+- The VG Resource (https://www.vg-resource.com)
+-- Forum: Archive (https://www.vg-resource.com/forum-65.html)
+--- Forum: July 2014 Archive (https://www.vg-resource.com/forum-139.html)
+---- Forum: Other Stuff (https://www.vg-resource.com/forum-6.html)
+----- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.vg-resource.com/forum-16.html)
+----- Thread: Presidential Elections 2012 (/thread-21838.html)
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - puggsoy - 11-07-2012
(11-07-2012, 12:29 PM)Mr. Heiniebottom Wrote:(11-07-2012, 09:37 AM)puggsoy Wrote: Although, if I could vote I would have voted for Obama. From what little I know and hear about politics he's basically a good guy.
This is risky way to vote for anything, especially when politics are involved.
I know, but I mean I see no reason to vote Romney instead, so if I had to choose one off the top of my head it'd be Obama. Obviously if I actually went to vote I'd think about it way more.
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - Lemonray - 11-07-2012
Eh, nobody would have had to vote for Romney or Obama anyway.
They could have voted for that nice man Gary Johnson, instead.
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - water dog - 11-07-2012
"As it appears that Mitt Romney is going to lose tonight I want to nip this in the bud - to those on the far right: Mitt Romney did not lose because he was not conservative enough. He lost because you forced him to run to the right of Barry Goldwater in a primary where to suggest any kind of compromise was considered treason, making his lurch back to the center awkward and painfully transparent. If the electorate is basically a bell curve, how does an extreme candidate on either side make any sense? If the GOP wants to be taken seriously again, it's time to put on the big boy pants and actually give governing a shot. And SO HELP ME, if you nominate Santorum in 2016..."
basically
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - Rosencrantz - 11-08-2012
(11-07-2012, 02:00 PM)Mighty Jetaku Wrote: Let's hope the republicans realize this time around that they can't just pull in some guy who loves money for the sake of having a republican running the country. Not all republicans are better.
As a Republican
yeah, I basically agree with this. The main problem I have with my party is that we can't seem to rope in a candidate that isn't a total nutjob. I mean, jesus christ, look at who we tried to bring in for the primaries. Romney was the sanest choice out of the entire bunch, and he's still a tool who wavered a lot on his positions.
Though I've been hearing that his plans and tax cuts would have done some good things for the middle class, but I couldn't find any information on it; all Google will show me is stuff on why Romney is a terrible person :T
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - Shade - 11-08-2012
All I'm going to say is that I'm slightly terrified about the future of this country.
Both candidates weren't good choices because the whole political system is jacked up. Personally, I would have rather Romney won just because we already know what Obama is capable of, but he probably wouldn't have been much better.
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - Dazz - 11-08-2012
The issue with voting is you need to consider yourself tactfully. There were some great candidates but they were the unknown, and at this stage that isn't going to change.
You could still vote for them, but that's one less vote for the "not a complete bellend" representative.
And that gives power to the "complete bellend" representative.
There are usually 2/3 major candidates in all elections, in the UK and the US. You need to agree when your main choice is not going to be a majority at all, and duck out of voting for them. Because if you do decide to vote for them, you're basically throwing your vote away.
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - Previous - 11-08-2012
Depends. Voting for small parties still gives a certain sign and has a statistical value if nothing else.
I have no idea how your voting things work as I discarded what I learned about them in school but here, we don't vote people, but political parties, and when they have more than a minimum of five percent, they get seats in the... parliament I think (Previous has no political knowledge whatsoever). So the pirate party of Germany got in. That's something, huh?
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - Helmo - 11-08-2012
democrats: pussy hippies who just want to smoke weed all day and live off welfare
republicans: inbred pig fuckers who want to live in the bronze age and stone homosexuals
democrats just wanna get stoned and republicans just wanna stone them
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - SmithyGCN - 11-09-2012
As a conservative and a Christian (I'm already pegged) I was disappointed with the election, but I got over it. I had a feeling Obama would win just because of the things following him (people want their free stuff, etc. ). It just shows how much America has fallen into a "ME" generation. I really don't like Obama simply because of the things he has done or failed to do. Obamacare being one of them. That's really going to make things difficult for people all around. Joe Biden accidentally spoke the truth during one of his speeches that "the middle class has been buried for the last four years". Hmm, I wonder whose term THAT was? Now, if you think about it, the rich DO actually pay more in taxes at normal. The percentage may be the same between rich and middle class, but a larger amount is taken out of their vaults simply because they DO make more. The more pressure you put on the rich, though, makes them cut back in areas in their industries - this includes employment as they need to keep making money in order to survive in the corporate world. If they have to cut back on this, then there are far fewer jobs for the middle class making them "buried" as Biden correctly stated.
Also, the matter of the fact that the debt for America has sky rocketed to over 16 trillion dollars under this administration is alarming and why no one is thinking about that baffles me.
Also, as far as stoning homosexuals goes, I'd have to pass. I believe that they're people too, created by God - however I simply would like to see them change their ways.
I know I'm going to lose a lot of friends over this, but something needed to be said. Phew. That came out a lot longer than I thought.
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - Tellis - 11-09-2012
[video=youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVwXA7sHUlE[/video]
posted with no extra comment
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - SmithyGCN - 11-09-2012
I'm sorry if I don't agree with that video. You can't drop the national debt by spending into oblivion on constant vacations. I'm sorry if I don't take it at face value. If it were going down, why is it still that the debt is at over $16 trillion? This all happened on Obama's administration. Also, if they were interested in conservative ideas, why are the Republicans always being told to compromise their ideas while no one concentrates on the Democrats? This video is full of garbage and isn't showing any evidence for your side.
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - Vipershark - 11-09-2012
(11-09-2012, 12:14 AM)SmithyGCN Wrote: The percentage may be the same between rich and middle class, but a larger amount is taken out of their vaults simply because they DO make more.
I don't understand.
You acknowledge that they're getting taxed the same amount as everyone else but then say that they're losing more money?
Uhh.... a percent is still a percent whether it's a percent of one dollar or a percent of a million dollars.
If they're getting taxed the same amount, well duh they're paying more money but it's because they have more to pay in the first place. It's not like they're losing any more than the middle class (especially when they're too mega-rich to even notice).
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - Tellis - 11-09-2012
It wasn't meant as a direct response to your post, sorry for the confusion. It's just been sitting around and I wanted a place to post it and your posting brought this topic up again and I was reminded of it.
I'm not trying to refute anything you said with that video. It's a whole lot of claims with no evidence directly there in the video (as easily as I could find sources to support them elsewhere, though I'm not going to right now), but I don't feel that's really the point of it. Sure, I disagree with a lot of your beliefs as well (the biggest one that I feel obligated to mention is that sexuality is not a choice (seriously who the hell would choose that life over one where they don't face daily persecution), but I really don't want to have a political argument right now. If I really wanted to make a debate out of it, I definitely could, I just don't want to, and I really don't feel this is the place for that kind of discourse, and I don't think it would really get us anywhere.
I mean, the election's over, I just wanna go home. I honestly believe the country is in way better hands than it would be under Romney. I'm actually fairly hopeful where the results of this election could take us. Probably not gonna post in this thread again, but feel free to respond, I guess.
(Bleh, political arguments always make me feel gross.)
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - [robo9] - 11-09-2012
Sexuality isn't a choice. Since it isn't, wouldn't it mean that your god created them that way? If he created them that way, who are you to question your omnipotent, omniscient god?
RE: Presidential Elections 2012 - SmithyGCN - 11-09-2012
Sorry I misunderstood your objective. <=/
Well, it's okay if you disagree with me, but I really haven't seen too much persecution of homosexuals these days.
Also, Vipershark, I meant that the middle class and rich would pay different amounts based on what they make based on the tax percentage. If the tax percentage was, say, 57 percent and if the middle and rich make $12,000 and $12,000,000 respectively, the amounts payed would be $6840 and $6,840,000. So, of course the rich pay more, they may not notice it in the grand scheme of things sure, but the rich DO tend to pay more in taxes. I think it's fair. Sorry if it sounds like I'm belittling your intelligence, so forgive me if I have and sorry for the misunderstanding.
EDIT: God doesn't paint Himself into corners. I used to have homosexual tendencies before I became a Christian and those have largely disappeared since I have. Sure, I know that's from personal experience, but it's something that convinces me otherwise. He says it's wrong,so, therefore, He never makes anyone into a homosexual. That's like saying that a person who has bestiality tendencies is right for being into bestiality because God "made" them that way. I am not following your logic.