WHo do you think will win? Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Not sure if discussion >.>

I'll let somebody else decide on that.

BROBAMA ALL THE WAY

Mitt Romney is much too elitist to connect with the American people. I believe that President Obama will win.

Well, actual debating is getting old and dull. What they need to do is have a... RAP BATTLE DEBATE!
I'm voting for whoever can diss the other the hardest while talking about politics and spit rhymes the fastest. My money is on Barack Obama cuz well.. He's not white.

>>4
The day our Presidential candidates rap issues at each other is the day I shoot myself. Seriously, a lot of the issues people are talking about are completely irrelevant. Of course there are pros and cons to each candidate, but I'd personally prefer Obama to stay in office so things will stay more or less the same. At least they're not talking about alien invasions or some other stupid nonsen-

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/which-presidential-candidate-would-you-trust-during-an-alien-invasion/

/shot

I dont think we have really given Obama a chance. So I think him.

Your all wrong! Vermin Supreme shall win the day!

>>6 The guys who's been in office for 4 years hasn't had a chance? Dafuq?

>>7
This.

zombie Reagan has my vote

If Obama is elected again, I'm moving out of the country! He's been in office for four years!! And our country is still a mess!!

I don;t think this is a topic of discussion. This is just a place to state opinions. It doesn't say anything to begin a debate or discussion. I'll vote for whoever is smarter.

Not Obama. that's for sure.

I like how no one mentions the only good candidate. Ron Paul. Mitt Romney's an idiot, and Obama needs to get out. Ron Paul is the only good candidate. He'll straighten this country out even if it kills him. The media censors him, he gets less time at the debates than the other candidates, etc. They don't want him to become president, because that'll mean their corrupt and greedy ways will be over.

>>8
Most people consider a president's first term to mostly be cleaning up after the previous administration and laying the groundwork for the big changes in the second.

Frankly you have to really screw up to not get a second term and I don't think Obama has.

Regardless, this isn't main board material. News maybe.

"Important topics and actual topics of discussion belong here."

We're discussing aren't we? This is also a fairly important topic, at least to the American members, ain't it?

Belongs in either board, it's here now, let's discuss some political shit.

>>14
"...no one mentions the only good candidate. Ron Paul."
"Ron Paul is the only good candidate."

Repetition can be quite annoying when used in such short succession.

"The media censors him, he gets less time at debates... they don't want him to become President, because that'll mean their corrupt and greedy ways will be over."

Let me stop you right there. Not only have you not given a single point as to WHY Ron Paul is the right choice, but you're over dramatizing politics.
Are politics completely clean and have the American intrest at heart 24/7? Unlikely. However, they are NOT the movie style "secret club of rich people aiming for the 1%." That's just ridiculous.

If they had the plan to be so corrupt and greedy, we would've voted them out of office. Or maybe not, they're a lot of stupid people in this country. Point is, they're not the villain of whatever political fairy tale you're portraying them as.

>>15
First paragraph is spot on. Still, as >>16 already stated, it's a discussion. No way it would count as News, anyway (since the election hasn't even happened yet).

Which reminds me, how many people on this site are actually old enough to vote? Still, feel free to stab your opinion in here, even if you can't vote.

>>15
How is selling out Nation's Ammunition to places like Mexico 'NOT' a bad thing?

How is wanting to cut the VA benefits from our Veterans (who earned every penny) a good thing?

How is it a good thing to fine those who are poor, for not being able to AFFORD Health care?

How is it a good thing, to open up the Mexican/US border? I'm all for them STAYING here once they have got here (not kicking out, I mean, those hard workers, or those who have been here for years, legal or not.) But I'm not for making it easier for them to easily waltz over here.

Obama may not be the worst, but he doesn't deserve another chance.

Our, not out.

>>11 Allow me to make this clear to you: you can't un-fuck-up a country in four years. The country is better, and it's getting there little by little. No president (or anyone else, for that matter) can wave a wand and fix a country. It just doesn't work that way.

I think that Obama should be re-elected. He probably won't be, though, because of how ignorant so much the American community is. And no, I'm not including myself in that. Everyone is complaining about how nothing is fixed. First of all, it takes the entire government to fix something. The president isn't the only one to blame. Even if the president does come up with a possibly great idea, he has to sit around and wait for it to be dissected and eventually accepted/rejected by Congress and any other related branches. Second of all, even if we do have a great president, this situation isn't going to get fixed in four years. In fact, it's not going to get fixed in eight or twelve or sixteen, either. It may get better or worse, but it won't be top knotch for a while.

I honestly hope that Obama gets re-elected. Putting aside my favoritism for the way he runs his office, I would like for us to have a two-term president during this situation. If we bring someone else into office now, everything that Obama started is going to be cut off half way (because that's how presidents are; they want everything that happens to be theirs and theirs only) and something new is going to be restarted. We haven't seen the full effects of anything that Obama passed yet, and we won't know if it helped or didn't help for a while. We can't be sending new people into office to remove something that may have actually lead to something good.

I don't want what we have now to be stopped half way. We just do not have the time nor conditioning for that. America just needs to sit tight for a bit and see if whatever we've got thusfar is working or not.

Plus, to be frank, Bush left Obama with so much shit to clean up after. Our counry was in complete turmoil when Obama came into office. There's only so much you can expect to come out of one term in this situation.

country*

>>20

What DO we have now, mind you? Exactly what is it? From my perspective, we have jack shit. You knew what we had when Bush was around? Jack shit. You know what we'll have when a new President is elected? Jack shit.

If Obama isn't reelected, there will still be JACK SHIT even if he was reelected. He hasn't done anything to help us. The people have, but not the Government. He just speaks out the obvious, and people eat it up like HE did something, that other people worked hard to do.

He is a circle-talking-one-trick-pony. He just speaks around us, and tries his best to confuse everyone. I pray he doesn't get reelected, and see what other people can do.

Politicians are idiots that think we're stupid and are trying to trick us. I hate politics. Maybe I should run in a couple of decades?

>>22 Lolno.

When Bush first came into office, the economy wasn't nearly as wrecked as it is now. It was bad, but not this bad. We hit rock bottom between the end of his second term and shortly after Obama's election. The economy has slowly been working itself up. We have dropped a few times, but it's slowly getting better.

"He is a circle-talking-one-trick-pony. He just speaks around us, and tries his best to confuse everyone. I pray he doesn't get reelected, and see what other people can do."

>implying any politician is going to give you a straight foward answer on anything

To see what other people can do? Say someone else gets eleced. When that someone else can't fix the economy in their first term, what are you going to say - you want to see what other people can do? Nothing will come out of having a series of one term presidents. We have to see each president's plans and reforms through to know whether or not they're actually working.

What has he done? Obama has done quite a bit, actually.

More information on the global financial crisis of 2007-2012.

"Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[9][10][11] In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."
The AARA was signed by Barack Obama shortly after he was elected, and was a major factor in avoiding and now rising from the possible financial crisis.

[And instead of dissing Wikipedia by saying it's, "untrustable," go check the references yourself on anything you're not sure about. Only a lazy ass gets wrong information from Wiki.]

>>23
Please explain WHY you think that way. Not all politicians are bad, mind you. If they were then this country would have absolutely nothing to show for itself, and we'd all be either (dead) or (homeless).

A few reminders for those unfamiliar with government:
-The President CANNOT make a bill to put through Congress. The only thing he CAN do when it comes to bills is approve, reject, ignore, ext. when it comes to his desk.
"But then how did things like Obamacare get passed?"
Simple. The President finds a supporting senator, and haves him present the bill.
(For those unfamiliar with Obamacare, go to this link:)
http://dollars-bbs.org/news/res/1340943563.html#11

-Congress is a bicameral system, and we usually (like we do now) have a divided Congress. What does that mean? It means that one part (lets say the House) has a majority of Democrats (not necessarily Democrat, but stick with the example here). For the sake of the example, let's say the Senate is Republican. Now, when a bill tries to get through Congress, what will typically happen is that one part of Congress will uphold it, while the other part will deny it. What does this mean? It means NOTHING HAPPENS. Our Congress today is divided like this, which is why it's hard for ANYTHING to get done. This often happens because the two main parties continually fight to control Congress.

-Now, think about how hard it is for a bill to pass into law. NOW think about how hard it is for a bill to pass either the House or the Senate AT ALL. I would explain, but I can't remember much from my Government course earlier in the year, blame my bad memory.

>>25 ARRA*
/derp

Way I see it, it's important that the President provide a check to the legislative bodies. Thing is, Mitt Romney seems to be a bit of a puppet candidate. Were he to be elected, he would not be providing a check, because the party that he is with is (at least for now, and the way I see it, for a while to come) in power. I honestly don't know enough about Romney, so my apologies if I'm grossly inaccurate in saying he's a puppet, but were he elected then that would defeat the purpose of the presidential position, and the legislative bodies would have too MUCH power. I feel like it's important for presidential candidates to be more independently thinking than the average politician because of that.
If you disagree, please, be kind.

>>18
We don't really need all that ammo. It's not like Mexico is Saudi Arabia and hates our guts.

Its not.

It doesn't do that. If you can't afford your own insurance you get it for free. If you can afford it but choose not to get any, you are fined for bringing everyone else's insurance premiums up. I should know, i'm in the former category.

Is it really that bad? Making it easier to gain citizenship means more will, and will be paying taxes like everyone else. Not deporting people who were brought here as minors gives them a chance to become American citizens from the inside rather than get kicked out. I should also point out that in this area Romney is the more forgiving, as he would give citizenship to any who achieved a higher education here.

Again, it's not a second chance its the choice to cut him off mid play or let him finish what he started.

>>28
No, you stated it as your own opinion clearly and coherently. That does bring up a nice topic though...

Personally I think politics would get a lot more things done if people held no party loyalty, that way people would vote more based on candidates/ content of the bill instead of who's backing it/ what side their on.

Unfortunately, that'll never happen. All the independent candidates get shot down immediately due to the fact that they have little to no campaign funding, or diplomatic party to back them up with fundraisers. In the end, a big factor to getting elected is how much you spent on your campaign.

>>30 You have to spend millions to even run, just for campaign ads.

As for Obama, I just don't much care for him. I really just don't agree with him on a lot. For example, Obamacare. I wouldn't mind as much if it was just a tax, but the government would be forcing you to buy a private company's product, which I don't agree with.

Woo I'ma chime in here late at night after work

>>31 Normally I'd be all up on your side

Except

"Obamacare," as it is so affectionately named, is one thing I've been striving for. It is now possible for more terminally-ill people to receive treatment. Something that has been neigh on impossible because we're all asshats focused on profit rather than societal gain (which is a topic for another time). But really, the biggest thing I support is the opportunity for those near death to get a second chance at life. On that edge, you see what you're about to lose. If you can come back from that edge, you have an amazingly clear view on how valuable your life is.

I don't care that they're making ME pay for this. It's helping people. If you don't like helping people, then my two cents is that you can go live under a rock. Refuse the healthcare - I encourage nay-sayers to leave the country or refuse to accept help. If you don't agree with saving the lives of your fellow citizens... Well, I don't have much to say to you. Put bluntly, it's just absurd.

I may come around tomorrow night with a better-put argument if somebody wishes to debate my views, however I must sleep and do homework. Just thought I'd put these thoughts out there for all to ponder first.

>>32 Oh don't get me wrong,I love the idea behind it, but what I don't like is that the government forces me to purchase a private company's product. I'd rather pay a tax to the government so they can do something better with the money instead of paying some company money to line their pockets with.

>>33 well that was the plan, but it would have never passed the House and Senate, but as it is, there's gona be more money going into the VA in the near future, so it will hopefully get there sooner then later

Anybody discussing "Obamacare" should read up on THIS before actually debating anything:

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx

This outlines exactly what the act does, down to the wire. I'll come at responses tomorrow, like I said, but now I must die for a few hours.

So, as of RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND IN 2012

It is NOT mandatory that citizens purchase healthcare. That is in NO WAY cited within the act for the 2012 year. It may be in the future years (which I am far too lazy to read as I am about to die, as posted above), but as of right now that point is false.

If that is your only reason for disliking it, you are blatantly wrong, and have not read-up on exactly what the act does. (At least for 2012, I'll check later years tomorrow night)

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/22/consumers-guide-health-reform.aspx

Oh look a link that tells you why the mandate DOESN'T screw you

/spam

So voting from just seeing the two on the news/ press , you think that's good or bad? My friend is trying to convince me that is the best way.

I feel like this year we have to pick from the lesser of two evils -.- making me thinking of not voting at all. Damn shame to, would have been my first time being able to vote.
If only we could get an individual who was out of the two parties, someone who didn't go along with something because it was party lines or make promises they couldn't keep and just to gain votes.

I feel like George Washington was right when he said "They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

Obama is better yet not good..I don't trust the nation to a hippocratical business man like Romny who only wishes to fill his and his staffs wallets and leave out us to dry and rot. Why I always say we need to let room for 3rd party's. The devils advocate of the political world.

i want to be a president

This is the Federal Budget for 2008, the last year Bush was in Office.

Here is the budget for 2011, Obama's last completed budget (I'm calling 2012 as ongoing because anything can happen in the next six months to make or break expenses).

The big thing that gets me about these numbers is that military spending went up, yet presidential candidate Romney keeps claiming that Obama "made cuts to defense." Romney has also claimed that Obama has made cuts to VA benefits, but I haven't seen much evidence to support that claim either.

Now here's some food for thought: Romney wants to increase arms movements throughout several countries in the Middle East, Asia, South America, Central America, and the African continent. This includes production of many new military technologies and troop involvement in these countries. Where exactly is he going to finance these movements? He's yet to explain a damn thing in that regard.

Next, there's his "day one pledge to repeal Obamacare." However, the system Obama passed through Congress and the Supereme Court mirrors the one Romney set up as governor of Massachusetts. In fact, he has put off presenting alternatives to the Affordable Care Act because it's such a sore subject in his candidacy.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

>>42 That second paragraph.

Seriously? To be honest, I don't want the US to be involved military wise in anything that doest directly affect us. It bothers me that he wans to increase troop involvement in countries that are none of our business. That's what got us into the whole situation with Iraq, and now he wants to repeat that in countless other countries?

I'd rather we didn't.

I'm not versed in anything military related, so I may be completely wrong in how important our invovlement was in Iraq, but what I've heard so far is that we had no business in Iraq in the first place.

>>43
It's because (for some stupid reason) our country feels like the international police power, which I think is completely ridiculous. Personally I prefer isolationism.

Why in the world (no pun intended) would we go across continents to go "help" other countries? Yes, we do help some people, but the inevitable fighting also harms others, uproots families, and kills some of the population.

Still, the reason given for most candidates today for funding is by collecting it through "normal means." Typically, this involves taxation. (Which we REALLY don't need right now.)

For information on running, the MOST a candidate would have to do would be to spend around $8000 and get signatures to put their name on the ballot. Keep in mind this is the most that they would make you do, and it varies for EACH State.
Source: http://ask.yahoo.com/20030704.html

Lastly, don't vote based on the vice President. They're strictly a political tool to rein in the other parts of the country, and the vice president does almost NOTHING. If my memory's correct, the most they do is settle a tie in the House. The only reason a vice President would do otherwise would be if the President was otherwise incapable of performing his/ her duties.

>>44 We tried isolationism, and then Pearl Harbor happened, and basically we said "Aw fuck no", and that went out the window. I think we should get somewhat involved,protecting our interests and whatnot, but we shouldn't be the world fucking police. I mean shit, it's easy for you to say "We should do something about that" when you're sitting in America, but it's a lot different when you're the one that has to go out over seas to actually do it, especially when we have no fucking business over there in the first place.

^

BarabiSama is a bitch

Bumping for discussion.

Bump for duplicate

.

.

.

Sorry guys, I'm dragging a debate over to this thread since it began in a duplicate.

Barabi, a guy/girl shouldn't be kicked just for stating their gay. If they were flaunting their gayness and raping people, then I'd care. "Don't ask;Don't tell" got people kicked for simply stating they're gay, but if a guy/ girl said they were straight, then nothing would happen to them.

GodHateFags. I simply stated that Obama did more than Bush. That's sad seeing that Bush was in office for twice as long. As for voting for him? Like I said on this thread, I'll vote for whoever is smarter.

SWEEP

RIGHT HERE!

>>54 But that's exactly it. They are flaunting their gayness. If it's found out by accident, it's one thing; but if you're going around telling people you're gay, just because you can, it's fucked up, and there are emotional consequences. It's nobody's business whether you're gay or not. The only reason you're not kicked out for being straight is because the majority already is straight, and there were never any rules against it before. Because SO many people are straight, it's something that would be difficult to enforce. Plus, by saying that you're gay, you're not only opening yourself to criticism, but you're flaunting something that is nobody's business. If someone says they're straight, they're not criticized because it's what everyone's used to.

Even now, I wouldn't doubt that a great deal of the military suicide victims who were gay committed suicide because of that criticism and that bullying. And how did that happen to them? Because they told somebody. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy kept them safe from that, even if it was originally created with biased intentions in mind. There's still too much in the way of feelings against gays for them to be open in an environment where they're stuck with other men with a gun. Not only are they trapped with people who probably don't like them, but they have a gun in hand and can commit suicide at any time. It's just not a situation where your gayness is anybody else's business.

There's too much discrimination. If there was a little less, then fine, whatever. But it's just a safety hazard in general to go around saying you're gay during your military service.

.

.

.

Emo, the links found in these posts are what we like to call proper sources. (Most of them, at least.) In fact, those sources are related to your statements, and you should probably go read them before commenting.

>>42 >>37 >>35 >>25 >>24

POST HERE DAMMIT! AND QUIT SPAMMING WITH DOTS YA DUMBASS!

Wishing there were mods on right now.

Six, stop bumping things off. They keep getting bumped up, and now you're just wasting space in actually useful threads. Once the posting settles down or the sagehammer hits, we'll bump them off.

>>62 You do know we're not the same person right look at the ID DUMBASS!

Please let this die

>>65 They're all the same id. Faggot

Guys, really?
Stop. Feeding. The. Fucking. Troll. Ignore it.

>>67 Even though GHF originally started with an Emo name, unless she's using different computers now, GHF and the current Emo girl aren't the same people. The ID's are different.

I reported God to Reltair again. He'll aim for another IP ban most likely. That is, until we can get a script/program that blocks Proxies. Which they have made.

>>69
I mean that is unless. Not until.

>>68 -.- really and you tell me how we are the same person when we are not the

.

.

Bumping

Bump (:

This has nothing to do with the Dollars...It's 2015 right now, not 2012. Saged.

>>75 Why did you bump that ? This has nothing to do iwth us .This was from 2012 There is a new thread for the 2016 elections in the News board ( I beleive ) This is not it.
/saged