Obama denies 2013 was his worst year - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43261856]What's wrong with voting for a third party?[/QUOTE] Third parties in FPTP systems are a joke. First past the post systems are statistically doomed to eventually wind up as two party systems wherein voting for a third party is essentially just throwing your vote in the trash; because fringe third parties never, ever win against generalist parties. FPTP *sort of* works in a parliamentary system though, as individual MPs can still have influence, however in a winner takes all presidential race third parties simply cannot win and your vote will have no effect on the outcome.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43261636]"Eat beans and die" vs "Eat shit and scrape by" isn't really a choice. There were other options.[/QUOTE] that's not how it works here, the independents and nonparty voters are less than 1% of the house, it really is a two party system here I love how he has basically backpedaled on everything this year, NSA, obamacare, immigration reform, foreign policy, he has basically taken this second term to put up a bunch of judges and continue escalating the drone war in Pakistan along with increasing NSA programs

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43261761]pls pls pls don't ever say this; historical revisionism is not cool. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRN9Y5Nvdqk[/media] romney was a fucking slug[/QUOTE] that asian looks somewhat like mao zedong

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43265923]hope you like having everything veto'd![/QUOTE] Most stuff should probably be veto'd.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43266725]Most stuff should probably be veto'd.[/QUOTE] If Ron Paul's voting habits are any indication they would literally veto any budget that contains any amount of spending they disagree with (read: giving any money to anything). The government would basically be permanently shut down but they'd be glad about it because that's a libertarian wet dream.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43265923]hope you like having everything veto'd![/QUOTE] Civil rights legislation? That's a veto. Consumer protection regulations? That's a veto. Setting up more safety nets to help the disadvantaged? Oh, you better believe that's a veto!

[QUOTE=Mingebox;43266841]Civil rights legislation? That's a veto. Consumer protection regulations? That's a veto. Setting up more safety nets to help the disadvantaged? Oh, you better believe that's a veto![/QUOTE] good thing the american nobility doesn't like any of these things anyways and won't pass it through.

Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate, but he was what America needs. Our government is bloated and spends wayyyy more than it takes in. Oh, hey, this guy specialized in buying businesses that were about to go under, and was able to breathe life back into them by finding where to cut expenses. Let's all hate him!

[QUOTE=darunner;43268146]Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate, but he was what America needs. Our government is bloated and spends wayyyy more than it takes in. Oh, hey, this guy specialized in buying businesses that were about to go under, and was able to breathe life back into them by finding where to cut expenses. Let's all hate him![/QUOTE] He would have cut taxes too, which means the Government would be the same place it is now but the recession would be way worse due to slashing spending on social programs.

[QUOTE=darunner;43268146]Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate, but he was what America needs. Our government is bloated and spends wayyyy more than it takes in. Oh, hey, this guy specialized in buying businesses that were about to go under, and was able to breathe life back into them by finding where to cut expenses. Let's all hate him![/QUOTE] Didn't he just buy businesses that were about to go under so he could sell off all the assets and profit from that?

[QUOTE=darunner;43268146]Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate, but he was what America needs. Our government is bloated and spends wayyyy more than it takes in. Oh, hey, this guy specialized in buying businesses that were about to go under, and was able to breathe life back into them by finding where to cut expenses. Let's all hate him![/QUOTE] The problem with the US government is that too much of it is reliant on privatized businesses. After all, private businesses put money ahead of service quality. If anything then the US government should yank the chains of its private contractors and tell them to be more efficient or they'll get bent HARD.

[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43270112]The problem with the US government is that too much of it is reliant on privatized businesses. After all, private businesses put money ahead of service quality. If anything then the US government should yank the chains of its private contractors and tell them to be more efficient or they'll get bent HARD.[/QUOTE] if good quality of service makes them money, they'll provide good quality of service. the problem is that our regulatory policy is structured in such a way that monopolistically large companies are allowed to corner markets on necessary goods/services and then provide whatever quality that they want, because people have to buy from them anyway. most of today's regulations are passed purely because of corporate special interest, believe it or not. many of them create barriers to entry and prevent small businesses from coming in. competition solves a lot of problems, but our legislature isn't so interested in allowing for fair competition, so it's kind of fucked for now.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43270095]Didn't he just buy businesses that were about to go under so he could sell off all the assets and profit from that?[/QUOTE] Ones that were beyond saving, he did. Others, he tried to reorganize them and make them profitable again.

We let money in politics, it was like opening Pandora's Box. I don't know if it's possible to reverse that damage at this point. To start, we could try not allowing legal bribery, but our politicians are mostly greedy cunts who would never let that happen.

[QUOTE=darunner;43275122]Ones that were beyond saving, he did. Others, he tried to reorganize them and make them profitable again.[/QUOTE]As I recall, even amongst the worst in the field, his company had a high failure rate. Don't think its much of a secret that they were intentionally ruining the businesses they bought to profit off the asset sales and insurance.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43276661]As I recall, even amongst the worst in the field, his company had a high failure rate. Don't think its much of a secret that they were intentionally ruining the businesses they bought to profit off the asset sales and insurance.[/QUOTE] Do you really think that? What will get them more money? Selling off a company's assets, or owning the company when it turns around and starts to make a profit?

[QUOTE=darunner;43278411]Do you really think that? What will get them more money? Selling off a company's assets, or owning the company when it turns around and starts to make a profit?[/QUOTE]Selling them off and making a profit off that is much quicker and more garunteed than investing heavily in them to try to make them successful when they could still fail at a moments notice and you lose your entire investment. Or maybe you begin to make a small profit many years down the line.

[QUOTE=darunner;43268146]Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate, but he was what America needs. Our government is bloated and spends wayyyy more than it takes in. Oh, hey, this guy specialized in buying businesses that were about to go under, and was able to breathe life back into them by finding where to cut expenses. Let's all hate him![/QUOTE] Mitt Romney's entire campaign was a business venture, and the man himself has the charisma and moral backbone of a cardboard cutout. He's a corporate vulture with a talented hairstylist, and his personality alone is what won Obama 2012. If it wasn't for Fox News, he wouldn't have been remotely noteworthy. [QUOTE=darunner;43278411]Do you really think that? What will get them more money? Selling off a company's assets, or owning the company when it turns around and starts to make a profit?[/QUOTE] uh selling 100% you can't just "turn around" a failed business

Obama denies that it was his worst year, because 2014 will be.