US Presidential Elections 2012 (4 Viewers)

[ZoSo]

Doesn't matter that much, as long as we have a Liberal government we're good. Labour always manages to fuck everything up. Well, besides Julia 'ranga' Gillard sending a letter to Del Piero.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Hust]

Are you just theorizing here or do you have anyone specific in mind? Because Obama has tried to do just that, he's made an insane amount of concessions to the Republicans in the hope of staying popular. So that makes him a failure both in bipartisan politics *and* promoting any meaningful positive policy.

Obamacare is a radical left idea of universal healthcare, and forcing it on people using the Judicial branch making it a tax when he PROMISED he would never be a tax is one point. He went against the entire party and its people just to push this through. That's one promise.

And his inability to strike a deal with the conservatives in a debt deal is another example. The man is too arrogant and thinks everything he comes up with is the solution. He wants big government to be expanded even more than he already has. The Right doesn't want that. There is a reason why Clinton will be remember for doing so well is because he was able to bridge the gap between the parties. Clinton started off more left and eventually drifted more to the middle. Not something Obama is willing to do.

---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 14:52 ----------

Anyways, guys I gotta get back to work.

I am sure I will be around later though.

Martin
Madvillan

Thanks for the talks (and not getting nasty like some people around here, have a way of belittling). Keep it rizzle.

 

[Martin]

I'm not trying to victimize myself, if that's what you are thinking. We have "some" good intentions, but as we know its not always what it looks like on the outside.

I very much doubt that. Maybe you Cam have good intentions, but you have no say in this. Neither does Obama probably, it's not like he's actually the one running things. It's the completely unelected decision makers in the background who are. I don't do a lot of this kind of reading but in high school I was writing an essay about the final phase of the Vietnam war and I read Kissinger's memoirs. His rationale for the decisions being made had nothing to do with what's best for Vietnam, either North or South, and were based entirely on geopolitics. I don't believe for a second it's any different now.

 

[Hust]

I very much doubt that. Maybe you Cam have good intentions, but you have no say in this. Neither does Obama probably, it's not like he's actually the one running things. It's the completely unelected decision makers in the background who are. I don't do a lot of this kind of reading but in high school I was writing an essay about the final phase of the Vietnam war and I read Kissinger's memoirs. His rationale for the decisions being made had nothing to do with what's best for Vietnam, either North or South, and were based entirely on geopolitics. I don't believe for a second it's any different now.

Damn it...ok, after this I REALLY have to get back to work. :nerd:


I have no more say in this than you. If I am completely wrong in saying that we have not "ONE" good intention out there anywhere, who and how are you to say the complete opposite and presume to be correct, and me inaccurate?

 

[Martin]

Damn it...ok, after this I REALLY have to get back to work. :nerd:


I have no more say in this than you. If I am completely wrong in saying that we have not "ONE" good intention out there anywhere, who and how are you to say the complete opposite and presume to be correct, and me inaccurate?

Er.. I meant that you have no say in what becomes US foreign policy. Not that you have no say in having an opinion about what the motivations are.

 

[Hust]

Er.. I meant that you have no say in what becomes US foreign policy. Not that you have no say in having an opinion about what the motivations are.

Just as I have no say where all of my tax money goes. i.e. To institutions I may or may not support.

 

[IrishZebra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid

So every country we give aid to is because we are the cause of their problems? lol

Like I said...cut foreign aid to hostile nations and let them fend for themselves.

yes, its a great idea.

Did you just post up a list of countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel,Iraq,Egypt,Haiti, Colombia, Jordan, Mexico, and Gaza as evidence of countries you haven't fucked over?

Wow, that's Sarah Palinesque.

 

[Kate]

But you do have an American passport? I thought that's all that mattered to Andy

I do, yes.

 

[IrishZebra]

I will eventually to

 

[JuveJay]

Did you just post up a list of countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel,Iraq,Egypt,Haiti, Colombia, Jordan, Mexico, and Gaza as evidence of countries you haven't fucked over?

Wow, that's Sarah Palinesque.

It's basically a list of countries with vested interests.

---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 20:35 ----------

I will eventually to

Just noticed the Cardigan joke

 

[Hust]

Did you just post up a list of countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel,Iraq,Egypt,Haiti, Colombia, Jordan, Mexico, and Gaza as evidence of countries you haven't fucked over?

Wow, that's Sarah Palinesque.

Its the top 25 countries where US aid goes to. There are obviously more. But a long distance "high-five" for missing the point.

 

[Nzoric]

Its the top 25 countries where US aid goes to. There are obviously more. But a long distance "high-five" for missing the point.

No his point is pretty spot on. "Cut aid to hostile nations [Wiki link with 25 top countries receiving US aid]" . Those nations have every right to be pissed and you have every moral obligation to send aid.

---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 22:07 ----------

I very much doubt that. Maybe you Cam have good intentions, but you have no say in this. Neither does Obama probably, it's not like he's actually the one running things. It's the completely unelected decision makers in the background who are. I don't do a lot of this kind of reading but in high school I was writing an essay about the final phase of the Vietnam war and I read Kissinger's memoirs. His rationale for the decisions being made had nothing to do with what's best for Vietnam, either North or South, and were based entirely on geopolitics. I don't believe for a second it's any different now.

Well said. I wrote a similar paper in high school and I read the Pentagon Papers. Not one thought on anything but political interests and brutal cynicism.

 

[Fred]

Country first absolutely.

But in all honesty, democrats would have shit a brick if RP became president primarily on his views on abortion, free trade, hating Obamacare, etc. I like him a lot because he has a far right approach that more or less says screw everyone else lets fix Home first. But I'm telling you, extreme left and extreme right are not nearly has numerous as everyone in between. Voting someone like that will never happen for president.

That's like lefties voting Al Sharpton or something.

---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 14:33 ----------


What responsibility for our actions? I have no problem pulling the foreign aid plug on countries that can't do anything on their own and bring our military back here and let everyone else fight their own battles. Makes no difference to me.

I'm tired of being blamed for the worlds problems.

Whose battles did you fight?

Or are you one of those that consider the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions liberating the Iraqi's and Afghans respectively?

US has done nothing but wreak havoc in the world, and especially in the Middle East.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Better to let 'em go bankrupt then to finance debt with more debt so they can create more debt. Too big to fail is the most $#@!ed up thing ever.

100% agree!!

 

[AndreaCristiano]

I would throw them into a giant meat grinder and feed them to the dogs.



Well yeah, that was why it was a joke. In a perfect world it would work, but in a perfect world we wouldn't have traitors and idiots running around in an endless free-for-all.

Martial Law is already here with the NDAA anyway. Supposed authorities can arrest anybody on suspicion of terrorism charges and people love it. It's a failing state and in another 100 years the history books will say why did nobody see it coming.

Although, I suppose the one bright spot for us is that we can then spend decades throwing a pity-party, building settlements and stealing land wherever we want. I choose Northern Italy and Tahiti, please. Maybe we can create a Gaza around Milan.



Of course, that is the solution for everything.



Wrong, we can pay it back easily. All we need to do is print money. And then everyone else will have to make-do with our debased currency. Maybe the Chinese can cook up some mighty egg rolls with that paper.



But that sounds like the Keynesian approach. Saving and investment is what should run the economy, not spending beyond your means. That's Ponzi Finance. Keynes never even would have preached that governments could run huge deficits during times of expansion and contraction, but that is what folks like Paul Krugman purport, along with others who are really just faux-Keynesians. Honestly, calling people Keynesians is really an insult to Keynes, they're just a bunch of big government retards.



America needs to cut out the banker man.

The FED has to go! Needs to be dissolved ASAP!

 

[AndreaCristiano]

lol gifted the presidency to Obama? How the $#@! so? Do you not read the news? Maybe you read the wrong news, who knows. What makes Romney not up to the job, but Obama is?

Democrats that would NOT vote for RP:
-activitists
-environmentalists
-a lot of women (abortion, health care, etc)
-lower middle class, below poverty line as well.

That's a lot of people that I can think of that wouldn't vote for RP just based off of his policies. Like I said, I'd think voting RP as president would effectively mean the end of the Dem Party as we currently know it.

---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 14:45 ----------



I'm not trying to victimize myself, if that's what you are thinking. We have "some" good intentions, but as we know its not always what it looks like on the outside.

Your 100% accurate on the Ron Paul situation and the Obama/Romney scenario. I posted before a university of colorado study which shows Romney victory by a leftist university and no one even looked at it

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Obamacare is a radical left idea of universal healthcare, and forcing it on people using the Judicial branch making it a tax when he PROMISED he would never be a tax is one point. He went against the entire party and its people just to push this through. That's one promise.

And his inability to strike a deal with the conservatives in a debt deal is another example. The man is too arrogant and thinks everything he comes up with is the solution. He wants big government to be expanded even more than he already has. The Right doesn't want that. There is a reason why Clinton will be remember for doing so well is because he was able to bridge the gap between the parties. Clinton started off more left and eventually drifted more to the middle. Not something Obama is willing to do.

---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 14:52 ----------

Anyways, guys I gotta get back to work.

I am sure I will be around later though.

Martin
Madvillan

Thanks for the talks (and not getting nasty like some people around here, have a way of belittling). Keep it rizzle.

All valid and astute points.

 

[icemaη]

Yet another good point.

Anyways, since this has nothing to do with the US Elections, I suggest you guys (and myself) take it elsewhere. Let's get back on topic before Aaron decides to ban all of Tuz.

I found a nice thread title for us to hang out in:
http://forum.juventuz.org/threads/30409-Oh-Sh*t-Here-We-Go

 

[Fake Melo]

Let's actually go on topic here.. What is the general feeling in US about the elections? Is Obama still backed by the majority, or have they found out that he is nothing else than overhyped and overrated?

I don't think the "lesser of the evils" have ever played a bigger role in the US presidential elections than this time.

I would consider not vote at all, rather than vote for the Democrats or the republicans.

 

[ALC]

You can vote for the independent party too. Not voting is weak imo. Sure, your vote probably means nothing but it's all about making a statement. If everyone who thought their vote wouldn't make a difference didn't vote, then a very large portion of the voters would be lost. Voting should me mandatory imo, no matter who you vote for.