Who Do You Want for President?

Oh yeah, I forgot:

75% Stein
64% Obama
55% Johnson
47% Goode
41% Romney

 

I'm supporting Obama fully. Not bagging in anyone's opinions, since, believe me, both parties have their share of idiots, but one side just has more than the other.

The stuff that Romney says, he says he's all for women, yet he says they need to learn to get married, then have children. What, are we just gonna magically get every woman in the US to be celebate just so they can do that? No, it won't work. You can tell people what to do, but you can't force them to do it, because in this case, not many people will listen.

 

Even though I'm old enough, I'm not voting, but I'm siding with Obama. My mom, however, is voting for Romney because she had hopes for Obama in regards to bettering the economy, and, as far as she can tell, she hasn't seen that.

However, I will be showing her this thread when she gets back later.

 

Obama-rama ya'll. I wish he'd be pro-active in legalizing marijuana, but everything else has been pretty honky-dory with him.

 

Marijuana shouldn't be legal. It's a drug.

 

An individual has a right to do what they want to their body. It is not the government's place to deny that right.

 

I direct your attention to caffeine and alcohol. Both legal drugs, both as dangerous - or even more so - then a number of other illegal ones. The basics is if the pros outweighs the cons, which alcohol nor caffeine would win if looked at logically, marijuana could be more pro than con.

And if we're going to go into 'well it's illegal/legal so it's wrong/right' I would direct you to the classic example of legalised slavery. It was legal at one point in America, yet was obviously wrong even though it was legal at the time, it wasn't until people started to look at the situation differently that a better sense of the law was taken.
Same could be said with marijuana, it's illegal and seen as bad, but in terms of health risks it's severely lower then most other illegal and even legal drugs. To me it's not a matter of wanting to smoke the thing in public - since I still wouldn't smoke it - but the right of it in it's current state to be able to have that choice.

Any way, my results from the first post quiz:

Stein
82% (27/33) agreed

Johnson
73% (32/44) agreed

Obama
69% (29/42) agreed

Goode
37% (15/41) agreed

Romney
26% (10/39) agreed

No clue of this Steins character but there you go. Non American not too bothered by whichever politician they put in the blank House.

 

I talked with my mom, and she said that's not the problem. It's what they do to other people because of their released inhibitions.

Alcohol, which is legal, does the same thing. It makes you more comfortable doing things you don't normally do and can sometimes hurt other people.

 

Alcohol and marijuana do not do the same thing. Alcohol has little, if any, medical benefits. Marijuana has many. Coming from somebody who has been drinking and smoking since high school and has been exposed to both and more, as well as having done my own share of research on it, marijuana is a lot safer than alcohol. I don't know what your mom thinks a stoned person is going to do to somebody else, but I don't believe either of you know enough about marijuana to make that judgement.

Also, a lot of prescribed medicine (which are also drugs) cause people to act different, some intentionally and some by side-effect.

 

Believe me, we know. My dad was a bad alcoholic, and he did things he didn't normally do.

 

Did he also smoke marijuana? I was raised by an alcoholic mother (though she did quit a few years ago) so I can semi-sympathize. The point is that people don't do things high that they'll do drunk because it's too different mental reactions.

People still support Ron Paul? That's...saddening. Also, remember that he was running for the nomination of those same "cheating Republicans," as you called them. Obama isn't a failure as a President, far from it. Despite having over half of the government (both on a national and state level) constantly trying to stop him from succeeding at the expense of the American people (See: "Our number 1 goal is to make Obama a one-term president"), he still managed to get quite a bit done and even keep some of his promises. If we really want to see him succeed (or in my opinion, judge him fairly), he needs a congress that isn't stopping his bills for the sole purpose of stopping him.

On a similar note, has anybody's opinions changed, even slightly, after watching the four debates?[DOUBLEPOST=1351014605][/DOUBLEPOST]

Did he also smoke marijuana? I was raised by an alcoholic mother (though she did quit a few years ago) so I can semi-sympathize. The point is that people don't do things high that they'll do drunk because it's too different mental reactions.

People still support Ron Paul? That's...saddening. Also, remember that he was running for the nomination of those same "cheating Republicans," as you called them. Obama isn't a failure as a President, far from it. Despite having over half of the government (both on a national and state level) constantly trying to stop him from succeeding at the expense of the American people (See: "Our number 1 goal is to make Obama a one-term president"), he still managed to get quite a bit done and even keep some of his promises. If we really want to see him succeed (or in my opinion, judge him fairly), he needs a congress that isn't stopping his bills for the sole purpose of stopping him.

On a similar note, has anybody's opinions changed, even slightly, after watching the four debates?

 

How can you say his bills would help he country. Maybe short term for a bout a year or 2. It is no different from FDR with the New Deal. It helped for 2 years then the country fell back into a recession. And the bills that have passed have literally bankrupt this country. He has spent more than all the presidents have combined and almost double. That doesn't mean anything good. If he was reelected, we would hit the same crisis as Greece has in around 2 years. Also taxing the "1%" a much more hefty amount is a punishment to an extent. Punishing those who succeed and took chances in their life to get to where they are today. That is rewarding, but now people have fair to succeed because of taxation caused by Obama's bills.

Ron Paul went with the Republicans because he technically is a Republican just not sharing their beliefs 100%. He is more along the lines of his own party, but that party is not a real party, just a branch off of the Republicans. He believes i complete government reform. Go back to the way the fathers had it. Be a tad Jeffersonian and reduce government spending and remove near to all the extra organization within the branches that are not needed.

I also support a good amount of things Romney believes in which is okay by me. I do not support gay marriage. I do not approve of abortion at all. Pollution does not bother me because if we stop it is not a big deal; India, China, Japan, ect will continue doing as such which won't change anything. Nothing bad is happening to begin with to stop. Some of his plans I agree with. Only some though. There is a good amount I dislike, but everybody cant think someone is a deity because it just isn't true unless you are the guy from 2008 years ago, Jesus Christ. Or whoever your belief states. The one thing I will say I disagree with is his belief with stem cells. That can be a medical breakthrough. As long as they use adult stem cells and not unborn fetuses.

 

Alcohol does not do the same thing as marijuana. And if they do something that is harmful to others under the influence of any drug, then they are responsible for those actions. It's the same with alcohol. If you're drink and you shoot someone, as an example, you're going to have to take responsibility for those actions and accept punishment.

 

The real problem behind drugs is the trafic its supports, if it were legal there wouldn't be trafic, so it would safer to everyone involved or not.
At the same time is somewhat problematic to be the "only country where marijuana is legal" as if you were at that place all kind of stuff would follow, and crime would rise just look at amsterdan where is legal, all the places around arent so people tend to go there get it, as Drugs are conected to organizated crime, they would go where the supply is easier...

It's a bigger problem than "is bad for your body" or not, but yes it is hypocritical to legalize some and deny others...

 

Obama.
Romney is against gay marriage, the bill that would make it illegal for women to be paid lower wages than men, and doesn't even state how he would fix problems he bounces around it. (More things against him here that I can't think of at the moment.)

 

So today in Public Speaking I heard a speech to persuade the class to vote for Romney...I had to hold my tongue so many times. Quite a lot (most in face) was simply Obama bashing.

"And if something happened to Obama or Romney, would you really want Joe Biden as the President?"

Replace that with Paul Ryan and see how that sets on your tongue.

Because?

Please don't tell me you're going to ignore this (or worse, agree with them)

"It's ok if everyone else is doing it even if its bad!" is a horrible, horrible mentality.

...someone else can mention the global warming thing because there's just too much for me to bring out.

I mostly agree with you on this point.

 

I love you right now. I agree with Hayabusa 100%.

But in reality, both candidates are bad, but one happens to just be worse.

 

I don't think we men have a say in what women do their body, because if there was a parasitic allien in my belly I would want it out.. all that "All life is sacred" is bullshiet, we always favoured some life before others, If we don't draw a line in what life is more important we could as well stop eating meat as it is so similar to us... on that matter plants are alive as well.
For gay maridge... I don't know why people bother in what other people do, Is like "If we pass a bill for gay maridge/Abortion I WILL BE FORCED TO DO IT!" Don't worry you won't become gay or a woman or something like that only because is legal to them do what they please. You can live your life the way you want it, never aborting any of your embryos or pass a move in some dude... Or you're just so insecure that you have to make everyone's life crappy and miserable only because you chose this for yourself? Religion shouldn't ditacte the governement or we could end up not eating Pig, and shutt dow blood trusfisions.

As for stem cells you are all realy naive (I am a Biologist so I will tell) sure today is possible to use adult stem cells (but they're not as capable as embryos' ones) and there is even the possibility to "restart a cell to make it behave as stem cell" (this year nobel of medicine). But do you really think that these things were acomplished whithout the use of embryos stem cells? Basic science needs them, some day it will be easy to replace them, but it is not the case today, we need if not to use in pacients, to use in reasearchs at least.

 

That's exactly the point: we're in the worst recession/depression since the 1930's. While it was both FDR's policies and the economic surge from World War II that pulled us out of the Great Depression, we need to embrace some of the New Deal policies. They will not work in the long term. Nobody is pretending they will. But they can pull us out of the current recession; after that, we can slowly ween off of them, as the economy bounces back.

And the country is already bankrupt so. Our debt is just a number, at this point--nearly every major industrial country is in staggering debt; America's might be bad, but everyone's is bad right now. We can focus on cutting it when we don't have widespread poverty.

Romney's solution to reviving the economy is smiling at it. He thinks if he's elected, the economy will magically bounce back. And this is a guy people honestly consider voting for?

So you're saying this is some kind of class warfare? That those who support taxes on the rich are just trying to even things out because they're jealous? Then let me direct you to this Mother Jones article. If you don't feel like going through all of it, here are some of the highlights.

Spoiler

And then from this article. ( I choose Mother Jones because they take real studies and present them in clear graphic form )

Spoiler

The simple fact is that certain benefits have been granted to the 1% in the last couple of decades that mean they are not contributing their fair share to our economy, especially during this rough economic time. People are suffering. Homes are being foreclosed, children are starving, millions cannot get the medial coverage that they need, and people are sitting in mansions? **** no. I don't care that they're successful--they have a responsibility to their fellow man. I'm not saying they need to give until they're poor, but the Bush tax cuts need to end. We ALL need to pitch in if we're going to pull out of this.

Romney isn't a Republican either. Want to know why he flip flops on opinion so much? Maybe he is a Republican party-wise, but his efforts in Massachusetts & before election season display a moderate at best. The problem is, Republicans have this ultra-competitive spirit right now, and know that they need to appeal to their followers by having the picture perfect Republican as their campaign baby. They're forcing Romney to be something he's not.

Yeah, because moving backwards is exactly what we need. We live in a completely different world, and we need a government to match that. I fully support government reform, but it needs to be reform for the 21st century, not the 18th.

And those are all of your personal opinions. You are allowed to have them and I respect them. The problem is, personal opinions cannot be law. Many people are opposed to gay marriage or abortion because of their faith--but the founding fathers were careful to outline that Church and State are separate. We cannot outlaw these things because Jesus said they're wrong.

That is true--the United States is not the only one contributing to global warming. But the US uses something like 75% of the world's fossil fuels. We have been an industrial nation for decades, whereas countries like China are still developing. I'm not saying they're right to keep using fossil fuels, but green energy is an investment. The US is more than poised to do it, because we're now two centuries old. China and India simply do not have the resources to move to green energy right now. We do. I highly recommend you take a look at Jill Stein's Green New Deal, a plan (get that--a politician with a clear, spelled out plan!) that ties reviving the economy & alleviating unemployment with moving towards a greener future.

Are you denying global warming? In the past two years, the East Coast of the US has been hit by two disastrous hurricanes. Our sea levels are rising. And we don't need to do anything?

 

Actually, according to this article, Obama has actually had the slowest spending of any president in the past 60 years and when you take inflation into account, he has the second slowest spending, only below Eisenhower. Even then, spending isn't necessarily a bad thing. This video explains the subject much better than I can.

Why is taxation seen as a punishment? I honestly do not get it. ._.

Ron Paul isn't really unique. His beliefs very much fall under the umbrella of libertarianism. The Libertarian party is actually the largest party in the US after the Republicans and Democrats. They even have a candidate running. His name is Gary Johnson. You should probably check him out. I personally don't subscribe to his political philosophy but he seems like a cool guy.

Times change, a fact admitted by the Founders themselves. There was a reason that there's an amendment process in the Constitution. It isn't a simple decoration. We have already amended the constitution 26 times and I would say that almost every amendment has been for the better. Even Jefferson himself knew that constitutions should change with the times.

Back in the 18th century, things were simple and the Founding Fathers perceived that the country could be run with a relatively light hand. But as our society and economy have grown larger, more complex and interdependent, the need for more rules has risen as well.

Just one example is the stock market. Wall Street wasn't a very big thing during the time of the Founders. Its activity wasn't even significant enough to warrant government attention. However, as trading grew on Wall Street, and it became an important and central aspect of the nation's economy, corruption arose in the form of dishonest trading, insider trading and stock manipulation by millionaires. By 1934, the stock exchanges were so untrustworthy that Roosevelt created the Securities and Exchange Commission which required the full and honest disclosure of all pertinent information on the sales of stocks. Not surprisingly, the millionaire traders said this was a violation of the free market and that it was opposed to the principles of non-interventionist government that the Founders had believed in. Yet nobody today thinks this is a bad thing, do you?