United States Presidential Election 2012

[SCope13]

I don't like either of them, Obama is just the lesser of two evils. Still not going to vote for him though.

if Nebraska's a swing state, please take my vote and give it to Obama.

Unfortunately, all the districts will go to the GOP except for possibly Omaha's, which Obama took last time.

If you recognize Obama is the lesser of two evils, but don't vote for him, you are effectively giving the opposition more power. That's when you really need to just stfu and don't have any right to complain about affairs, you make matters worse by giving a soulless asshat like romney the feasibility of attaining the presidency.

So many things wrong with this statement. As a member of the far-left, I have a few problems voting for someone who's pretty right-of-center. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil.

And "really need to stfu"? Just because I have a set of political beliefs that differ from those of the 2 men running for president? You need to understand, to me, both of these men are the opposition. So because my views may be a bit "radical" and because I don't believe in settling for someone who is a little better than my only other option, I need to just shut the fuck up and never voice my opinion? Sounds like you've been brainwashed, my friend.

And just so you know, I AM voting this year, and it will be for Stewart Alexander as I've stated several times in this thread already.

[AllNightDayDream]

Lol brainwash. A common accusation on this forum.

This is a liberal democracy. Voting for candidates you don't 100% agree with is part of all of that. The whole Idea is compromise. The candidate you really really want in office will never get there, because of the millions of other voters. I got the idea you weren't going to vote, so if you are that's cool.

But as an ex far leftist myself, you must admit then that obamas handling of the financial crisis was pretty agreeable considering the far right nuts he surrounded himself with.

[SCope13]

Compromise? Where's the compromise? Both candidates are right-of-center. The two party system gives only gives us the illusion of choice.

[deadly_habit]

Compromise? Where's the compromise? Both candidates are right-of-center. The two party system gives only gives us the illusion of choice.

bingo, yet campaigning for paul is nuts and actually partaking in local elections and being vocal for the delegate process makes me anti american according to those who voted diff than me
i'd love if the 3rd party vote worked for a change, but actually partaking in the process disillusions you even more when you see blatant fraud, rules being changed when it doesn't go the established way, etc

[AllNightDayDream]

It IS compromise precisely because you don't have a wide choice. Welcome to democracy.

[deadly_habit]

or you can vote 3rd party and be discounted, or just not partake in the general vote and write in say both of these idiots are the same
the presidential election is not that big of a deal vs senate/house and local elections as they are the ones who dictate policy

[Genevieve]

Of course compromise is a logical result of republican democracy, but the two-party system is a federally funded monopoly of the Democratic and Republican party who are keeping the status quo alive. There's not a huuge difference in the western world, but still way more in Europe than in America. In America you're expected to compromise in the voting booth, in Europe you're expected to go with your choice and then parliament will compromise.

The Democrats and Republicans believe the exact same thing. Take money from the poor, give it to the wealthy, and police the world.

Besides, if the wants of 'most of the population' are anything to go by, you'd have a libertarian president every 4 years because 60% of the American population claims to be 'liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues'. Ask many people what they believe deep down, not the talking points they're expected to repeat, but what they actually believe. It can be summed up as libertarian with an asterisk.

But as an ex far leftist myself, you must admit then that obamas handling of the financial crisis was pretty agreeable considering the far right nuts he surrounded himself with.

Nope, even before Obama took office, he was on the same page as John McCain. You know, take money from the poor and middle class and give it to their wealthy friends who invested in their campaigns.

He doesn't associate with "far right nuts". Those "nuts" would be Ron Paul or Justin Amash or Thomas Massie.

And America is in a bigger debt now than they were before. But I know that in your school of thought, debt is no biggie.

[SCope13]

The Democrats and Republicans believe the exact same thing. Take money from the poor, give it to the wealthy, and police the world.

Just out of curiosity, if you recognize this, why do you support capitalism?

[Genevieve]

The Democrats and Republicans believe the exact same thing. Take money from the poor, give it to the wealthy, and police the world.

Just out of curiosity, if you recognize this, why do you support capitalism?

Because I don't believe that money should be taken away from anyone. A lot of people see two options. Take from the poor and give to the wealthy (corporatism or state capitalism), or take from the wealthy and give to the poor (socialism). I'd say, don't take anything from anyone (free market capitalism). Because taking things through the threat of violence (which taxation is. People pay taxes because if they don't, they go to jail, if they refuse to go to jail, government aka monopoly on violence, will use its guns to give you the choice to either go to jail or give up your wealth) is amoral and I'm anti-violence.

http://dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?p ... 4#p2888114 I have a long winded post on this here if you're interested.

Or in short. Government gives too much power to business, not capitalism.

[AllNightDayDream]

To a leftist, you'd have to recognize that the government taking over crucial industries in times of crisis was a step in the right direction. Otherwise I have a hard time believing that you know what that ideology actually entails. Such steps may have helped out certain people in the upper class, but it also saved heaps of working class people who otherwise would have no job or pension right now.

The far right nuts are primarily Larry Summers (who has since changed his tune) and Timothy Geithner. Summers fell under the faith based ideology that markets are ultimately infallible and should have free reign over the economy, and personally endorsed Gramm-Bleach-Lithely ontop of personally shushing any criticism of these new shadow markets by regulators. Geithner was particularly friendly to the financial institutions during the bailout and did not seek to tie any legitimate reform to the process.

But again, it's troubling that so called "socialists" don't see the benefit of government restructuring and investing in crucial industries, such as the case with GM, green industries, and healthcare.

[wub]

So we have a Tea Party Republican candidate in Texas...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19073894

Ted Cruz wins Texas Senate run-off election

A Tea Party Republican has beaten an establishment rival in a closely fought, expensive US Senate run-off election in Texas, projections show.

With more than half of votes counted Ted Cruz had 55%, with Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst on 45%.

The candidates fought for the seat of outgoing Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

The Republicans secured a majority in the US House of Representatives in 2010 and are seeking control of the Senate in November's election.
Hispanic Senator?

The Texas Senate seat is considered a safe one for Republicans, but correspondents say it is noteworthy that Mr Cruz, who is backed by the Tea Party, has been successful in the primary process.

His victory comes on the heels of victories for other Tea Party-backed candidates competing against veteran Republicans in state primaries in Indiana and Nebraska.

Mr Cruz, 41, is a lawyer from Houston and was formerly the state's solicitor general. He has never held elected office, but his campaign was endorsed by conservative figures such as Sarah Palin and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint.

He faced Mr Dewhurst, 66, a wealthy businessman who presided over the Texas state Senate and has served in the US Air Force and CIA.

His campaign had the support of much of the Republican mainstream, including an endorsement from Texas Governor Rick Perry.

It was reported that Mr Dewhurst spent $19m (£12m) of personal funds on the race.

Mr Cruz was born in Cuba and would become the first Hispanic Senator from Texas if - as expected - he defeats the Democratic nominee in November's elections.

Though it's [interesting to me at least] that he criticised Dewhurst for not being hardline enough, especially when you consider Sadler's (D) standing on 'the issues';

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Paul_Sadler.htm

This guy is supposed to be a democratc

[SCope13]

To a leftist, you'd have to recognize that the government taking over crucial industries in times of crisis was a step in the right direction. Otherwise I have a hard time believing that you know what that ideology actually entails. Such steps may have helped out certain people in the upper class, but it also saved heaps of working class people who otherwise would have no job or pension right now.

The far right nuts are primarily Larry Summers (who has since changed his tune) and Timothy Geithner. Summers fell under the faith based ideology that markets are ultimately infallible and should have free reign over the economy, and personally endorsed Gramm-Bleach-Lithely ontop of personally shushing any criticism of these new shadow markets by regulators. Geithner was particularly friendly to the financial institutions during the bailout and did not seek to tie any legitimate reform to the process.

But again, it's troubling that so called "socialists" don't see the benefit of government restructuring and investing in crucial industries, such as the case with GM, green industries, and healthcare.

>implying all leftists love the government

[HamCrescendo]

http://exiledonline.com/its-hip-its-coo ... tarianism/

I like this article

[wilson]

Have been quite fascinated with the elections over the pond. Romney seems like the acceptable face of pure corporate evilness and Obama is looking set to repeat 2008 by playing up the 'hope for change' angle and deflecting criticism by heavily attacking how dubious Romney's policies - and character - are, even though he failed to live up to pretty much every major issue he stood for before getting into office first time round. Can someone convince me that you're NOT fucked either way this year?

[hdechter]

Have been quite fascinated with the elections over the pond. Romney seems like the acceptable face of pure corporate evilness and Obama is looking set to repeat 2008 by playing up the 'hope for change' angle and deflecting criticism by heavily attacking how dubious Romney's policies - and character - are, even though he failed to live up to pretty much every major issue he stood for before getting into office first time round. Can someone convince me that you're NOT fucked either way this year?

Easy to say that when you have an opposition party whose sole purpose during the past 4 years is to dismiss anything Obama brings to the table...whether it benefits the country or not (or even worse..whether they agreed with it or not in the past and decided to change their mind once Obama was on board). More importantly, entire rhetoric for the Republican base has been Obama's policies stifle the economy, when in fact that was utter bs and has more to do with whats been going on within your side of the pond (LIBOR). Obama has been focused more on consumer protection during his 1st term and laying a foundation for some stability, but when you live in a McDonalds generation people want instant results to a problem that took you 8 years to manifest . Not saying Obama delivered on all his campaign promises, still furious that not a single Wall Street bastard never went to prison, but just take the prior points into consideration.

[Today]

prosecuting wall street folks would be political suicide, same goes for drug law reform

That's what sucks about politics ... once you win an office, it's never about policy anymore. just keeping your job safe

[mIrReN]

hdechte, amen

[magma]

Not strictly Presidential related, but this is pretty astounding from a Republican senate candidate... apparently "real" rape doesn't lead to pregnancy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... pregnancy/

Can one of our transatlantic cousins please punch him square in the fucking mouth for me? Thanks.

[wub]

Advantage, Obama

[ehbes]

Yup