Who are you voting for in 2012?

[Abdel]

And why?

 

[The_Moroccan.]

I think it's early to say, but I found this a good opportunity to start a discussion about the presidential term in USA. I think 4 years is ridiculously short time to get anything done. The first two years, the president gets acquainted with the issues, and the last two years he is thinking about the re-election. Plus the time and money spent on elections every 4 years. I think it's should be at least 6 years.

 

[MSFHQ]

I think the whole idea is that very little gets done. Massive change might seem like a good idea, but it usually is disastrous. The President is largely a figure head anyway. Congress has the real power.

 

[alain]

I would like to know if you can/can't vote when you post on this thread as well.

 

[The_Moroccan.]

Well, alain, I think that's irrelevant. Even if people can't vote, they still can discuss the process of elections anywhere in the world not just in USA.

 

[MSFHQ]

Half the people in the USA, who can vote, don't. Might as well let people have an opinion regardless of their voting status.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

Demmy, straight ticket. Not because I think they're all saints--but because there is no alternative. There are roles for government to play--namely with socializing goods that everybody gets a benefit from--education, healthcare, financial aid for secondary education, and so forth. Furthermore, the democrats have a "live and let live" approach to morality, even if they ask a little bit more from the wealthy.

And to those that think the Republican party lives on the mantra of "you earn it you keep it", I disagree. Do you earn two good parents? Do you earn good genetics? Do you earn good connections that your parents, by virtue of being wealthy, introduce you to, by saying "oh, you want to do X? Well, first, since I'm an alum, let me get you into elite university A, then call my friend in industry X who'll give you an internship->job->train you->etc." Then, do you earn good teachers? Do you earn the ability to go to whatever college you want, costs be damned? (I suppose you can work your way through college, but if you're going to a $55k-$60k a year college without financial aid, your work will be a drop in the bucket).

The first three, government cannot control. Government can pay teachers more to entice better candidates of entering that field, and government can, through regulation (and by regulation, I mean treating the educational industry on a whole as a monopoly and price-controlling them like they control electric/water companies) and more financial aid, make college not be a second mortgage. No, not everyone is entitled to a college education, but what kind of first-world country is one in which someone who earns admission to an elite (but expensive) school cannot go due to finances? Is that what we call the greatest country on Earth?

Anyway...I sympathize with the idea of "you earn it you keep it" but in my opinion, there's plenty that's unearned, even by the hardest-working individuals out there. And for that, those lucky individuals should pay a little more in taxes so that Uncle Sam can make up for the worse luck of others. Most others.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Demmy, straight ticket. Not because I think they're all saints--but because there is no alternative.

Why isn't there an alternative? Why just two parties, which are almost indistinguishable on things that matter -- foreign policy, war, taxation, economic policy (or lack thereof), "free trade"? As Governor Wallace said forty years ago, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties.

Here's a picture I took a couple of years back in Kolbotn before the Norwegian general elections. Seven parties have pitched their stands here, expressing a spectrum of different policies. And the Norwegian government is usually (always) a coalition as no one party achieves an outright majority. Such coalitions -- as in Germany -- tend to reflect voter opinion more authentically. Whereas in the USA it seems to be a matter of holding one's nose in disgust and voting for what one considers the slightly lesser evil.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I think the whole idea is that very little gets done. Massive change might seem like a good idea, but it usually is disastrous. The President is largely a figurehead anyway. Congress has the real power.

This one is. But look at presidents like Johnson and Nixon. They were not figureheads. Nixon created the EPA, increased arts and science funding, started a rapproachement with China, pushed for affirmative action.

 

[mfegrad]

Amusing that the biggest impediment to creating a fair playing field (that would seemingly put all of ilya's well worn talking points to rest) is arguably one of the biggest and most powerful components of the democratic party.

Also how is this thread even viable if the nominations haven't been conducted yet? This will surely go down in flames...

 

[bigbadwolf]

Also how is this thread even viable if the nominations haven't been conducted yet? This will surely go down in flames...

Obama is running for the Democrats. I don't think there will be a serious challenge in the party to his nomination. For the Repubs, we have some idea -- Romney, Bachmann(?), ....

 

[Andy D.]

I guess I have a lot in common with Thomas Paine - an Englishman residing in the US, being taxed without representation .

In all seriousness, I don't know who I would vote for nobody takes my fancy at the moment as being a particularly good candidate.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I guess I have a lot in common with Thomas Paine - an Englishman residing in the US, being taxed without representation .

My friend, you need to incorporate yourself (perhaps in some offshore tax haven). Then you will be represented without taxation. The ROI on investing in American politicians has got to be the highest of any possible investment in the world. Obama is already out with his begging bowl, hoping to raise $1bn for his campaign.

 

[Abdel]

If Ron Paul is not nominated and elected, then you can say goodbye to the US of A.

Seriously.

 

[didje]

DSK

 

[Abdel]

Generally speaking, I think some countries are way too big.

When you have 50% of the population that wants a big governement and the other 50% that wants a small governement, I think the
ideological difference is so great that it is smarter to separate the country.

There is no point in arguing during 40 years of your life to try to convaince the other side. Let's just separate so everyone can be happy.

 

[Noko]

I will be voting for Ron Paul as long as he's an option. Virginia primary is on March 6th, can't wait!

We can elect another spend-everything Democrat, another spend-everything Republican, or Ron Paul. It helps that I agree with most of his views as well.

 

[Abdel]

quote="Noko, post: 62907"]I will be voting for Ron Paul as long as he's an option. Virginia primary is on March 6th, can't wait!

We can elect another spend-everything Democrat, another spend-everything Republican, or Ron Paul. It helps that I agree with most of his views as well.[/quote]

You also have the Gary Johnson option for futur elections.

Unfortunatly, mainstream republican voters (the majority) will probably go for Mitt 'The Plastic Man' Romney.

The elections in the US are similar to a casting for a hollywood movie. The only question people seem to ask is: ''Does he have the presidential look?''

 

[Noko]

You also have the Gary Johnson option for futur elections.

Unfortunatly, mainstream republican voters (the majority) will probably go for Mitt 'The Plastic Man' Romney.

The elections in the US are similar to a casting for a hollywood movie. The only question people seem to ask is: ''Does he have the presidential look?''

I think Johnson would make a great leader, but the problem is that the mainstream voter doesn't even know about him. Meanwhile, Romney, a decent leader at best, is taking the spotlight, and will most likely get the nomination.

The way I see it, Ron Paul is right in the middle popularity-wise, and therefore actually stands a chance with proper campaigning.

Romney just isn't interested enough in reducing our government's debt, which is the biggest issue for me.

(At that, I think Herman Cain would get us out of debt too, but again, the average voter says, "Who's Herman Cain?")

 

[Abdel]

Generally speaking half the country will be in favor of "bigger government" and half will be in favor of "smaller government". That is because you are speaking very very generally lol...

The point here is if there is a profound ideological difference (eg, role of governement etc.), even if it is only 30% of the population, that 30% should separate.

Otherwise, it is stupid (couldn't find another word, sorry) and unproductive to keep that situation going.