2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Rathma]

Paul > Obama
Obama > Newt
Obama > Romney

this

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Jesus I'm seriously concerned with the love for Ron Paul. He's scary.

[antigoon]

So is everyone else.

[Vivace]

As a Catholic do find it very difficult to vote for someone whom I know will not support the same morals I do, but then I think to myself I don't push my morals on others, I simply live by them and if they like what they see they will inquire, if not, they move on their way but do think a president shouldn't be acting according to the rules his religion tells him too given that not everyone he supports follows his religion. This is no better than an Evangelical forcing his beliefs down your throat or a fire breathing atheist ridiculing your belief system and forcing their opinions down your throat. The president from my point of view needs to represent the people of America, not the people of The United Church of Christ, or the United Dawkin's Front. That is not to say they must leave their faith at the front door of the White House either however it's a balancing game more or less. In voting I try to vote based on who I think is the right candidate for this time and as much as I see so much hate for Obama I'm still going to vote for him. Why? The economy took a HUGE nosedive the minute he took office which happens for the most part when any new president takes office. If Ron Paul takes office I'm convinced the economy will sink further, beyond even his control (which I think is inevitable anyways). Obama might not be effecting the change we wanted to see but him staying in office might keep the economy in check, maybe it might even improve. A new president in the chair will almost certainly in my mind will tip the scale. Also Ron Paul is a bit to "loopy" with some of his policies.

The biggest problem I see is that we are literally at this point a nation divided and until we find some way to unite again even the best presidential candidate isn't going to save this nation from falling into the abyss. In my humble opinion I think we should "pull an Argentina".

[Scheavo]

Obama might not be effecting the change we wanted to see but him staying in office might keep the economy in check, maybe it might even improve. A new president in the chair will almost certainly in my mind will tip the scale.

For the most part, we've been headed in the right direction since Obama took over. Any complain made that Obama has made things worse, is factually incorrect. He just hasn't made things better as quick as people would have liked him to, and considering he's the President, most of that blame is extremely misplaced.

Last two quarters have seen manufacturing jobs increase for the first time since 1996/7, and the massive trade gap we had (importing way more than we exported) is closing.

[pogoowner]

Jesus I'm seriously concerned with the love for Ron Paul. He's scary.

Not to me. Obama scares me. Romney scares me. Paul does not.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Jesus I'm seriously concerned with the love for Ron Paul. He's scary.

Not to me. Obama scares me. Romney scares me. Paul does not.

I don't know. Based on what I've heard from him and about him, I want him as far away from office as possible


Plus, pretty much every Ron Paul supporter I've met here can be reduced to 'ZOMG LEGAL POT HURRDURR'

[Dark Castle]

Jesus I'm seriously concerned with the love for Ron Paul. He's scary.

Not to me. Obama scares me. Romney scares me. Paul does not.

I don't know. Based on what I've heard from him and about him, I want him as far away from office as possible


Plus, pretty much every Ron Paul supporter I've met here can be reduced to 'ZOMG LEGAL POT HURRDURR'

This, most people sheep to Ron Paul because he's pro-pot without hearing any of his many other loony spoutings.

[rumborak]

I honestly can not fathom how someone could be scared by Obama. The guy is so middle-of-the-road, it's not even funny.

rumborak

[7thHanyou]

Jesus I'm seriously concerned with the love for Ron Paul. He's scary.

Not to me. Obama scares me. Romney scares me. Paul does not.

I don't know. Based on what I've heard from him and about him, I want him as far away from office as possible


Plus, pretty much every Ron Paul supporter I've met here can be reduced to 'ZOMG LEGAL POT HURRDURR'

As a Ron Paul supporter myself, and someone who's acquainted with plenty of other Paul supporters, I have to wonder where you're getting your information, and what Paul supporters you know.  That's certainly not representative.

But hell, even if that was a remotely accurate representation, what on earth would be scary about that?

This, most people sheep to Ron Paul because he's pro-pot without hearing any of his many other loony spoutings.

Seriously?  MOST people are sheep to Ron Paul because he's pro-pot?  There are so many things wrong with that sentence.

Weigh all the candidates' words against the text of the Constitution, which is supposed to bind down the federal government.  Ron Paul is running for federal office.  I've never seen anyone who called his views "loony" make a persuasive constitutional case against him.  Do you base your opinion about his policies on anything other than baseless whims?

[jsem]

Plus, pretty much every Ron Paul supporter I've met here can be reduced to 'ZOMG LEGAL POT HURRDURR'

It's a stupid assertion that people only support RP for his support for legalized marijuana. Maybe those are the people you've met, I can't speak for your experience - but you can't make those generalizations.

His actual position is a constitutional position, states have a right to regulate it in their own way.

His PERSONAL position is though that there should be no paternalistic government laws, such as seat belt laws, drug/alcohol prohibition or anything like that. It's not the role of the government to mold behavior.

I have never seen or touched drugs nor will I ever consume them yet I support the legalization of all drugs. The effects are going to be only positive. Saving large amounts of money in the criminal justice system, as well as there being an easier method for rehab groups to reach out to abusers. The way drug laws are being enforced is also RACIST. Ron Paul would STOP that. Blacks make up something like 1/7 of drug users but over half of those incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses are black.

Plus, if we're going to draw any conclusions from Portugal, a country that legalized all hard drugs a few years back, it's that the number of deaths from overdoses have dramatically decreased. They have not decriminalized the sale of drugs though, which they should have.
I strongly believe that inner city major crime, including homicide, would drastically decrease if distribution and usage of drugs were fully legal.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Plus, pretty much every Ron Paul supporter I've met here can be reduced to 'ZOMG LEGAL POT HURRDURR'

It's a stupid assertion that people only support RP for his support for legalized marijuana. Maybe those are the people you've met, I can't speak for your experience - but you can't make those generalizations.

His actual position is a constitutional position, states have a right to regulate it in their own way.

His PERSONAL position is though that there should be no paternalistic government laws, such as seat belt laws, drug/alcohol prohibition or anything like that. It's not the role of the government to mold behavior.

I have never seen or touched drugs nor will I ever consume them yet I support the legalization of all drugs. The effects are going to be only positive. Saving large amounts of money in the criminal justice system, as well as there being an easier method for rehab groups to reach out to abusers. The way drug laws are being enforced is also RACIST. Ron Paul would STOP that. Blacks make up something like 1/7 of drug users but over half of those incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses are black.

Plus, if we're going to draw any conclusions from Portugal, a country that legalized all hard drugs a few years back, it's that the number of deaths from overdoses have dramatically decreased. They have not decriminalized the sale of drugs though, which they should have.
I strongly believe that inner city major crime, including homicide, would drastically decrease if distribution and usage of drugs were fully legal.

reread bolded/underlined before you make assertions about me

[7thHanyou]

Assertions?

Are you sure you can stand by that statement about "pretty much every Ron Paul supporter" you've met here?  It sounds like a pretty bold assertion to me.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

So obviously I"m a liar when I say that most of the people I've met and talked to around here who support him mainly like his pro pot policy.


Ok then.

go fuck yourselves

[rumborak]

While I wouldn't agree with Playslikejmx's assertion, I think everybody has had their experiences with "Paulbots", mindless supporters who regurgitate canned phrases with zero understanding of their own. And yes, some of them are on this site too.

rumborak

[pogoowner]

So obviously I"m a liar when I say that most of the people I've met and talked to around here who support him mainly like his pro pot policy.


Ok then.

go fuck yourselves

I think there may have been a misunderstanding of what you meant by "here."

[7thHanyou]

So obviously I"m a liar when I say that most of the people I've met and talked to around here who support him mainly like his pro pot policy.


Ok then.

go fuck yourselves

  "You're a liar" is only one possible interpretation of what I said, and not the most obvious one.  I had no intention of offending.

[yeshaberto]

So obviously I"m a liar when I say that most of the people I've met and talked to around here who support him mainly like his pro pot policy.


Ok then.

go fuck yourselves

this will serve as a warning

[Super Dude]

Oy vey. Anyway, jsem, I think the opposition to seatbelts speaks for itself. That's completely ridiculous, and my understanding of libertarians has become either people are free-market masturbators or people who are basically drunk on the word freedom.

[jsem]

Oy vey. Anyway, jsem, I think the opposition to seatbelts speaks for itself.

It's not an opposition to seatbelts, it's an opposition to seatbelt laws.

I don't want to put a gun to someone's head and coerce them into using seatbelts, even if it is a good thing for them to do.

[jsem]

Actually, it wasn't PlaysLikeMyung's assertion. He was speaking from experience.

Dark Castle made the assertion, but whatever.


edit: sorry for double post, didn't notice until it was too late.

[rumborak]

Oy vey. Anyway, jsem, I think the opposition to seatbelts speaks for itself.

It's not an opposition to seatbelts, it's an opposition to seatbelt laws.

I don't want to put a gun to someone's head and coerce them into using seatbelts, even if it is a good thing for them to do.

I would say, get over yourself. Seriously, if you're opposing something that has saved millions of teenagers' lives over the years (who without the law would likely have driven without a belt) for the mere point of "I just don't want to be told!!", you need to grow up. Freedoms often come with a price tag of their own, maybe it's time to realize that.

rumborak

[chknptpie]

 

directed at some of the last few posts

[yorost]

I won't vote for a career politician, except maybe a major philanthropist, or someone I don't largely respect.  I'm a prick and have no meaningful bearing on US elections.

[Super Dude]

Oy vey. Anyway, jsem, I think the opposition to seatbelts speaks for itself.

It's not an opposition to seatbelts, it's an opposition to seatbelt laws.

I don't want to put a gun to someone's head and coerce them into using seatbelts, even if it is a good thing for them to do.

I would say, get over yourself. Seriously, if you're opposing something that has saved millions of teenagers' lives over the years (who without the law would likely have driven without a belt) for the mere point of "I just don't want to be told!!", you need to grow up. Freedoms often come with a price tag of their own, maybe it's time to realize that.

rumborak

Pretty much this. In all this talk about "freedom" the last few years, I think that lesson has been lost.

[7thHanyou]

I think those of us who oppose seatbelt laws find it to be an unreasonable price tag.  Why should the government micromanage my life?  I'm sure they can conjure up other ways to "save millions of lives;" should they always do so?

It's that same principle that's been used to wage the drug war.  Protect people from themselves.  Opposition to seatbelt laws addresses the principle.  There's nothing wrong with that.

[Super Dude]

OK, but it's been found to be of more utility to support and regulate drugs because doing so saves more lives than would fighting a drug war. The principle is still the same though, that we use government to protect lives. Sure, it allows more freedom, and none of us are saying freedom is a bad thing. But a price tag does come with freedom, and that's ensuring safety within that freedom, as Thomas Hobbes said of liberty.

[Chino]

I thought Huntsman's drop out speech was very well done.

[El Barto]

Some of us favor Ron Paul because he isn't a paid shill of the RNC.  Lots of people like to pessimisitcally assume that he's just as crooked as the rest of them,  and he might well be,  but his votes tend to suggest otherwise.  Even if I think his ideology is a bit on the loony side,  he still qualifies as enough of an outsider to be preferable to any ass-hats our corporate masters will allow us to vote for.

And do people really oppose seatbelt laws?  I'm all for keeping The Man out of our private lives,  but insofar as battles go,  that's a pretty weak one to fight.  Aside from making it exceedingly difficult to get a blow job while driving (which is fraught with enough risks already),  I just don't see any detriment to wearing them.   

[Super Dude]

The big fallacy with that "outsider" argument is that they all become insiders eventually. By very virtue of the presidency, doesn't that totally cancel it out? Not to mention an outsider will inevitably lack the experience necessary to lead, even if their heart is in the right place. Case in point: Obama.

[Scheavo]

I think those of us who oppose seatbelt laws find it to be an unreasonable price tag.  Why should the government micromanage my life?  I'm sure they can conjure up other ways to "save millions of lives;" should they always do so?

It's that same principle that's been used to wage the drug war.  Protect people from themselves.  Opposition to seatbelt laws addresses the principle.  There's nothing wrong with that.

Except we don't throw people in jail for not following seat belt laws, we don't "point a gun to their head" as jsem implied. Basically, if you're pulled over for doing something else illegal with your car, you might get an extra fine. Hardly the insult to freedom that it's made out to be, and probably something NO ONE ANYWHERE has ever really complained about making their lives worse. Oh sure, perhaps after getting the $100 ticket, they're bitching and moaning, but compared with everything else in the world, this is like seeing a woman get raped, and a man get robbed, and helping out the man getting robbed.

Meanwhile, private for profit health care makes peoples lives much worse, actually inhibits their freedom, and a bunch of other horrible things, but we shouldn't do anything about those circumstances, becuase it requires public effort.

[yorost]

I think with the seat belt laws people just don't like the fact that they're being policed for being stupid.  It's not truly a big deal, but is some sort of thing of principle.

I think where the laws make some sense is that twenty years ago there was peer pressure to not wear a seat belt.  For some absolutely bizarre reason as a kid you could get picked on for being someone that wore them.  Law, to some extent, attempts to alter that attitude, particularly by making parents afraid of a ticket for not securing their children.

[7thHanyou]

I think with the seat belt laws people just don't like the fact that they're being policed for being stupid.  It's not truly a big deal, but is some sort of thing of principle.

Yeah, pretty much.

I think where the laws make some sense is that twenty years ago there was peer pressure to not wear a seat belt.  For some absolutely bizarre reason as a kid you could get picked on for being someone that wore them.  Law, to some extent, attempts to alter that attitude, particularly by making parents afraid of a ticket for not securing their children.

Sounds like the job of a parent, not a body of elected officials.  Kids get picked on all the time for all sorts of things; some of them are pressured into things far more egregious than not wearing a seatbelt.  It's their own responsibility, and the responsibility of their parents, to ensure they don't do something stupid.

[Super Dude]

Parents are stupid. The headlines featured on this forum are more than enough evidence of that. You can't rely on them to make or enforce regulations like that.

[yorost]

I think where the laws make some sense is that twenty years ago there was peer pressure to not wear a seat belt.  For some absolutely bizarre reason as a kid you could get picked on for being someone that wore them.  Law, to some extent, attempts to alter that attitude, particularly by making parents afraid of a ticket for not securing their children.

Sounds like the job of a parent, not a body of elected officials.  Kids get picked on all the time for all sorts of things; some of them are pressured into things far more egregious than not wearing a seatbelt.  It's their own responsibility, and the responsibility of their parents, to ensure they don't do something stupid.

Well, the justification wouldn't be in making no belt necessary parents change their ways, but in reducing the unseen, opposing pressure faced by parents trying to get their kids to wear them all the time.