Off Topic USA 2012 Elections Thread

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Four years ago, we temporarily lifted the ban on political discussion during the election season. Things remained quite civil, and though we are a much larger community now than we were then, I think we can remain civil this time as well.


A few rules:

-Discussion of politics should be confined to this thread. It is still banned in all other parts of the forum

-Keep it civil and courteous. You may attack another poster's opinion, but you may not attack the person holding the opinion. If you cannot differentiate between these two things, please do not participate in this thread.

-By the same token, please only participate if you have a thick skin. If you are likely to take offense when somebody tears your views to shreds, please do not participate in this thread.

-Religion does, to some extent, play a part in politics in the US. The extent to which discussion of religion is allowed is something we'll be deciding as we go -- but we'll likely be taking a relatively hard-line stance on this. Please only bring religion into the discussion as it relates to the issues, and even then think twice about it. And keep the above rules in mind.



Anyway, all that said, have at it.

 

[GymBee97]

Ok Geoff! Putting on my Thick Skin and waiting to see the chips fly.

For the Presidential Candidates - I'm really not impressed with either one. I'm sick of the mud slinging. I wish they would really say what they are really going to do instead of the political promises that never happen. Have no clue who I might vote for - so its going to be interesting in the next few months to see what they put out there for us voters.

 

[ALgymMom]

Seriously?! I just read last night that religion & politics are a no-no to discuss on Chalk Bucket & today it's ok?! I think you mods just make up the rules, depending on what side of the bed you wake up on! Lol I could have said a mouthful last night, but respected the rule.
Btw, Obama stinks! ...says this small business owner.

 

[bogwoppit]

Seriously?! I just read last night that religion & politics are a no-no to discuss on Chalk Bucket & today it's ok?! I think you mods just make up the rules, depending on what side of the bed you wake up on! Lol I could have said a mouthful last night, but respected the rule.
Btw, Obama stinks! ...says this small business owner.

We had a discussion in the admin forum about this issue, and yes we admins get to make up the rules as we go along sometimes. It is a perk of the unpaid job!!!

Last time there was a US election we allowed a thread to discuss it. It was not allowed anywhere else on the board and was closely watched. We are trying the same this time around. Not that I care, as I am not in the US.

Religion, or lack thereof, is a whole other issue, and debate on that will never be a CB thing.

 

[BlairBob]

I was wondering if religion was gonna be next.

Perhaps I will just go out of country for a few years either way. I might have to for unemployment or to get away from it all anyways. I was contemplating it next year but maybe sooner.

I'll be voting for Obama either way.

 

[Danica76]

I was wondering if religion was gonna be next.

Perhaps I will just go out of country for a few years either way. I might have to for unemployment or to get away from it all anyways. I was contemplating it next year but maybe sooner.

I'll be voting for Obama either way.

I'm with you, Bob...Obama will have my vote again.

 

[wallinbl]

I'm sorely disappointed at the choices we're given again this year. I voted for Obama last time (I'm not a liberal), but have no desire to do so again.

I actually voted for Ron Paul in the primary, as I appreciate that he has the courage of his convictions and he doesn't push ideas/legislation on the basis of having received campaign donations. Would be nice to see the rest of the politicians have a spine and stand up for what the believe instead of what they think will get them votes or what their corporate donors want them to say.

 

[MaryA]

I will vote for Obama because I think everyone should have access to affordable health care, because I believe that homosexuals should be able to get married and serve in the military, because I believe that abortion should remain safe and legal, because we've tried "trickle down economics" before and learned that it doesn't work, because he brought us into compliance with the Geneva Convention's stance on torture (which is, essentially, "don't"), because he's increased federal funding for stem cell research which one day might save my life or the life of someone I love, because the rest of the world doesn't hate us quite as much as they used to... in short, because I'm a tree-huggin', left-leanin' liberal!

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I think it's hilarious that the general conversation regarding economics has shifted so far to the right over the years. Right now we have a Democrat in office who is governing to the right of Nixon (who was a Republican), and people are calling him a socialist.

Or at least, it would be hilarious if people weren't taking such claims seriously.

I've found Obama to be disappointingly conservative in a number of ways. I wanted to see the bulk of the Bush administration put on trial for war crimes, wanted to see DOMA repealed, and wanted to see corporations and people making over $250,000 taxed heavily. And I wanted a true national healthcare program. And I wanted to see the ban on assault rifles reinstated.

But the Republican Party/Tea Party has gone off the deep end in my opinion. I suspect Romney's actually a much better candidate than he pretends to be, but in trying to pander to the more extreme elements of his own party, he's lost all credibility.

And since a vote for the green party is essentially a wasted vote under the current system, I'll be voting for Obama again.

 

[wallinbl]

people making over $250,000 taxed heavily

Tax revenue isn't the problem. Needless spending is. We've wasted incredible amounts of money fighting wars we shouldn't be (still) in. The fact that we're still in them is one of my biggest disappointments with Obama - I really thought he'd get us out of there as well as improve our reputation internationally. If you look back over the history of this country, we're involved in military conflicts a shockingly high percentage of the time.

And I wanted a true national healthcare program. And I wanted to see the ban on assault rifles reinstated.

Certainly would have been interesting. The one we got is pretty well useless.

I suspect Romney's actually a much better candidate than he pretends to be, but in trying to pander to the more extreme elements of his own party, he's lost all credibility.

Probably true.

 

[gymgal]

Well, I'm a fiscal conservative, social libertarian, so I really don't have anyone to vote for but I will go with the lesser of two "evils" and vote for Romney. This country was founded on the sweat and tears of hard working citizens, not the government. The founders wanted to ensure that the government (federal in particular) did not gain too much power. Unfortunately, with each passing decade, it becomes more obvious that soon we will no longer have a republic of 50 independent states but rather a true national government. I do not look forward to that day.... And both republicans and democrats are to blame.

This country needs to get back to the ideals from which it was founded - individual liberties *and responsibilities*. It is not the government's job to take care of people - whether it be healthcare, welfare, unemployment, social security. What happened before these were all instated? Oh, that's right - the communities came together and assisted those in need. And why did it work? Because there was accountability for your actions.... And there was a certain amount of humility that came with the donations, which made you want to get back to work as soon as possible. The more government got involved, the less personal it became and the easier it was to become a victim of society - not try as hard to raise yourself to a higher standard.

I have no pipe dreams - I know Romney isn't the guy to fix it. I don't know if we even can anymore. But I know Obama isn't the answer. He ran on Hope and Change and essentially gave the country neither... His time is up...

And as for taxing the richest - give me a break - (no, I am not in this category - not by a long shot). $250,000 is not rich. But regardless, these folks (250K+) already pay more than their fair share in taxes. almost half their income, in fact. Paying a fair share would have EVERYONE (except those at/just above the poverty line) paying an equal rate - like in a National flat sales tax.

 

[Moxiegrl83]

And since a vote for the green party is essentially a wasted vote under the current system, I'll be voting for Obama again.

Exactly. Out of all the people in the US, all of the incredibly bright people we have, we get to pick from 2 for the most important job in the country. I guess they think most American's are too stupid to have a bigger choice. Just once I'd like to vote for someone I actually believe in, not someone making great promises but falling short. I know there are other people on the ballot, but it really just comes down to Romney and Obama, anything else is a wasted vote. It's a fairy tale I know, but a girl can dream right...

 

[gymgal]

And for anyone who hasn't seen the newest Batman - class warfare at its worth. It's coming down the line. Not as bad as the movie portrays but it will happen and left and right will be to blame...

 

[wallinbl]

anything else is a wasted vote

No, it's not wasted. People need to quit thinking that way and start acting on it. The democrats and republicans have done quite a lot to make sure that their two parties are well entrenched and have all the advantages. It's one of the few things they agree on (along with their lifetime pensions after one term). More votes for other candidates will only help break their duopoly and might even lead to candidates worth voting for.

 

[CoachGoofy]

I met Obama in 2004 when he was running for senate, caucased for him in 2008, & will be voting for him again.

He is waaaaay to the right of my ideal, but as a minority woman with health needs & a low paying job & student debt out the wazoo, I don't exactly have any other options who are even tolerable.

 

[gymgal]

He is waaaaay to the right of my ideal, but as a minority woman with health needs & a low paying job & student debt out the wazoo, I don't exactly have any other options who are even tolerable.

Why is it that folks (in general, not Goofy in particular) feel that just because the left is for helping the "little" guy that the right is not? they are - they just go about it through the private sector, not the government...

 

[gymgal]

I have seen it mentioned at least twice now that Obama leans to the right of someone's ideals... If anyone feels comfortable sharing, what areas are these? I think it helps with the discussion. I know a lot of rebublicans say the same about Romney leaning left...

 

[gymgal]

No, it's not wasted. People need to quit thinking that way and start acting on it. The democrats and republicans have done quite a lot to make sure that their two parties are well entrenched and have all the advantages. It's one of the few things they agree on (along with their lifetime pensions after one term). More votes for other candidates will only help break their duopoly and might even lead to candidates worth voting for.

Actually, it is wasted because it splits the vote and depending on who the third party candidate is, it means a certain win for one of the other parties. this is why the republicans are trying so hard to keep the tea party movement from getting to big and bringing in their own candidate and why the democrats would love it to happen! I would love to see a libertarian president and at least a good sized minority of them in congress... someday.

"stay out of my wallet, bedroom, business, schools. Call me when you need money for foreign affairs and national protection only. Let the states handle the rest. "

 

[CoachGoofy]

Why is it that folks (in general, not Goofy in particular) feel that just because the left is for helping the "little" guy that the right is not? they are - they just go about it through the private sector, not the government...

This is when if anyone who knows me in my non gym life is reading my sort of anonymity will be blown =)

In regards to that in particular, the private sector is a) not very efficient & b) full of hoops. In many areas there aren't solutions-government or private-for many issues, often the "little guy" has multiple issues that need help but different things are all segregated. Then you end up bounced back and forth between agencies because you're engulfed in a Someone Else's Problem Field. So while you're trying to break out of the SEP Field the situation gets more and more dire.

And the hoops interfere with certain guaranteed freedoms. I'm an Atheist. To get help from many, if not most, of the charitable groups where I grew up, you had to have the right religious affilliation or be able to fake it. Many charitible groups discriminate-officially or not-on all sorts of grounds, philosophical, flat out bigoted, etc.

The reliance on the goodness of others also makes me twitch because I've seen the worst, not just the best, of humanity. Good people aren't abundant enough. Safety nets are important. They certainly don't stop the private sector from doing their thing, but they can be the difference between life & death for some people. I want an America where no one dies of treatable diseases or hunger or exposure.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

And as for taxing the richest - give me a break - (no, I am not in this category - not by a long shot). $250,000 is not rich. But regardless, these folks (250K+) already pay more than their fair share in taxes. almost half their income, in fact. Paying a fair share would have EVERYONE (except those at/just above the poverty line) paying an equal rate - like in a National flat sales tax.

No, they are taxed almost half of what they make after the first $250,000. And I think if the country has allowed them opportunities to make that kind of money, they owe it to the country to pay it forward.

As for the private sector being interested in helping the little guy, there's simply no way. The private sector is driven solely by profit. If they can make a profit by helping the little guys, they'll do it. If (as is much more often the case) they can do it at the expense of the little guys, they'll do that just as readily.

The government, to at least some extent, answers to the voters. And everybody's vote truly is equal regardless of their net worth. Granted, the government is pretty corrupt at times and politicians can be easily bought and sold (especially after the Citizens United ruling), but even after the the "little guys'" say is diluted by this corruption, it is still more influential in government than it is in the private sector.

The short version: the private sector is driven by profit, the public sector is driven by the desire to win votes. Neither is ideal, but the latter is less-worse than the former.