United States Presidential Election 2012 MEGATHREAD
2,907 replies, posted
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YNc2o30IIg[/media]
All you need to know about Ron Paul now that he is no longer in the race.
If you like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson is an equivalent (and much better) choice.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37599295]yes because everything is black and white no questions I can't support the libertarian party, thisispain can't like jill stein, and god forbid someone hates them all[/QUOTE]
I cant even take you serious
[QUOTE=kman866;37599293]So I went browsing through an old folder of mine and found this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ETCRZ.jpg[/img]
I actually kind of liked Ron Paul, but getting someone else to vote for you...?[/QUOTE]
I don't get it.
If they're underage they could get somebody who doesn't know much about politics or is willing to let someone use their vote do it (I don't see the crazy problem with this, I mean it's probably slightly morally wrong, but not insane?) and I find it funny how you support Ron Paul.
down with obongo, romney 2012
If Obongo won't be re-elected, I will start 9/11 all over again.
I don't fully support him, I just liked some of his ideas and views.
[media][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQlbesF0zA[/URL][/media]
I will hunt your prostate.
- sry masked moderator -
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37599355]- sry megafan -[/QUOTE]
Your kind of acting like a cunt right now, mate. Kind of livin' up to your title there, huh.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Megafan))[/highlight]
Anyone who says obama has been in any way bad for guns needs to tell what sort of drug they're taking. Gun stores are making more money than ever because of precisely this sort of fearmongering.
[editline]8th September 2012[/editline]
and I think obama is gonna win because Romney is thoroughly unlikable even on the republican side of the aisle.
ron paul 2012
[QUOTE=Lambeth;37599417] Gun stores are making more money than ever because of precisely this sort of fearmongering.
[/QUOTE]
I work in a gun shop and I can say for a fact that this is very, very true.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;37599378]Your kind of acting like a cunt right now, mate. Kind of livin' up to your title there, huh.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Megafan))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
why does this get a ban but literally hundreds of posts like this
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37599138]are you literally stupid[/QUOTE]
go completely unmoderated?
just whose dick is this guy sucking?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Starpluck))[/highlight]
My brain says Obongo, but my heart says Stein.
alright, next up for the OP will be debate dates as soon as I can find all of them and stop being lazy
My opinion is that Obama should win because he has been a great President considering everything that has been going on
Romney would not be a bad President, but he would not be nearly as good as Obama has been
Guys.
I know it's a political thread and all, and politics incites conflict, but you could at least try to be civil about things.
I refused to post in this thread until now because I knew it would devolve into exactly what it did.
I'm not going to name any names or point fingers, but I think this thread would be a better place if everyone thought twice about what they were posting and made sure to do their own research before saying something completely false.
At least most if not all parties involved got themselves banned, but still. For future reference. Be nice.
Also, i'm definitely voting for Obama. At least I know what most of his opinions are and I don't have to be worried about pretty much everything important if he gets reelected.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Backseat moderator" - Starpluck))[/highlight]
Well apparently it didn't take long for the usual Gun control topic.
[QUOTE=person11;37599488]alright, next up for the OP will be debate dates as soon as I can find all of them and stop being lazy
My opinion is that Obama should win because he has been a great President considering everything that has been going on
Romney would not be a bad President, but he would not be nearly as good as Obama has been[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/[/url]
looks like that's it
thanks, I'll add it to the OP
[QUOTE=Lambeth;37599510][url]http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/[/url]
looks like that's it[/QUOTE]
Hey, the first debate is going to be at DU.
I might just go since DU's about a 30 minute drive from my house.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;37599489]Guys.
I know it's a political thread and all, and politics incites conflict, but you could at least try to be civil about things.
I refused to post in this thread until now because I knew it would devolve into exactly what it did.
I'm not going to name any names or point fingers, but I think this thread would be a better place if everyone thought twice about what they were posting and made sure to do their own research before saying something completely false.
At least most if not all parties involved got themselves banned, but still. For future reference. Be nice.
Also, i'm definitely voting for Obama. At least I know what most of his opinions are and I don't have to be worried about pretty much everything important if he gets reelected.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Backseat moderator" - Starpluck))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
are you kidding the thread is awesome when it "devolves"
more like devolves from not awesome to being awesome
I hope this thread is home to constant and intense arguing about everything during the elections, as well as live reactions to various debates, and finally, the results of the election.
Let's keep this thread alive and well until then!
The case against Obama:
If you look back at Obama's campaign he preached "change". The fact that he's broken these promises doesn't mean much at all, but it's the implication of the policy he's continues and endorsed that should be focused on.
To clear the air, the first day old ignorant argument that must be addressed is that Obama is tying to fix what Bush started. Let me draw your attention to this: [url]http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg[/url]
When you look at this chart here, it seems as though, fiscally, these problems have been handed down for quite some time now. So what, should we argue bush was trying to fix what problems Clinton handed him? and so on.. But there's one major thing this points at, our method of handling economic issues. We use Keynesian economics. Our government believes we can spend out way out of anything. Why? Because both parties endorse the Federal Reserve, aka one big printing press. We can just print money, and use it for what ever we see fit. What are the effects? It devalues the dollar via inflation, and hence we see this growing gap between middle and upper class. How does this add to the case against Obama? Well, as you can see, he has continued the deficit spending, in fact he has spent more than what Bush spent in eight years, in nearly four years. At the GNC, Clinton's main focus was how the democrats were responsible fo creating more jobs than republicans. Well, this is a load of bullshit. Obama is responsible for a <1% GDP growth, which is a more reliable method of gauging the economy than how many jobs were created. It doesn't matter how many jobs you create when you are inflating the dollar to nothing, and out sourcing work. It seems to me that Obama has done anything BUT change fiscally.
The next issue, taxes:
A huge part of both parties ponzi scheme to gain votes is taxation. To make this part simple and clear, taxes are bullshit. They hinder economic growth. But what really makes them bullshit is that taxes became legal in 1913 via the 16th amendment. But guess what else came in 1913? The Federal Reserve. What I am getting at is this: We are taxed so that when it comes time to print money, we print less, thus slowing down devaluation of the dollar because we use keynesian economics. The federal reserve allows us to use this type of economic policy and it only kills the dollar. Income tax was never intended by our funding fathers it's unjust taking money from people with out choice, and threatened with jail to help others, all at the expense of this corrupt economic theory and fiscal policy that both parties endorse. It's killing our currency. As history shows, we cannot have all these civil liberties democrats want when currency is weakening, because people lose faith in the government, and that is exactly when civil liberties are stripped from the people. That brings me to my next point:
Civil liberties:
Democrats are big about their civil liberties (aborton, gay marriage, etc..) and bash on the republican party over these issues. Well, That's a bit ironic, because A. You support a party that is more so socialist and wants to regulate everything under the sun, and B.) Obama extended patriot rights act via NDAA. But, WHAT!?! I though he was trying to fix bush's problems that were handed to him? Well, this goes back to how he promised "changed" also, remeber what I said about civil rights being opressed when the currenc is weakening? Funny he decided to NOT veto NDAA right when the occupy wall-street altercations were happening. But wait, theres more! He has committed more war crimes than bush did. Check this out: [url]http://antigovernmentextremist.tumblr.com/post/21211417553/just-put-this-together[/url] This leads me to the next point
Foreign policy:
Obama has continued foreign policy, which is the largest contribution to deficit spending. It's as simple as that. where's the change at Obama? But to conclude, Obama has done nothing but change, if anything he's stuck to the status quo. There's so much more to be said and so many more details, I wish I could post it all here. Ultimately the devaluation of the dollar will be our downfall, the current politicians support a newer form of economics (unlimtied pending) over having free markets and using gold, which has been around for over 6000 years and proven to work. All it's doing is hurting us, all so they can profit and manage their greed while keeping the U.S. afloat. God for bid we talk about how the recession started, which has a great ordeal to to about this.
Also, this is not in the defense of republicans, both parties are very similar when you look at the scope of things, and both are flawed. I'm libertarian and support neither party.
[url]http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg[/url]
[url]www.truthfulpolitics.com[/url]
[quote]over having free markets and using gold, which has been around for over 6000 years and proven to work.[/quote]
oh great it's a cash4gold spam bot
[QUOTE=Relaxation;37599609]The case against Obama:
If you look back at Obama's campaign he preached "change". The fact that he's broken these promises doesn't mean much at all, but it's the implication of the policy he's continues and endorsed that should be focused on.
To clear the air, the first day old ignorant argument that must be addressed is that Obama is tying to fix what Bush started. Let me draw your attention to this: [url]http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg[/url]
When you look at this chart here, it seems as though, fiscally, these problems have been handed down for quite some time now. So what, should we argue bush was trying to fix what problems Clinton handed him? and so on.. But there's one major thing this points at, our method of handling economic issues. We use Keynesian economics. Our government believes we can spend out way out of anything. Why? Because both parties endorse the Federal Reserve, aka one big printing press. We can just print money, and use it for what ever we see fit. What are the effects? It devalues the dollar via inflation, and hence we see this growing gap between middle and upper class. How does this add to the case against Obama? Well, as you can see, he has continued the deficit spending, in fact he has spent more than what Bush spent in eight years, in nearly four years. At the GNC, Clinton's main focus was how the democrats were responsible fo creating more jobs than republicans. Well, this is a load of bullshit. Obama is responsible for a <1% GDP growth, which is a more reliable method of gauging the economy than how many jobs were created. It doesn't matter how many jobs you create when you are inflating the dollar to nothing, and out sourcing work. It seems to me that Obama has done anything BUT change fiscally.
The next issue, taxes:
A huge part of both parties ponzi scheme to gain votes is taxation. To make this part simple and clear, taxes are bullshit. They hinder economic growth. But what really makes them bullshit is that taxes became legal in 1913 via the 16th amendment. But guess what else came in 1913? The Federal Reserve. What I am getting at is this: We are taxed so that when it comes time to print money, we print less, thus slowing down devaluation of the dollar because we use keynesian economics. The federal reserve allows us to use this type of economic policy and it only kills the dollar. Income tax was never intended by our funding fathers it's unjust taking money from people with out choice, and threatened with jail to help others, all at the expense of this corrupt economic theory and fiscal policy that both parties endorse. It's killing our currency. As history shows, we cannot have all these civil liberties democrats want when currency is weakening, because people lose faith in the government, and that is exactly when civil liberties are stripped from the people. That brings me to my next point:
Civil liberties:
Democrats are big about their civil liberties (aborton, gay marriage, etc..) and bash on the republican party over these issues. Well, That's a bit ironic, because A. You support a party that is more so socialist and wants to regulate everything under the sun, and B.) Obama extended patriot rights act via NDAA. But, WHAT!?! I though he was trying to fix bush's problems that were handed to him? Well, this goes back to how he promised "changed" also, remeber what I said about civil rights being opressed when the currenc is weakening? Funny he decided to NOT veto NDAA right when the occupy wall-street altercations were happening. But wait, theres more! He has committed more war crimes than bush did. Check this out: [url]http://antigovernmentextremist.tumblr.com/post/21211417553/just-put-this-together[/url] This leads me to the next point
Foreign policy:
Obama has continued foreign policy, which is the largest contribution to deficit spending. It's as simple as that. where's the change at Obama? But to conclude, Obama has done nothing but change, if anything he's stuck to the status quo. There's so much more to be said and so many more details, I wish I could post it all here. Ultimately the devaluation of the dollar will be our downfall, the current politicians support a newer form of economics (unlimtied pending) over having free markets and using gold, which has been around for over 6000 years and proven to work. All it's doing is hurting us, all so they can profit and manage their greed while keeping the U.S. afloat. God for bid we talk about how the recession started, which has a great ordeal to to about this.
Also, this is not in the defense of republicans, both parties are very similar when you look at the scope of things, and both are flawed. I'm libertarian and support neither party.
[url]http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg[/url]
[url]www.truthfulpolitics.com[/url][/QUOTE]
i would type out a long argument to refute your points but it is midnight and reading all that hurt my brain
Short version: how the hell does inflation create a gap between the rich and the middle class? also inflation has been a steady 3 to 4 percent in recent years as far as I can tell, not that big a deal. taxes are needed for the government to spend money on things. progressive taxation allows the rich to pay proportionally more than the less rich. easy and novel and simple concept. also a lot of other things you said did not make sense
Some evidence for that would be byzantine empire, well it was super successful as far as economic prosperity, also the US in the mid to late 1800s in which we had a system that had some of the lowest economic risk known to date.
oh hey by the way the 19th and 20th centuries happened and gold has run its course as a good way to value currency sorry
"taxes are bullshit"
[QUOTE=person11;37599677]oh hey by the way the 19th and 20th centuries happened and gold has run its course as a good way to value currency sorry[/QUOTE]
idk much but but what is a good way to value currency?
my vote is 7.62 as president
viva la revolution
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYRTKwonujY[/media]
mitt romney is the best
Its a joke, calm the shit down.
[QUOTE=person11;37599662]i would type out a long argument to refute your points but it is midnight and reading all that hurt my brain
Short version: how the hell does inflation create a gap between the rich and the middle class? also inflation has been a steady 3 to 4 percent in recent years as far as I can tell, not that big a deal. taxes are needed for the government to spend money on things. progressive taxation allows the rich to pay proportionally more than the less rich. easy and novel and simple concept. also a lot of other things you said did not make sense[/QUOTE]
Well, you asked some good questions.
How does inflation create the gap?
The gap is caused by two things, inflation and price adjustment. If I asked you to borrow 100$, and i said I'd pay you back in 1 year, and I payed you back the money, then you actually LOST money because the dollar inflates as you said, around 3-4% per a year. Now, the top 1% are wealthy, that is the class in which a lot of wealth is created. When the dollar inflates, and you make 20 grand a year (salaries hardly adjust to inflation) vs. someone that has a lot of money, the poor are more affected. Secondly, the top of the chain gains more fair prices, but lower down the chain the poor end up paying more for a product aka we lack trickle affect, this ties into inflation and is why the gap doesn't remain the same distance between, and explains why the gap isn't growing proportionally.
Next, I have serious problems with the following statement: "also inflation has been a steady 3 to 4 percent in recent years as far as I can tell, not that big a deal. taxes are needed for the government to spend money on things. progressive taxation allows the rich to pay proportionally more than the less rich. easy and novel and simple concept"
Well, as shortsighted and horribly written this statement is, I'll attempt to address every part, even though I could provide an answer 50 pages long.
You are right about inflation, but you're mistaken in thinking it's not that big of a deal. Now take this answer as an "easy and novel and simple concept" because it is rudimentary economics: The most immediate effects of inflation are the decreased purchasing power of the dollar and its depreciation. Depreciation is especially hard on retired people with fixed incomes because their money buys a little less each month. This helps explain the gap also. But understand that inflation comes with governments continuation of the Federal Reserve, and has nothing to do with political party.
About taxes, here's a little history lesson and something I touched on in the original post I made in this thread. In 1913 income tax was made legal via the 16th amendment. The federal reserve was also established in 1913. Majority of our founding fathers were against income taxes. Now, understand that this 3-4% inflation is controlled, the Federal Reserve controls inflation down to the 3-4% range, and also note that income tax is one of the functions the government uses to control this inflation, because the more money they take from the people the less they have to print via the Fed.
Now think of this, income tax was originally illegal, but made legal just so our currency doesn't fail because of the means we have to just make currency whenever we want.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.