussing solely on the bigger problems, possibly failing and causing even more future big problems.

But re-electing him for 4 more years isn't going to solve anything. It'll take a lot more time. And if a new president was to come and start from stratch, we wouldn't get anywhere. The current president can't please everyone, so they must do things slowly and nothing gets solved. If they do things to fast, everyone rages since they don't agree with it. So nothing productive is being done and all this hype will be for nothing unless politicians decide to work together.

 

I'm British, so if what I'm saying doesn't add up for Americans, let me know.

From what I've seen, read, watched, and heard, the one route you don't want to go down is the Romney route. I'm not being a "sheeple" here, but it does honestly surprise me when I hear how many votes Romney is estimated to have won so far. This is despite the fact he literally said that the middle class were dirt and shouldn't have much attention put on them, so it's not just the poor he's screwing over. Practically all of his terms and ideas pander to the upper class, yet he's still managed to garner support from the middle and lower classes? Why? Is it just because he's not Obama, so people are like "well nobody can be worse than Obama!" Well yes, they can. I don't even think I need to get started on his general ideology of women....not to mention his homophobic attitudes. I just can't think of one thing he'd do for America that would improve it? These aren't rumours with the whole, "he beat up a homosexual" type stuff, these are true facts, supported by Romney himself. Is that the kind of person America wants to represent them? Seriously? Don't even get me started on how he brought papers on stage with him in the presidential debate, whether there were notes on those sheets or not, they were not allowed to be in his pocket or with him when he slipped them onto the podium:



And he knew that. What kind of a man does that mean he'd be as President?!

In my opinion, GOOD governments aren't given a chance, people want something and they want it now, or they throw a hissy fit and get rid of that government before they have a chance to make a steady, profitable change over a long period of time, so that payments are stretched out and aren't needed straight away to get projects and other things rolling. BAD governments do things straight away, which means the change isn't gradual, so a load of cuts and other changes have to be made all at once to accommodate for it, therefore leading to people complaining they're being taxed even worse or something than the last government! There's no pleasing anyone! That's why I'd stick with Obama, because we've screwed ourselves over in England with the Labour -> Conservative change where the aforementioned has actually happened let's face it, and now the US could be looking to do the same. True and quick progressive improvement will only be made when politicians learn to generalise their aims for the moral good of the country.

Welp, that's my two cents.

 

Yea, in the eyes of the general American public, if you aren't from their party, you are the devil. *Sigh* George Washington was right, political parties will be America's downfall.

 

You are quite right, Poetic. Even the conservatives don't care much for Romney at all. 90% of the votes for Romney I would wager are actually votes against Obama and not actually for Romney. Possibly an exaggeration, but the sad things is I don't think it's much of one.

Mitt Romney, the guy who loves corporations and rich white men, and called 47% of the country government moochers when said 47% are made up of children, elderly, the working poor, and soldiers on duty who are exempt from income tax on their combat pay. Then comes his opinions on women and homosexuality. No. I don't want this man anywhere near the White House.

Also, I simultaneously cringe and laugh whenever he tries to go out of his way to relate to the middle and lower classes. He should really just stop. He has absolutely no idea.

 

Relevant:

 

I was wonder to myself why people were angry when they found out that Mitt wanted to cut funding for PBS, but then I remembered that PBS is the last national non-biased news source left.