12-05-2011, 11:11 AM | #1 |
Banned
|
Controversial Candidates for President
Since another debate thread seems to be trending in this direction, I figured I'd separate it from the other conversation so it can be discussed more clearly.
Firstly, to set the stage, The state of the country is: Economy: Nation: Originally a weak recession from the previous president, now considered a full blown depression as bad as the Great Depression. Unemployment having been generally stagnant around 9% for two years (not counting those who have quit looking for a job which are subsequently not considered or counted in the unemployment numbers anymore) Government Debt practically doubled within the past 3 years time, and the widest sweeping regulations on Business (Healthcare) of all time, enacted within that same time (but scheduled not to fully apply until after this coming election). Our AAA credit rating has been dropped as well during the current president's administration. States: numerous states finding a lack of money, unsustainable budgets, and the need to cut programs and workers in order to keep from bankrupting. President: Democrat, for 3 years, having followed a Republican of 8 years. Congress: Senate-Democrat controlled since the final 2 years of the previous president; House of Representatives-Recently voted in overwhelming majority Republican. Homefront: multiple Scandals in government being unearthed, (Solindra and Congressional Insider trading), and protests against all manner of things have occurred, from Government to Capitalism (the TEA party and Occupy Wall Street). And a lawsuit against the government regarding the Healthcare laws is planned to be reviewed by the supreme court this coming next year. Foreign Affairs: Wars: War weary, having been deployed and at war for the past 10 years against a hidden faction of terrorists, in two different countries. Recently supported a successful Rebel uprising in Libya, and successfully "taken care of" the leader of the faction we are at war with (unfortunately, engrained IDEOLOGIES are not so easily dispatched as enemy countries). Our Friend and Ally Israel is continually pressed from most sides by hostile intentions, also having lost a "Ally" in Egypt, in the way of an ousted dictator who had at least adhered to a protective treaty in Israel's behalf, which is now no longer in effect. Iran disregarding sanctions and developing a nuclear program, which may not be so disinclined to actually use them against Israel. Economy: The Euro is on the brink of collapse, multiple countries in Europe are on the verge of bankruptcy, and Red China is slated to benefit the most from all this economic upheaval. (I wrote all that from memory, so if you take issue with something I described here or wish to add something else, please link me to correct info, so that I may change this post, and not be dis-informing others. All information presented here is designed only to list facts, and not suggest any correlation to anything else, if a statement is interpreted as suggesting a correlation, please ignore said correlation in regards to this post, and let any actual correlation be brought up and discussed in regards to the actual topic of this thread, which is the candidates running for president and their positions on "The Issues".) Secondly, we have a large number of possible Presidents in 2012, several Republicans vying for the office, and the incumbent Democrat (should a contending democrat be found later, he or she will also be added for discussion) I will list them here, and would ask that each poster joining the discussion copy this list, and list briefly the Pros and Cons of each candidate or at least each candidate they wish to discuss (either for or against), from their own opinion, before debate on their merits or dismerits is approached. This is intended to promote a critical analysis of the candidates on a whole, instead of knee-jerk reactions and party rhetoric to the names. Incumbent President: Barrock Hussein Obama Pros: Cons: Texas Governor: Rick Perry Pros: Cons: Minnesota Congresswoman: Michele Bachmann Pros: Cons: Former Speaker of the House: Newt Gingrich Pros: Cons: Former Utah Governor: Jon Huntsman Pros: Cons: Former New Mexico Governor: Gary Johnson Pros: Cons: Intended Independent Candidate: Fred Karger Pros: Cons: Andy Martin Pros: Cons: Rent Is Too Damn High Party: Jimmy McMillan Pros: Cons: Career Flight Attendant: Tom Miller Pros: Cons: Texas State Representative: Ron Paul Pros: Cons: Former Louisiana Governor: Buddy Roemer Pros: Cons: Former Massachusetts Governor: Mitt Romney Pros: Cons: Former Pennsylvania Senator: Rick Santorum Pros: Cons: Matt Snyder Pros: Cons: Businessman: Vern Wuensche Pros: Cons: And two others I'd like to "Write In," though not necessary to answer, I'm curious about your thoughts on them: Businessman: Herman Cain Pros: Cons: Former Alaska Governor: Sarah Palin Pros: Cons: (Owing to the length of this post, my analysis will be in another post) Last edited by unownmew; 12-05-2011 at 11:18 AM. |
12-05-2011, 11:42 AM | #2 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
>Herman Cain
I thought he'd officially pulled out now?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2011, 11:54 AM | #3 |
Banned
|
That's why I put him at the bottom with Sarah Palin, who also isn't running.
|
12-05-2011, 11:56 AM | #4 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
kthnxbai
__________________
|
|
12-05-2011, 12:03 PM | #6 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY OBOMA IS A TERRORIST!
__________________
|
12-05-2011, 12:06 PM | #7 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
As much as I, generally speaking, don't agree with Unownmew's political opinions as he's previously posted them on UPN, can we at least hold off on the stereotyping and strawman bullshit for one page?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2011, 12:19 PM | #8 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
The economy exploded under Bush in the Summer of 2008. The explosion was the end result of many events and decisions which took place during his eight years in office, many of which were beyond his (or any President's) control but some of which were not. None of the events took place during Obama's presidency. He inherited this mess and it's pretty pathetic how you guys keep trying to pin it on him. Once again, I find myself in need of this image macro: This came out back in 2009 (sad, huh?) but I see it's as salient and necessary as ever. Tea Partiers honestly believe that if they tell a lie enough times, people will accept that it's the truth. No. We're tired of your revisionist history. Enough is enough.
__________________
|
|
12-05-2011, 12:36 PM | #9 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Going to agree with Talon on the above. It doesn't happen overnight - prominent economists were calling the incoming recession for years before it happened as a result of things that were happening (the real estate bubble, for example) largely in the US but also elsewhere, and I can tell you that the shit hit the fan here in the UK - not long but noticeably after it did in the States - while Bush was still in power.
It would be foolish to lay it entirely at Bush's door, because it certainly wasn't entirely one mans fault and while there are things he could've done there are things that other politicians and whatnot around the world could've done. Blaming it on the guy who came to power after shit hit the fan seems... ridiculous. I mean, no doubt there are things he could've done to lessen the problems but large scale human society is inevitably full of shit.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 12-05-2011 at 12:49 PM. |
|
12-05-2011, 02:13 PM | #10 |
Banned
|
My Analysis:
Incumbent President: Barrock Hussein Obama Pros: "Obama Got Osama!" [/Obligatory kudos] He's predictable If you push hard enough he'll cave If you put something in his own self interest, he'll usually do it, even if it goes contrary to his rigid ideals Cons: Socialist/Redistributionist a main proponent of the Solindra scandal Nationalized Healthcare Wants higher taxes (for all) Anti-business, pro-stifling business regulations Closely associated with Jerimiah Wright and Bill Aires, both anti-American radicals (no matter how many times he denies it, it doesn't change the fact that he was with them for a long time before now) Promotes Government Subsidized Green Energy Anti-Drilling Double the total absolute National Debt, from Washington to Bush, in just 3 years. Doesn't lead. Texas Governor: Rick Perry Pros: Fellow Texan, and my ideal candidate Whether he is partly responsible for Texas' friendly business climate and increased job growth, or not, he at least knew enough not to mess with the pre-existing policies that helped create it. True Rags to Riches story (Small Farmer to potential President) A man of Faith, and unashamed of it. Almost Radical plans to Reform the National Government, too many to list individually End Base-line Budgeting Flat Tax Pro-gun Defend the Boarder Realizes the Country is in a dire situation Other issues Cons: Stalled in the debates, and hasn't been able to regain momentum effectively since. 3 controversial Policy decisions made as governor that may bite him later. (immigration, a Government mandated vaccine, and, ...? ) Former Speaker of the House: Newt Gingrich Pros: Will enforce against illegal Immigration in as a feaseable manner as possible. Knows how government works (which can be used to make it work as efficiently as possible) optional flat tax remove imposing regulations on business balance the budget repeal Obama Care reform entitlements make businesses more competitive with those around the world. All-American Energy Will protect life and Religious liberty Willing to accept input from We the People already working on legislation/executive orders to be enacted when/if he becomes president (He's on the ball!) Secure the Boarder by Jan 1, 2014, "By any means necessary" Transfer Power from the government back to the states Seems aware the Country is in a dire situation. Other issues Cons: has supported Man-made Global Warming in the past (a debate for another time) has been associated with the legislature in the past (so he's "tainted") has supported the healthcare mandate in the past Minnesota Congresswoman: Michele Bachmann Pros: Repeal Dodd-Frank Repeal Obamacare Cut Taxes Cut Spending Cut Government Cut Regulations Pro-drilling Will not rest until the War on Terror is won. Knows small business Wants to strengthen the family and defend marriage. Realizes the Country is in a dire situation. Cons: Some people consider her too controversial She stalled before she even started Her Website isn't as informative or specific as Perry's Former Massachusetts Governor: Mitt Romney Pros: Mormon, like myself, if he's a true practitioner of the religion, (which I'm ashamed to say, I am not), We can all be assured he will do nothing dishonest in his term, and will receive inspiration from God on how to correctly run the country. Will repeal Obamacare Will ease regulations on business Will ease taxes Knows business Cons: There can be no guarantees on how devoted he is in his religion Massachusetts Healthcare Law Believes in man-made Global Warming (a debate for another time) has flip-flopped on statements regarding issues. Matt Snyder Businessman: Vern Wuensche Career Flight Attendant: Tom Miller Former Louisiana Governor: Buddy Roemer Rent Is Too Damn High Party: Jimmy McMillan Intended Independent Candidate: Fred Karger Andy Martin Former New Mexico Governor: Gary Johnson Pros: Not Obama Republican Cons: I've never heard of these people before Businessman: Herman Cain Pros: Proposed and heavily promoted a flat tax before it was trendy Knows business congenial, likeable personality 9,9,9, the first two nines; (9% for business and personal taxes, I'm all for paying less. Cons: 9,9,9, the final 9; I don't want to be paying a 9% sales tax on everything I buy. Former Alaska Governor: Sarah Palin Pros: The antithesis of Liberalism unabashed conservative likeable, and identifiable with the middle class. unphased by attacks, smears, libel, slander, lies, and other attempts to discredit her by those who hate her. Emphatic Cons: Apparently "too conservative" for people to vote for her. |
12-05-2011, 02:36 PM | #11 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Princess Ana; 12-05-2011 at 02:51 PM. |
|
12-05-2011, 02:51 PM | #12 | |||||
Banned
|
And here I thought we could actually have a civil debate, yet not one person seems to be truly interested in debating merits, as evidenced from the apparent lack of following the guidelines outlined in the first post.
Do an analysis, like I mentioned in the first post please, if you want to talk about the demerits of any particular person. I don't care how biased your analysis is, so long as you include both a pro and a con. Then please let us discuss actual substance instead of throwing around insults at people we don't like. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I simply mentioned that which I've heard reported. And particularly, I heard the economy spoken of as a recession, back when Obama was running for office, and now if I'm not mistaken, even he himself has called it the "worst economy since the Great Depression," or something like that. So, I'm not putting any spin here. Obviously the housing bubble was a major factor (which was due to restrictions and legislation enacted by the democrat legislators in the way of Fanny-Mae and Freddy-Mack). That occurred under Bush, yes. Obama is at fault here, for failing to respond in the correct way, if at all, and enacting "more of the same," throughout his past 3 years. More taxes, more regulations, more government bureaucracy, and no repeal of the culprit legislation. The way he's doubled the debt and government spending hasn't helped either, and his stalwort refusal to do anything different, besides token lip service and political ploys, only puts him lower in my books. So, no, Obama did not start the problem, but he's failed to fix it, and only made it worse by trying. Economy can fix itself better with a hands-off approach, but Obama seems to think the best thing to do it to keep shifting the mess around in hopes he'll somehow reconfigure it back the way it was. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by unownmew; 12-05-2011 at 03:54 PM. |
|||||
12-05-2011, 03:27 PM | #13 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
I can't breathe right now and it's not because of laughter.
Quote:
You didn't even know who Murdoch or the Kochs are. Almost all of your "sources" are brain washing, lying machines of hate disguised as "the true voice" in a world full of liberal media all out to get you and destroy this country, and that Obama and his 'czars' continue to corrupt the government via a secret network of loose ties, while they themselves continue to do backroom deals with various corporations because you'll never get it through your head that they are in it for the damn MONEY. You have one side of the fucking story and you refuse to have both. Because of this, you will always have a bias. When your sources muck up or lie, who's going to tell you they did? No one. Because they sure as fuck won't. I'm sorry to be a complete fucking dick about this and a party pooper who gets to use your birthday cake as toilet paper but to be quite frank debates with you have become pointless because you have this clever way of going "Oh yeah, I see that... but you're wrong, because... Rush Limbaugh." Don't twist it around and say "You're the pot calling the kettle black!", because believe it or not, almost all of us have listened to the other side of the story or still do, but unfortunately it's too far in the left field a majority of the time to take seriously, although I suppose they will occasionally hit a foul tip. You are stuck with pundits and a consistent circlejerk of lies and choir preaching--- cutting myself off here because I've gone too far. I applaud you for one thing, mew, and that's that you've successfully brought out the immaturity in most of us including myself time and time again whilst staying levelheaded yourself, thus making our arguments look incorrect to you. I'm sorry. A lot of my rant is completely out of line, but I'm not taking it back now that I've gotten it off of my chest. I just don't see why you won't just try to open up your horizons more and realize that there's more to the story than just what you're spoonfed. Let me ask you one thing. Don't beat around the bush, just answer it truthfully: Do you believe personally that Obama wants to implement Sharia Law into the United States? Last edited by deoxys; 12-05-2011 at 03:38 PM. |
|
12-05-2011, 03:53 PM | #14 | |||||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
(Also, please don't put your replies in my quotes, it prevents me from quoting you back, instead forcing me to cut/paste.) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Because "Socialism" is impossible to enact properly, Capitalism must take it's place, because it is the only law that allows complete independent freedom for the individual, it uses Human's Corruption, aka self interest, to empower others. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Bill Ayers Quote:
greener: Let the free market determine alternatives in their own due time. not rely on Foreign oil: Drill here, Drill Now, Drill Baby Drill Quote:
Quote:
Besides Defense Spending, which Reagan used to pressure The Soviets into surrendering the Cold War, without a single loss of American life in combat, Reagan completely balanced the National budget. Doesn't lead. "If you push hard enough he'll cave" HYPOCRITE! Quote:
|
|||||||||||||
12-05-2011, 03:57 PM | #15 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2011, 04:02 PM | #16 |
The hostess with the mostess
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
|
Whenever someone mentions Obamas middle name in any sort of argument, to me, it is a cue to just not bother reading it.
|
12-05-2011, 04:17 PM | #17 | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
And honestly, I couldn't care less how many of them are "paid off" by "big evil corporations," as long as they espouse the Constitution as originally founded and written, love America, support small and limited government, and declare freedom and liberty for all, even those who disagree with them. Geez, I wish I could get paid for doing all that. What is wrong with the Heritage Foundation? What is wrong with Hillsdale College? What is wrong with (the essense, not the architechure) of Christian Religion? Quote:
I haven't devolved to personal insults though, to the best of my knowledge, and if I have, I apologize for it. Quote:
Apparently my Conservative Principles are incorrect as well, according to you guys. I guess I should join the middle and stand for being "lukewarm," in a place that could not exist were there not two opposing sides around me? Quote:
Elaborate explanation: Sharia Law, no, however, I do believe, that, if he had the chance, he would implement Communistic and Dictatorial Rule into the United States. He's already on the record saying he wants to "Fundamentally change the constitution," he's apologized to numerous countries for this country's past actions (which actions, I think there is little wrong with), and his association with a convicted and unrepentant terrorist, along with a Marxist Scholar, reveal, IMO, his true motivations. Tongue Firmly in Cheek when I said that. Though the concept remains. How else are we to become energy independent when "Green" generally just means "expensive" Yet you felt the need to comment anyway. Do join in, there's room enough for everyone, you won't be the first person to try and argue me without reading anything I say. Last edited by unownmew; 12-05-2011 at 04:24 PM. |
||||
12-05-2011, 04:22 PM | #18 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
Locking up American citizens without due process on the basis of their race and the fact that it happened to be the same race as the people in a nation we went to war with even though many of them had been law-abiding, upstanding members of their communities and were not even first-generation citizens but instead second, third, or more. Enslaving an entire race of people and teaching the children of the master race that (a) they were of a master race and (b) that the slave race wasn't even fully human. Interfering with a nation's attempt to win freedom from their colonial overlords in the name of stemming the Red Tide. Giving money, arms, deals to both Iraq and Iran in the exact same war and telling them "Have at!" and laughing all the way to the bank while the two sides eliminate one another and set each other back by about 20-30 years due to all the infrastructure and lives lost by the costly eight-year war. You can't even think of one thing we've done worth apologizing for? Are you fucking kidding me?
__________________
|
|
12-05-2011, 05:11 PM | #19 | |
Banned
|
Hmm, there's two different ways I could approach this accusation, I think I'll use both:
1 Damn Straight we did! This is America, the largest force of Good on the planet. I'm not sorry for bothering a few commies or bombing the shit out of our enemies-at-the-time. I shouldn't have to be either. Patriot Pride! Country over everyone else, just like in olden times! 2. There is a fine line between absolutes, and you seem to enjoy taking what I say, exaggerating it, and then telling me it's ridiculous to have such an absolute view. To clarify my statement: Quote:
Yes our government has done some bad things, most of which were to our own people: backing down on Treaties with the Indians: Bad any way you slice it rounding up Japanese Americans and sending them to camps: Very bad, but understandable for the situation Breaking constitutional bounds: inexcusable Breaking faith with it's own Citizens: inexcusable What have we done to other nations that is to be apologized for? Nuked Japan: no apology needed, War is War, they started it, and they refused to finish it, so we did it for them. Now we're allies, and Japan is a huge part of our culture. Slavery: We didn't start it, it was a carry over from Britain. The Consitution was a major triumph against it, even though it could not be done away with completely at the time. We eventually fought a war over it, and abolished it completely. Considering how long slavery has been a part of human history, it's close to a miracle it was abolished and rectified as fast as it was. Changing an entire way of thinking takes time, especially since it's swept the entire world since that time too. Messed with communists: We did what we did. We don't have to be happy about those we affected that were unaffiliated, but fighting a war without civilian casualties, is impossible and should never be expected to occur, no matter how you try to spin it. Iraq-Iran Double Dealing; I'm not aware of the surrounding circumstances of this action, which you mentioned Talon but as far as I'm aware, both have been an enemy for some time. Getting two enemies to duke it out in a proxy war, not only is it good business, but it's excellent strategy. Would you rather we have committed our own troops and monetary resources to fighting them both? War sucks, but it's still an inevitability. The wisest thing a nation can do in that case, it to displace the fighting as far from themselves as possible so their own citizens can live in relative peace. Any attempt to say war is unnecessary is the height of folly. Only unnecessary war is unnecessary. Breaking Treaties with Allies: inexcusable, except if our Allies turn on us first, even if our temporary leader truly dislikes them. This I can see worthy of an Apology. Japan and Israel need our apology for leaving them high and dry these past few years, along with a recommitment to uphold our end of treaties fully. |
|
12-05-2011, 05:23 PM | #20 |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
Guys, unownmew has stated that most of his news comes from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. That pretty much explains everything and really makes it difficult to have a reasonable debate with the guy. It also doesn't really help when all we are actually doing is insulting unwonmew's intelligence more than anything.
That being said, unownmew, please consider reading news from a variety of sources before bringing up arguments. I'm fully aware that all news is inherently biased, but getting a good range of news from both sides helps clear the picture.
__________________
|
12-05-2011, 05:27 PM | #21 | ||
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
The US knew exactly what they were getting themselves into and in fact knew Pearl Harbor was an inevitability, and used it to allow us to be dragged headfirst into WWII Quote:
Last edited by deoxys; 12-05-2011 at 05:39 PM. |
||
12-05-2011, 05:38 PM | #22 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
You're deluded.
__________________
|
12-05-2011, 05:46 PM | #23 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
__________________
|
12-05-2011, 06:56 PM | #24 |
Gee, Brain...
|
|
12-06-2011, 11:11 AM | #25 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
Legit, there are peooke who believe this.
__________________
|
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|