No one. Pick someone who's not a corrupt and horribly biased politician, so no one. Take Castro's suggestion and design a robot.
I don't want to pick anyone, but if I was absolutely forced it'd probably be Huntsman.
If Obama would show a bit more backbone I'd have no trouble at all voting for him, but he's seemed to sort of float on by during his presidency, bending to the wills of a GOP-driven congress.
Gary Johnson seems like the best candidate in my opinion, but he's switched to Libertarian so I don't think he'd get many votes.
I like following politics as much as I can but, I have lost all hope in this election. Obama 2012. Because all the GOP candidates are stupid and are going cut-throat.
I am looking for someone who can get shit done. I dont care about what X did 10 years ago.
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;34203335]I don't want to pick anyone, but if I was absolutely forced it'd probably be Huntsman.
If Obama would show a bit more backbone I'd have no trouble at all voting for him, but he's seemed to sort of float on by during his presidency, bending to the wills of a GOP-driven congress.[/QUOTE]
Would you prefer someone who might cave to that group in charge, or that group directly in charge?
I rank all my candidates by how scary they are.
Least terrifying is Obama, followed by Huntsman and Romney.
Gingrich has a ton of experience from being in politics for 30 years, but I disagree with him with pretty much everything.
Most terrifying is Paul, followed by Santorum and Perry.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34203428]Would you prefer someone who might cave to that group in charge, or that group directly in charge?[/QUOTE]
Good point, but that being said I'm not voting Republican this election. That absolutely forced bit was literal.
I know what you mean though.
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;34204005]Good point, but that being said I'm not voting Republican this election. That absolutely forced bit was literal.
I know what you mean though.[/QUOTE]
Right. When it comes to state-level and congressional elections you might want to make a different choice than usual, as there are various offices this year being contested by Progressive Democrats against Conservative Democrats.
[QUOTE=Jaehead;34199458]heh, correct me if I'm wrong but no Republican candidate seems to know what is good for the economy
all of them are anti-regulation, no?[/QUOTE]
Because you are a qualified economist yourself? You don't know what's good for the US economy. Your economic views tell you that those who disagree with you seem to not know "what's good for the economy". What gives you the right to say that they don't know what's good for the economy when many of them have far more experience with it than you'll probably ever have?
Anyways, can someone explain to me how voting works in the United States? Here in Australia we vote for our local representatives and senators, and whoever is the leader of the party or coalition which receives the most seats in the house of representatives goes on to become the Prime Minister. Is the United States like this?
vermin
[QUOTE=Antdawg;34204691]Because you are a qualified economist yourself? You don't know what's good for the US economy. Your economic views tell you that those who disagree with you seem to not know "what's good for the economy". What gives you the right to say that they don't know what's good for the economy when many of them have far more experience with it than you'll probably ever have?[/QUOTE]
well, you name me an economic policy held by any of the current candidates and I'm willing to give you my reasons as to why I think it would hurt the economy
[editline]wef[/editline]
come on, do you realize what you're saying? you pretty much said that experience makes people immune to criticism
also the tired old argument that critics shouldn't exist because they don't know how to direct movies, therefore they have no right
[QUOTE=Antdawg;34204691]Because you are a qualified economist yourself? You don't know what's good for the US economy. Your economic views tell you that those who disagree with you seem to not know "what's good for the economy". What gives you the right to say that they don't know what's good for the economy when many of them have far more experience with it than you'll probably ever have?
Anyways, can someone explain to me how voting works in the United States? Here in Australia we vote for our local representatives and senators, and whoever is the leader of the party or coalition which receives the most seats in the house of representatives goes on to become the Prime Minister. Is the United States like this?[/QUOTE]
No. We use what's called an electoral college. Each state gets a certain number of votes in this "college" based on population. When the people's votes are counted in a state, which ever candidate got the most votes gets all of the state's electoral college votes, whether they won by ten votes or a million. did I explain it well?
[QUOTE=Jaehead;34207742]well, you name me an economic policy held by any of the current candidates and I'm willing to give you my reasons as to why I think it would hurt the economy
[editline]wef[/editline]
come on, do you realize what you're saying? you pretty much said that experience makes people immune to criticism
also the tired old argument that critics shouldn't exist because they don't know how to direct movies, therefore they have no right[/QUOTE]
Not everyone can be a critic, there's a reason we recognise Roger Ebert as one but not some random off the street as one. One is more qualified because he does a better job (such as having no bias and writing very well) and that is why he can retain his title, the other does a bad job and posts reviews full of bias and unprofessional writing in general. Same with economics, if you did economics at university or even at school you are like Roger Ebert, if you never did you are more like the random person off the street.
I do a Business course where we touch on economics, but I don't even consider myself knowledgeable enough to make claims on what economic policy is good for the country or not. And I certainly don't claim that the Republicans don't know what they are doing because their views on the issue disagree with mine. For all you know, they could be practically better approaches than those views held by the Democrats. If you are as knowledgeable as you try to appear to be, explain in detail why the Republicans are wrong for believing in anti-regulation, and why the Democrats are right for believing in regulation.
Obama, simply because I'm a Democrat. However, I respect Ron Paul for sticking to his beliefs; he seems to be the only "genuine" Republican candidate in my opinion.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUrX9t9v3rY&feature=g-user-u&context=G252dfb4UCGXQYbcTJ33YRFVw1eYjpYLaTcaZwftlGOujd58VIqkA[/media]
Ron Paul is having a huge money bomb today (to help get rid of romney) you should all pitch in and throw something at him. He's at like 20% in South Carolina at the moment, getting around 100k/hr in donations
I'm a cold hearted democrat but like many I'm just sick of the establishment/I don't want to invade Iran
Obama.
Because the republicans except for Ron Paul are idiots.
And I don't like Ron Paul very much.
[QUOTE=Prez;34203377]Gary Johnson seems like the best candidate in my opinion, but he's switched to Libertarian so I don't think he'd get many votes.[/QUOTE]
Gary Johnson and Ron Paul both seem like great candidates to me. I have to admit, I really don't like social conservatism at all, but I'm a strong believer in letting the people run the economy, so naturally I'm a pretty huge libertarian.
I really don't see why we should care about what another person does with their life or their money so long as they don't cause harm to others.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;34214470]Not everyone can be a critic, there's a reason we recognise Roger Ebert as one but not some random off the street as one. One is more qualified because he does a better job (such as having no bias and writing very well) and that is why he can retain his title, the other does a bad job and posts reviews full of bias and unprofessional writing in general. Same with economics, if you did economics at university or even at school you are like Roger Ebert, if you never did you are more like the random person off the street.
I do a Business course where we touch on economics, but I don't even consider myself knowledgeable enough to make claims on what economic policy is good for the country or not. And I certainly don't claim that the Republicans don't know what they are doing because their views on the issue disagree with mine. For all you know, they could be practically better approaches than those views held by the Democrats. If you are as knowledgeable as you try to appear to be, explain in detail why the Republicans are wrong for believing in anti-regulation, and why the Democrats are right for believing in regulation.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so let me ask you this first. What were the causes of the financial crisis of 2008?
Also, the Republicans tend to favor tax cuts and letting the market determine the strength of the economy. Both in [url=http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Macroeconomics/Keynesian_Demand-side_Economics_and_Multipliers]theory[/url] and in [url=http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/09/17/Bush-Tax-Cuts-No-Economic-Help.aspx#page1]reality[/url], tax cuts has been proven to be inefficient ways to boost consumer spending, and letting the markets drive the economy [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=all]has not been such a great idea, either.[/url]
Not to mention limiting the power of the federal government pretty much means that you're removing a chunk of demand from the economy, and don't tell me that's not going to have negative consequences
[QUOTE=Jaehead;34218183]Ok, so let me ask you this first. What were the causes of the financial crisis of 2008?
Also, the Republicans tend to favor tax cuts and letting the market determine the strength of the economy. Both in [url=http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Macroeconomics/Keynesian_Demand-side_Economics_and_Multipliers]theory[/url] and in [url=http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/09/17/Bush-Tax-Cuts-No-Economic-Help.aspx#page1]reality[/url], tax cuts has been proven to be inefficient ways to boost consumer spending, and letting the markets drive the economy [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=all]has not been such a great idea, either.[/url]
Not to mention limiting the power of the federal government pretty much means that you're removing a chunk of demand from the economy, and don't tell me that's not going to have negative consequences[/QUOTE]
First I'll say that I'm happy to see you backing up your arguments with valid sources, which isn't seen very often around here (I'll admit I don't use them too often myself).
One could argue that government interventionism worsened (or even started) the financial crisis, such as is claimed by [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123414310280561945.html[/url] and [url]http://www.policynetwork.net/trade/media/government-intervention-counterproductive-economic-crisis-calls-new-thinking-managing-ri[/url]. You could say that government interventionism doesn't work in practice as the Wall Street Journal source claims, as it calls for better diagnosis before an intervention occurs (however, the Wall Street Journal source also mentions that government interventionism in the markets may have led to the crisis happening). The Policy Network source additionally claims that
[QUOTE]Finally, the report concludes that: "The best way to stimulate the economies of the world would be to reduce the number of overbearing taxes and regulations that currently inhibit the development and delivery of all manner of products and services".[/QUOTE]
Which if followed and depending on the circumstances may have never have called for government interventionism at all (well, hoping that the dynamics of the economy would bring the economy back up to strength and out of the crisis). Finally at least, you could say that based off of these sources that the government was a primary contributor to the financial crisis.
Although scaling down operations (or just removing them altogether) of the federal government would remove a chunk of demand, the nature of the market would then go on to create supply for that demand. With a rather silly example, let's say that the government controls all the distribution of cigarettes (yes, the government deals more with supplying services but both goods and services are still products, this is simply for the sake of argument). If the government succeeded creation and distribution to the private sector, sure we would lose supply initially but eventually that supply will be created, and it could possibly be better than if the government was in control of distribution of cigarettes, as there would no longer be a monopoly (for the time being at least) in the cigarette market. That goes on to another point though, but in short it will always recover. Not denying that there will be initial consequences.
Anyways back onto the original purpose of the thread, I'd have a real tough time at deciding who to vote for as president. I'd simply prefer to vote for the party with policy aimed at my interests, and not care about who's going to end up leading the party (as the only real power the president hold in internal affairs is veto, am I correct?). I do like Ron Paul though, as he's being realistic in not pushing his opinions, and quite a bit of his views I agree with.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;34218618]right above[/QUOTE]
well, what I'm getting from the policynetwork article is that they're pretty much going off the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_theory]efficient market theory[/url], which assumes that financial assets are priced right and people make rational financial decisions. Both assumptions that were proven to be unreliable after the Depression and especially the recent financial crisis.
I sort of agree and disagree with the WSJ article, agree that more investigation was needed, and disagree with its claim that the crisis was the fault of government intervention.
But regarding both of them, I don't see how the financial crisis was caused by the government. Both of these articles seem to look for the root of the problem in the 2007-2008 timeframe whereas if you ask me it's the deregulation (and in some cases failure to regulate innovations in the financial sector) that mainly happened in the 90s/2000s that they should've been looking for
In terms of supply/demand I was more or less talking about limiting government spending that can directly affect the private sector, not privatizing a usually government-led industry
I dislike every potential presidential candidate in one way or another, none of them possess the values that a good president would have. I liked Ralph Nader although I doubt he'd even run right now anyway. If anything I'd prefer Obama to stay, but that's just settling on a lesser evil.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34216313]Gary Johnson and Ron Paul both seem like great candidates to me. I have to admit, I really don't like social conservatism at all, but I'm a strong believer in letting the people run the economy, so naturally I'm a pretty huge libertarian.
I really don't see why we should care about what another person does with their life or their money so long as they don't cause harm to others.[/QUOTE]
You're a strong believer in letting the people run the economy, but dislike the idea of cooperative ownership? Sounds like a contradiction to me.
If we can't talk about Obama then the next person that makes the most sense is Vermin Supreme. I want ponies, dammit. His economic and ethical policies have about as much backing as half of the other candidates
At least Michelle Crazy Bachmann is out
Politics now seem bland. I can't see myself behind any of the GOP candidates, nor can I see myself behind Obama.
The most recent candidate I liked was Ron Paul, but then I realized that the libertarian ideologies didn't exactly mesh with me. He made good points with social issues, but his economic policies are impossible to accomplish. Abolishing the Fed would be a poor decision at this point in time.
However, Huntsman is pretty good with foreign policy. I'd consider voting for a Romney/Huntsman ticket, but I'm still pretty impartial. I just feel like we're experiencing a political depolarization. Meh.
seeing as how most of the major candidates are bought and paid for by special interest groups, save ron paul, the outcome doesn't look bright. i agree with a great amount of paul's policies, but many people on FP fundamentally misunderstand them.
because of the fact that the USA's political system is so corrupt and fucked up, [B]real change[/B] is an unrealistic expectation. the money powers that control this country will do anything to maintain the status quo.
Buddy Roemer
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34232468]seeing as how most of the major candidates are bought and paid for by special interest groups, save ron paul, the outcome doesn't look bright. i agree with a great amount of paul's policies, but many people on FP fundamentally misunderstand them.[/QUOTE]
It couldn't be that they fundamentally disagree with them, it must be because they misunderstood them?
[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;34199395]Well he may have not done anything wrong but exactly what has he done right? He proposes a lot of stuff but falls through with it. He has done good in terms of civil liberties but that is hardly what this election is going to be about. Its going to be about fixing the economy.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/[/url]
I'll be voting for Obama. I sort of liked Ron Paul till he admitted he doesn't believe in the theory of evolution because its just a [I]theory[/I]. SIGH.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;34233267]I'll be voting for Obama. I sort of liked Ron Paul till he admitted he doesn't believe in the theory of evolution because its just a [I]theory[/I]. SIGH.[/QUOTE]
Did he really? Oh my.
[editline]15th January 2012[/editline]
Jon Huntsman just dropped out, that was kind of expected
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.