• The next President - who's good enough?
    366 replies, posted
Nobody is. The electoral college decides who is in office rather than popular vote. All of the presidential candidates are from wealthy families who have history with the foundation of this country. The entire conversation of election in our puppet democracy is a clever scam to hide a monarchy ruled by aristocrats and destinies. I will note vote in a fake democracy in where you only have two options.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34313271]The problem is that the Federal Reserve is reckless and unconstitutional. I mean, we have a private bank run by an appointed madman printing our money. Abolishing the Federal Reserve doesn't mean we we'll stop printing money, we just need to give the power back to the government itself. I'm a hardcore right-wing Libertarian who loves the concept of privatization, but having a private institution control the printing of money is just wrong.[/QUOTE] "angry mad man printing our money" 1. Bernanke saved the US economy with his policies, and deserved his title of Person of the Year in Time magazine (though who listens to them anymore anyway). 2. Printing money is a perfectly normal thing to do, the country needs a certain amount of money printed every month to avoid deflation. 3. Quantitative Easing is a perfectly valid way to conduct fiscal and monetary policy. Like I said, most other western countries mirrored the actions of the United States. The Fed is not particularly insane, it just has to deal with more money, being the biggest economy in the world and etc.
[QUOTE=person11;34313626]"angry mad man printing our money" 1. Bernanke saved the US economy with his policies, and deserved his title of Person of the Year in Time magazine (though who listens to them anymore anyway). 2. Printing money is a perfectly normal thing to do, the country needs a certain amount of money printed every month to avoid deflation. 3. Quantitative Easing is a perfectly valid way to conduct fiscal and monetary policy. Like I said, most other western countries mirrored the actions of the United States. The Fed is not particularly insane, it just has to deal with more money, being the biggest economy in the world and etc.[/QUOTE] Even so, we should make the Federal Reserve a part of the government. A private bank managing issues like monetary policy is completely out of line.
Terminator aka Arnold Schwarzenegger for president who agrees? :v:
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34313810]Even so, we should make the Federal Reserve a part of the government. A private bank managing issues like monetary policy is completely out of line.[/QUOTE] I agree, but there is no reason to exaggerate on how terrible and insane the Fed apparently is
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34313408]You said it.[/QUOTE] Well, yes, I just said it.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;34305030]I don't care for any of them. But as long as they're against SOPA and PIPA, I'm satisfied.[/QUOTE] That basically leaves you with Ron Paul and... Ron Paul.
[QUOTE=Scoooby;34240076]RON PAUL 2012 Cool. That's like taking another mouthful of already processed shit because you don't want to hear any different. I don't care about Ron Paul's personal views. And neither should you, and neither does he. Because he doesn't believe in government conflicting with our rights as Americans.' He's the only common sense candidate out there. Obama is a flipflopper, what would voting for him again do for us!? We already know that he doesn't make any bold moves in the favor of the people! And that's all we need to know when making our votes this 2012 election. Ron Paul is bold enough to speak for us, the youth. And honestly, what does the theory of evolution have to do with the downfall of this nation?! NOTHING. I believe in evolution, it's real and exists. Doesn't matter, completely irrelevant.[/QUOTE] I love how you are doing the same thing you accused him of, except in RP's defense.
Ron Paul is basically a second George Bush. He's basically a liar and a racist.
[QUOTE=Speedhax;34316619]Ron Paul is basically a second George Bush. He's basically a liar and a racist.[/QUOTE] It's not like we couldn't trust anyone else, everyone is a liar, at some point.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34316054]That basically leaves you with Ron Paul and... Ron Paul.[/QUOTE] Other way around.
[QUOTE=Speedhax;34316619]Ron Paul is basically a second George Bush. He's basically a liar and a racist.[/QUOTE] Obama's the one that's the third Bush. He extended every single damn thing that Bush started/extended.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34317283]Obama's the one that's the third Bush. He extended every single damn thing that Bush started/extended.[/QUOTE] So would Ron Paul, Obama had tons of pressure from the Republican party to extend it and to appease their wishes he complied. You can make the argument "Ron Paul wouldn't accept the bill" in which case the Congress would overturn the veto with a 2/3 vote and most of what Bush enacted would still be extended. Also, I would probably pick Romney out of the GOP, even though I abhor him as a person.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34317283]Obama's the one that's the third Bush. He extended every single damn thing that Bush started/extended.[/QUOTE] Wait what? Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts and all of the Republicans want to keep them. They all criticized him for ending the war, and want to see torture return. They want to get rid of his healthcare plan. The only reason Obama has kept a bunch of things from the Bush administration is because everybody cries socialism as soon as he tries to do something new.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;34317705]Wait what? Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts and all of the Republicans want to keep them. They all criticized him for ending the war, and want to see torture return. They want to get rid of his healthcare plan. The only reason Obama has kept a bunch of things from the Bush administration is because everybody cries socialism as soon as he tries to do something new.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-defines-obamas-drone-war/2011/10/28/gIQAPKNR5O_story.html[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-intensifies-its-proxy-fight-against-al-shabab-in-somalia/2011/11/21/gIQAVLyNtN_story.html[/url] [url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html[/url] [url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946990,00.html[/url] Yes, Obama has definitely not escalated any war. [editline]20th January 2012[/editline] [url]http://www.npr.org/2011/12/18/143863722/with-huge-embassy-u-s-still-a-presence-in-iraq[/url] [editline]20th January 2012[/editline] Also torture. [url]http://www.allgov.com/US_and_the_World/ViewNews/Obama_Fought_to_Protect_Bush_Officials_from_Torture_Charges_in_Spain_101203[/url]
Ron Paul is the only competent republican candidate. Thats not to say he should be president though.
Seeing as all the republicans are batshit insane, I will be going for Obama
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34317859][url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-defines-obamas-drone-war/2011/10/28/gIQAPKNR5O_story.html[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-intensifies-its-proxy-fight-against-al-shabab-in-somalia/2011/11/21/gIQAVLyNtN_story.html[/url] [url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html[/url] [url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946990,00.html[/url] Yes, Obama has definitely not escalated any war. [editline]20th January 2012[/editline] [url]http://www.npr.org/2011/12/18/143863722/with-huge-embassy-u-s-still-a-presence-in-iraq[/url] [editline]20th January 2012[/editline] Also torture. [url]http://www.allgov.com/US_and_the_World/ViewNews/Obama_Fought_to_Protect_Bush_Officials_from_Torture_Charges_in_Spain_101203[/url][/QUOTE] I have to say, I'm really disappointed in Obama's handling of foreign affairs. Not only that, but in Libya and, more recently in Uganda, he's openly violated the War Powers Act of 1973, which specifically limits the executive branch from deploying troops overseas for upwards of 60 days without Congressional approval. The act then states that if Congress denies an extension of the executive deployment or refuses to declare war, then the President has a 30 day period to withdraw the military units from the overseas deployment. US troops have been in Libya almost nine months, and the soldiers deployed to Uganda back in mid October apparently have been there for well over ninety days.
[QUOTE=SSBMX;34318216]Seeing as all the republicans are batshit insane, I will be going for Obama[/QUOTE] I'd rather have slightly insane than incompetent.
same.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34318577]I'd rather have slightly insane than incompetent.[/QUOTE] I have not seen any real reason to call him incompetent. He took office in the shittiest time since the thirties. He has only spent a trillion dollars and saved us from an even worse economic collapse (by saving millions of jobs from being lost, especially in the auto industry), reduced dependence on foreign oil, he passed a Health Care bill (sure it is not ideal, but it improves on the system in many important ways), he passed a bill regulating the Wall Street excesses that brought the economy down in the first place, ended DADT, doubled down on Afghanistan (I can't give him all the credit for Osama's death though), he has improved our standing in the world and helped in unseating Libya's dictatorship without investing too heavily in it, cut taxes for everyone, and is in the process of passing parts of the "American Jobs Act" in Congress (though Republicans decided to make it as difficult as possible to put Obama in a worse light). The only faults I will put against him are a lack of immigration reform, doing very little to muscle Congress into closing Guantanamo Bay, and going against sites like wikileaks (while keeping Bradley Manning in custody). Most of the things that people attribute with Obama either do not make sense or are things that are out of his hands completely. The sluggish economy has more to do with Europe's troubles than anything else, and continued human rights abuses can mostly be attributed to Congress (democrats and republicans in this case). The same goes for keeping the taxes on the rich low: that is also out of Obama's direct control. At this point in the Election, a Republican led House would never let anything beneficial to Obama pass, so it is not a matter of Obama "growing balls" or not. Obama has achieved more in four years than most Presidents in their first four years. The only issue that he cannot directly control (unless he somehow manages to spend more money on job creation, which is impossible with Republicans in the House) happens to be the most important issue to voters: ...it's the economy, stupid. With all of Obama's successes in his 3 years in the White House, he would win uncontested if the economy had gotten better instead of stagnating due to external forces.
I'm sad to say I haven't been paying much attention to politics in the past year (last year technically) due to all the hectic stress and whatnot of applying and getting through my first term of college. So I ask Facepunch in all its almighty awesomness (lol) to inform me. So far what I've got in this thread (no thanks to Scooby) is that most of the republican candidates are batshit insane, Ron Paul is an idealist which is not really ideal in our country's current situation, and Obama seems like one of the few viable candidates.
[QUOTE=AnathemicOne;34321295]I'm sad to say I haven't been paying much attention to politics in the past year (last year technically) due to all the hectic stress and whatnot of applying and getting through my first term of college. So I ask Facepunch in all its almighty awesomness (lol) to inform me. So far what I've got in this thread (no thanks to Scooby) is that most of the republican candidates are batshit insane, Ron Paul is an idealist which is not really ideal in our country's current situation, and Obama seems like one of the few viable candidates.[/QUOTE] Obama also did all of [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/o70in/libertarian_to_my_liberal_friends_can_you_please/]this[/url]. (Reddit link because I'm not copying all of that)
None of them, they're all insane.
Ron Paul may not be the best politician, but hes defintly the less evil of all them
[QUOTE=jesse194;34324710]Ron Paul may not be the best politician, but hes defintly the less evil of all them[/QUOTE] yeah, unless you're not a rich, straight, white, christian male.
Meh. I'd take Santorum or Gingrich, although Gingrich is a meter wide.
Seems like Gingrich is moving up in polls in SC. I could see him going up against Romney.
How the world manages to not be repulsed by Republican candidates I just don't know. Ron Paul has his redeeming factors but alongside all of his hideous ones, coupled with the fact he's a presidential candidate, totally spoils it for him. [editline]21st January 2012[/editline] I just looked into Gringrich and I couldn't help but feel "there is literally nothing about this man being in control of so much of the world that doesn't sicken me" [editline]21st January 2012[/editline] worse of all because his control is contingent on thousands of people actually consenting him to have that control
[QUOTE=sp00ks;34325049]yeah, unless you're not a rich, straight, white, christian male.[/QUOTE] is that even a legitimate argument? if you're gonna troll do it somewhere else.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.