United States Presidential Election, 2012
- Thread starter ralphfan
- Start date
Canada just finished with a fun election 
About a year ago, the Liberals (a big political party) barely lost to the Conservatives (another big political party) and all the other parties just disappeared.
So the Liberals decided they wanted the power back, and called another election over some budget-distribution-thing.
Long story short, the Conservatives beat them by a long shot and the NDP (one of the minor parties from the first election) almost beat them out.
And while everyone is marveling at that, the fact remains; those elections cost millions of dollars.
So I'd say it's a lose-lose situation.
On a completely unrelated note, I hate politics :3
About a year ago, the Liberals (a big political party) barely lost to the Conservatives (another big political party) and all the other parties just disappeared.
So the Liberals decided they wanted the power back, and called another election over some budget-distribution-thing.
Long story short, the Conservatives beat them by a long shot and the NDP (one of the minor parties from the first election) almost beat them out.
And while everyone is marveling at that, the fact remains; those elections cost millions of dollars.
So I'd say it's a lose-lose situation.
On a completely unrelated note, I hate politics :3
Snowstalker
Snowstalker
I wasn't going to post in this, but I just saw a banner ad here for Mitt Romney (a Republican candidate this year).
Are you on alternatehistory.com or is that someone else?Snowstalker said:
Anyways, Romney vs. Obama. Obama wins rather easily, perhaps a little less than 2008 but perhaps a little more, despite the new census. Most Republicans don't even like Romney.
*quote removed*
That's why I think Obama is gonna win. All of the Republican candidates are so far Right that it's, well, scary. This whole Tea Party thing seems a bit loony. I think the only good thing that will come from any of them gaining power is the opening of the eyes of the country.
On the other hand, it completely polarized in favor of the Left and Obama won, and now people who expected him to be some savior are disappointed in that. This is why I feel this whole Tea Party craze is coming up--a shift to the absolute far Right. One of them will win the 2012 presidency, people will see that it's not exactly what they imagined, shift back to left.
or we can all just settle this nicely and go with my party, Green :]
That's why I think Obama is gonna win. All of the Republican candidates are so far Right that it's, well, scary. This whole Tea Party thing seems a bit loony. I think the only good thing that will come from any of them gaining power is the opening of the eyes of the country.
On the other hand, it completely polarized in favor of the Left and Obama won, and now people who expected him to be some savior are disappointed in that. This is why I feel this whole Tea Party craze is coming up--a shift to the absolute far Right. One of them will win the 2012 presidency, people will see that it's not exactly what they imagined, shift back to left.
or we can all just settle this nicely and go with my party, Green :]
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
Doesn't this happen every election?Hypnotoad said:
People were unhappy with Bush. The majority voted Democrat.
Two years later: People are unhappy with Democrats and the healthcare program. Many vote Republican.
Now we're somewhere in the middle. I personally would vote for Republicans because the government just seems to big right now. This country was founded on state's rights. Healthcare is out of the question; it would just be a huge interference in our lives. Republicans might not do so well though because of a lack of a strong candidate. I am against the ridiculously Conservative Tea Party though, moderate conservatism is less restrictive.
Democrats are at a disadvantage because of the fact that they haven't done anything major in four years besides killing Osama, and that was an end result of Bush's intelligence.
And I definitely won't vote for the Green party because government-led environmentalism would be a huge waste of tax dollars, even more so than healthcare. IMO environmentalism is a nice idea, but humanity really deserves to be first. Environmentalism is better than animal rights though.
Red alert! Hate shields up!
The Green party is putting up a Socialist, anyways, which is a bit too far :P And yeah, all of this nonsense happens every election--it just seems to be more prevalent with all of the blogs and 24/7 news shows and everything. And concerning the environment, some stuff needs to be implemented in a timely manner, and the technology does exist (for example, solar panels and wind power). Everyone is arguing over which way is best to become less dependent on foreign oil, while completely ignoring the fact that we already can. And yes, I agree that humanity should come first (at times, I even wonder why we interfere with endangered species that do not serve a great purpose), but humanity and the environment are linked. If the Earth dies, we die. Nature won't care; as soon as we're killed off, it'll grow right back just as it has after every mass extinction. I'm not saying it's the only issue, but it shouldn't be ignored. The thing that I said was scary about the Tea Party people is that they see the facts given by science, and still completely disregard them, and sometimes place their own personal freedoms over the greater good--like that silly "lightbulb freedom act" or whatever. Sure, freedom of choice and stuff, but understand why the change in lightbbulbs are there rather than declaring it as the government taking away liberties.
oh geeze I'm sound a bit like a hippie D:
I guess the summary of my beliefs, in short, is that it doesn't matter which party is in there, science should be adhered to.
Also, I guess that, much like every other election that's ever taken place, all of the eccentricities will die down. Obama had all of the HOPE and CHANGE stuff parading his way to victory, and that immediately went away once he got into office, so all of the things that make the Republican candidates seem like loons will be dampened (hopefully). I don't think anyone should be too worried whichever way the vote falls--if something's going wrong, the people will say so, and it will be fixed in that term. If not, guess there's no re-election :3
oh geeze I'm sound a bit like a hippie D:
I guess the summary of my beliefs, in short, is that it doesn't matter which party is in there, science should be adhered to.
Also, I guess that, much like every other election that's ever taken place, all of the eccentricities will die down. Obama had all of the HOPE and CHANGE stuff parading his way to victory, and that immediately went away once he got into office, so all of the things that make the Republican candidates seem like loons will be dampened (hopefully). I don't think anyone should be too worried whichever way the vote falls--if something's going wrong, the people will say so, and it will be fixed in that term. If not, guess there's no re-election :3
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
Hypnotoad said:
Well, this is America. We should have the right to pick our own lightbulbs, at least. I personally plan to buy whatever's cheapest, and the environmentalists can just shut it. I lived in Georgia during the drought a couple of years ago and we couldn't use all the water in our reservoirs because there were some endangered clams downriver. Endangered clams. People statewide were paying ridiculous prices for water because of endangered clams. Humans > clams. We do need to pay attention to fossil fuels because we have a limited supply and make some kind of effort to reduce our consumption, but it will take time. And only the government can do it. That is as far as I will allow environmentalism and the government to mix.
I also read somewhere that some guy bought land in a state but couldn't build anything on it because it was marked as "Endangered Wetlands". He had just moved from a communist country to get his basic rights back.
Obama doesn't have much going for him this term aside from bin Laden's death, even to the Democrats. They had a majorities in both the Senate and the House, and healthcare still failed to get passed? I doubt many Democrats will respect their inability to do anything for four years.Hypnotoad said:
A strong Republican candidate will probably appear soon and soon we'll be debating about him. In the meantime, though, there isn't much to say about them other than the fact that they seem to become more conservative as the Democrats become more liberal. Eventually we'll get a Moderate party that lies somewhere in the middle.
Yoshiwaker
Star Spirit
Villain11 said:
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
Villain11 said:
Yoshiwalker said:Villain11 said:
Xzelion said:
All seriousness and productive conversation just evaporated.
Dr. Javelin said:
We've got about 50 years, tops. The issue has been debated for years, and the only thing standing in the way are politicians here that are blatantly ignoring scientific facts to appease lobbyists and filled their wallet.
Dr. Javelin said:
That way of thinking is precisely what I'm afraid of. Do you not understand the reason why the change was made? Or are you just seeing "THEY'RE-A TAKIN' MUH FREEDOMS" ? I understand your concern at the face value of this concern--the government dictating what we can buy--because I absolutely despise that. There's ideas floating (or floated, not sure if they're gone) around about dictating what we can and cannot eat for the greater good of our health. We should have the choice there.
But there's more to just that. The reason why the change was made is because the old lightbulbs are obsolete. It's like going to a computer store nowadays and asking for The Commodore 64 model because you don't want to change and should have the freedom to pick it, even though there are better and shinier models available. Your concern about buying the cheapest lightbulb is something I had to explain to my stubborn mother--she was bent on buying the crappy lightbulbs because they were 97 cents, and refused the compact fluorescents because they are a few bucks. To a short-sighted person, yes they are cheaper. But the 97 cent specials don't last as long, and they also drain more energy. As I had to point out to my mom by pulling out her bills, hundreds of dollars could be saved if you just look into the problem a bit more.
And speaking about looking into the problem a bit more, look into your clam example and the wetland example. Read a thing or two about keystone species, or how crucial that wetland habitat actually is. Don't just look at the face value of "THE GOVERNMENT PREFERS CLAMS OVER HUMANS, LET'S DISMANTLE THE GOVERNMENT"; try to found out why they did, and then complain. If they're just some regular clam, I'd be just as upset as you, but they could be serving a critical role in nutrient cycles that help maintain the habitat, allowing humans to live in the area to begin with. It seems silly, but the smallest creatures can actually have that great of an impact. If it weren't for some fungi attached to the roots of plants, this planet would be a barren desert.
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
I had typed a giant response to your post, but then I was autologged-out and I'm too tired to type it again. Will post tomorrow (actually, later today technically).
Basically:
Fossil Fuels: Agree
River Species: Disagree, read government PDF
Lightbulbs: Disagree, personal experience
Basically:
Fossil Fuels: Agree
River Species: Disagree, read government PDF
Lightbulbs: Disagree, personal experience
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
About lightbulbs: My family recently switched from fluorescent to incandescent. Why? Because the fluorescent bulbs have to charge up after you turn them on. Fluorescent bulbs also have dangerous chemicals in them such as mercury, a substance which has led to the recall of certain thermometers. Consumers should be allowed to make decisions like this for themselves. And the root of energy waste is not in the bulbs, it's in the stupid people who leave their lights on when they are unneeded.
About the river: Four species would have died if we had used the water instead of letting it continue downstream. It would have had some small effects on the surrounding ecosystem because of the lack of water, but they were minor and would have been fixed within a month or two of the water's return. The species were being protected by some Federal Species Protection Act, and not by the state of Florida, where they lived and who probably should decide whether they should die or not. Another example of how the government meddles in the states' affairs.
About the river: Four species would have died if we had used the water instead of letting it continue downstream. It would have had some small effects on the surrounding ecosystem because of the lack of water, but they were minor and would have been fixed within a month or two of the water's return. The species were being protected by some Federal Species Protection Act, and not by the state of Florida, where they lived and who probably should decide whether they should die or not. Another example of how the government meddles in the states' affairs.
Snowstalker
Snowstalker
Plumber said:
That is indeed me. Are you the same plumber?
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
Herr Shyguy said:
Who cares about three species of mussel and a species of sturgeon? There are more in the world. I would be against an entire type of animal going extinct (such as cows or eagles) but these had no effect on other species in the area. How many different species are there in existence anyway? An uncountable number.
And mildly inconvenienced? We were running out of water statewide. There was already water rationing to some extent (only watering once per week) already. It was only a matter of time before some opportunistic state decided to start selling us water, because the feds wouldn't let us use our own rivers fully.
I don't hate the environment. I hate the environmentalist movement. The link below sums it up for me pretty well.
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml
And don't get me started on the animal rights movement, because I hate that even more. Which doesn't mean I hate animals.
EDIT: This topic is getting out-of-hand fast. Someone needs to post on-topic.
I vote for NJ Governor Chris Christie just because he's fat like me and no other reason
This is not a personal attack.
Almost every free industrialized nation has some form of public healthcare option except for the United States.
Oh, and what about Medicare? Is THAT a huge interference in the lives of the old? No. In fact, old people love Medicare. You know why? Because otherwise they'd be dying in the street. It just isn't profitable to provide healthcare services to the old and weak, so it isn't done by corporations.
Also, just because YOU want to pay a corporation for your health insurance doesn't mean EVERYONE has to.
Government doesn't have to advertise their health insurance or pay big bonuses to a CEO. They just have to provide health insurance to those who need it. That makes it very efficient.
</argument>
And yeah PETA is a little ridiculous, but how would you feel if you were an abused dog? :P
Almost every free industrialized nation has some form of public healthcare option except for the United States.
Oh, and what about Medicare? Is THAT a huge interference in the lives of the old? No. In fact, old people love Medicare. You know why? Because otherwise they'd be dying in the street. It just isn't profitable to provide healthcare services to the old and weak, so it isn't done by corporations.
Also, just because YOU want to pay a corporation for your health insurance doesn't mean EVERYONE has to.
Government doesn't have to advertise their health insurance or pay big bonuses to a CEO. They just have to provide health insurance to those who need it. That makes it very efficient.
</argument>
And yeah PETA is a little ridiculous, but how would you feel if you were an abused dog? :P
Dr. Javelin
Nathan Latsk
Healthcare and Social Security don't mesh with capitalism. Capitalism is centered on the individual, the one who buys/sells in the society. They should be responsible for their own finances, not the government. Communism is centered around the populace, and in that healthcare and social security work quite well. The government is supposed to choose these things.
If you want to live in a capitalist country and have the freedom to get rich, that means you should also accept that you have the chance of becoming dirt poor. The government should not be taxing the rich who have risen to the top of our system to fund healthcare for the poor. That's communist, folks.
And animal rights is awful because it's an animal. It doesn't have sentience, or a soul if you want to get philosophical. Attacking someone else's animal should be punishable because that is that person's property. Attacking your own animal, while sad, should not be a crime. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want to their own animals. No one complains about personal rights if you blow up a table in your backyard, right? So what if it's mosquitoes? They have no problem with bug zappers. Then you keep moving up the chain of intelligence to amphibians, fish, and reptiles, without complaint, and then suddenly you get to mammals, and now animal rights are all over you.
Animal abuse is unfortunate for the animal and also shows that the owner is a terrible person. But they should still have the right to do whatever they want with their own property. In America, you should have the right to be cruel and heartless if you want to be. You have the right to poison yourself with tobacco. Why don't you have the right to attack animals?
If you want to live in a capitalist country and have the freedom to get rich, that means you should also accept that you have the chance of becoming dirt poor. The government should not be taxing the rich who have risen to the top of our system to fund healthcare for the poor. That's communist, folks.
And animal rights is awful because it's an animal. It doesn't have sentience, or a soul if you want to get philosophical. Attacking someone else's animal should be punishable because that is that person's property. Attacking your own animal, while sad, should not be a crime. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want to their own animals. No one complains about personal rights if you blow up a table in your backyard, right? So what if it's mosquitoes? They have no problem with bug zappers. Then you keep moving up the chain of intelligence to amphibians, fish, and reptiles, without complaint, and then suddenly you get to mammals, and now animal rights are all over you.
Animal abuse is unfortunate for the animal and also shows that the owner is a terrible person. But they should still have the right to do whatever they want with their own property. In America, you should have the right to be cruel and heartless if you want to be. You have the right to poison yourself with tobacco. Why don't you have the right to attack animals?