The President of the United States 2012
Go to page 1, 2, 3 ... 83, 84, 85  Next
 
   Forum Index -> Off Topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who should become the next president of the USA?
I am from the US - Obama
19%
 19%  [ 10 ]
I am from the US - Romny
19%
 19%  [ 10 ]
I am from the US - Other
15%
 15%  [ 8 ]
I am NOT from the US - Obama
34%
 34%  [ 18 ]
I am NOT from the US - Romny
11%
 11%  [ 6 ]
Total Votes : 52

Author Message
SAOL
Emperor
Emperor


Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 23251
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:42 am    Post subject: The President of the United States 2012

As it is now more or less finished that Mitt Romney will constitute Barack Obama's opposition in the upcoming American elections the time has come for a reprisal of this thread.

Rules are as follows

If you are from the US you have the option to vote "Other". If you do so, you must specify on whom you wish to vote. This person must be an actual candidate in the election; you may not for instance vote for George Clooney. You may also vote blank by selecting "Other" and declare you're voting blank. Regardless on whom you do or do not vote you are encouraged to explain why.

If you aren't from the US you do not have the option to vote "Other". The question is thus "Who would you rather see as the next president of the US?" As it in reality will be either Romney or Obama, these are the only ones you have to choose between. Feel free to explain why you've made the choice you've made.

This poll will close on election day

Results as of 120611 Spoiler:


Americans [18 votes]
Obama - 33%
Romney - 44%
Other - 23%

People from outside the US [12 votes, 1 of which misregistered]
Obama - 85%
Romney - 15%


_________________
Join
WWLLUASCLWPJ
We Who Loathe Long or Unnecessary Abbreviations and Similar Clusters of Letters Without Proper Justification

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Name
Harkimo
Emperor
Emperor


Joined: 10 May 2009
Posts: 7801

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:58 pm    Post subject:

Discussion Arrow Politics thread? Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SAOL
Emperor
Emperor


Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 23251
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:11 pm    Post subject:

No, discussion about this is to take place here. It's a big enough event for that.

And come on now. Who chose "other" without specifying?
_________________
Join
WWLLUASCLWPJ
We Who Loathe Long or Unnecessary Abbreviations and Similar Clusters of Letters Without Proper Justification

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Name
Hoop Thrower
Councillor
Councillor


Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 744
Location: Chile

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:52 pm    Post subject:

I'll vote for Romney just to screw with your statistics... nah, who am I kidding? I just don't feel right voting for a Mormon, and his stances on foreign politics don't seem very appealing, I'd rather have Obama, and keep with what USA has been doing these last years, than have some unknown guy I've barely heard about.
Romney has an amusingly average USA president face though, wich I find funny. He looks like the stereotypical USA president, as if he were pulled out straight from a movie... lol

Edit: Aaaand thanks to a misclick, I actually voted for Romney, irony is a bitch, ain't it?
_________________

Quote:
Work hard? No, it is a game rather than a work; interesting rather than hard.


Visit Wotta!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
checanos
Conquistador
Conquistador


Joined: 21 Dec 2011
Posts: 395
Location: Sevilla, spain

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:58 pm    Post subject:

Barrack Obama is not a president, he is a celebrity.
_________________

Google+YoutubeAoEIII Heaven
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dark Force
Italian Utili
Italian Utili


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 189

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:08 pm    Post subject:

Not a Romney fan, but of the candidates that are going to be available to choose from in the election he will be the least of two evils.

Obama may be a great guy, but he's a horrible leader/President. Frankly the man is nothing but a lier. His 2008 campaign was about ending Bush's tactics in dealing with terrorists, increasing transparency in government, and decreasing the deficit.

Obama not only has failed to close Gitmo, he has increased the use of water-boarding and drone attacks to take out US targets, Used these tactics on US nationals, and signed a (unconstitutional) bill that allows him to detain US citizens indefinitely for being suspected "enemies of the state."

Increased transparency has been a joke. There has been more "closed doors talks" with him in office (especially in the period of 2008-2010), than any president. The president also seems to pick a rather sketchy in-group. The secretary of the Treasury cheats on his taxes, Van Jones turned out to be a nut, and a number of big time donors got a lot of funds (at the taxpayers expense) for green energy and then their companies are lapse with corruption and mysteriously (sarcasm) fail. I haven't even touched on the GSA living it up in vegas and the office while the rest of us in this country suffer, on our expense, OR Holder's selling of automatic weapons to drug cartels which resulted in the death of US citizens.


In a period of 3 years he doubled the debt that it took Bush (not a fan of either) 8 years to accumulate. The US deficit is also larger than all of the eurozone's debt (which the US shares fairly equal population to), despite being supposedly less socialist:


And I understand the big hoorah about healthcare, and it does need to be reformed, but Obamacare was the worst possible answer to the problem. It not only would create even higher costs to get care while limiting availability of getting treatment, but it would also increase our already massive deficit by another 350 billion. When a ABC/WaPo poll puts 2/3rd of Americans against Obamacare, then chances are you shouldn't try ram it down the people's throats. BTW, the poll had a breakdown of 34%/23%/34% D/R/I so even with it under representing Republicans and over representing Democrats the bill is massively unpopular in the country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ca Putt
NE Assistant
NE Assistant


Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 3460
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:23 pm    Post subject:

You forgot the 3rd exterior choice:

CHINA!
_________________
Imagine not that these four walls contain the Mighty Owl of Thebes. For, gentles all, beauty sits most closely to them it can construe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
checanos
Conquistador
Conquistador


Joined: 21 Dec 2011
Posts: 395
Location: Sevilla, spain

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:28 pm    Post subject:

Surprised Spain only has 0.9 trillion $ debt ? I thought it would be more Razz now I have more hope for Spain Mr. Green
_________________

Google+YoutubeAoEIII Heaven
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heathen678
Fusilier
Fusilier


Joined: 04 Feb 2012
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:55 pm    Post subject:

Although I'll be voting for one of the official candidates, I would love to vote for this guy

http://randonesia.tumblr.com/post/15251001685/i-want-to-be-the-big-cheese

metalheads are awesome \m/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
President Washington
Saxon Cavalry
Saxon Cavalry


Joined: 27 Sep 2009
Posts: 1601

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:16 am    Post subject:

I chose Other, but I really don't know who is left, since I've just stopped really paying attention. I wanted ANYBODY except for Romney, but they've all been dropping out, including our best chance (Santorum)! So he WILL win the nomination.

I suppose my ideology is closest in line to Ron Paul (domestically), but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, despite what the Internet says.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Dude
NE Assistant
NE Assistant


Joined: 13 Mar 2010
Posts: 1709
Location: Somewhere you don't know

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:38 am    Post subject:

I'd honesty vote for Santorum (if I could that is.)

Can't really blame him for dropping out though...
_________________
Alea iacta est.
-The die is cast-

-Julius Caesar

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SAOL
Emperor
Emperor


Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 23251
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:20 am    Post subject:

Cechanos wrote:
Barrack Obama is not a president, he is a celebrity.
Are the two mutually exclusive?

Quote:
Spain only has 0.9 trillion $ debt ? [...] now I have more hope for Spain
It's not "only". lol Set in comparison to the size of your economy it is a lot. Look at Greece, they have even less. Does things look very bright for them?

Dark Force wrote:
The US deficit is also larger than all of the eurozone's debt (which the US shares fairly equal population to), despite being supposedly less socialist:
Not supposedly less, actually less. Socialism does not automatically lead to a deficit, just as the opposite doesn't automatically lead to non-deficit. It's simply about balancing the budget, something that everyone serious ultimately strives to do.

You need to get your debt down, and I seriously doubt you can save or cut yourselves out of this. You have to raise taxes. You've taken a loan collectively, you have to pay it back collectively.

Ca Putt wrote:
You forgot the 3rd exterior choice:

CHINA!
That's not a choice.

President Washington wrote:
I chose Other, but I really don't know who is left, since I've just stopped really paying attention.
Perhaps you should have held you vote for a while longer then.

Quote:
I suppose my ideology is closest in line to Ron Paul (domestically), but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, despite what the Internet says.
Which is why I started this poll before Romney actually has become the official republican candidate. I sort of disqualified the others, because their probability of becoming the candidate are very low.

Dude wrote:
I'd honesty vote for Santorum (if I could that is.)
Yeah, but since you can't you'll have to vote for someone else.
_________________
Join
WWLLUASCLWPJ
We Who Loathe Long or Unnecessary Abbreviations and Similar Clusters of Letters Without Proper Justification

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Name
checanos
Conquistador
Conquistador


Joined: 21 Dec 2011
Posts: 395
Location: Sevilla, spain

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:58 am    Post subject:

Quote:
Set in comparison to the size of your economy it is a lot
Spain is the 12th largest economy in the world and fifth largest in the European union so " It ain't too small" lol the problem is the former president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (fun fact: Zapatero means shoemaker and also dragonfly) and his idea of socialism. His idea was to spend, spend and spend without any plan to pay it back.(like some other president I know lol )
Quote:
Does things look very bright for them?

another issue is that socialism has been in power for 30 years.(I not saying that socialism is bad, its just that Spain has not found out a good balance yet like for example Finland) In Andalucía (a province in the south) just the healthcare debt alone is 100 billion €.
_________________

Google+YoutubeAoEIII Heaven
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SAOL
Emperor
Emperor


Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 23251
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:11 am    Post subject:

Quote:
Spain is the 12th largest economy in the world and fifth largest in the European union so " It ain't too small"
Oh I know, but one trillion dollars is not a small amount of money. It's around the entire worth of everything you produce during one year.

Quote:
the problem is the former president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (fun fact: Zapatero means shoemaker and also dragonfly) and his idea of socialism. His idea was to spend, spend and spend without any plan to pay it back.
That's not Socialism, that's populism. He might have been a populist socialist, but all populists aren't socialists and all socialists aren't populists.

As with man other Mediterranean countries the inhabitants of your country doesn't have the best tax moral either; you have a rather large black economy.

This shouldn't be about Spain though, but the US.
_________________
Join
WWLLUASCLWPJ
We Who Loathe Long or Unnecessary Abbreviations and Similar Clusters of Letters Without Proper Justification

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Name
Dark Force
Italian Utili
Italian Utili


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 189

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:30 am    Post subject:

SAOL wrote:
Cechanos wrote:
Barrack Obama is not a president, he is a celebrity.
Are the two mutually exclusive?

No, but yes. People should be president because of their skills, not because its cooler to support one guy or the other. This is what happens when people vote based on feelings, opinion, or what the pundits tell them. Independent thought and researching knowledge for one's self are rare traits anymore.

Quote:
Quote:
Spain only has 0.9 trillion $ debt ? [...] now I have more hope for Spain
It's not "only". lol Set in comparison to the size of your economy it is a lot. Look at Greece, they have even less. Does things look very bright for them?

Couldn't have put it better myself!

Quote:
Dark Force wrote:
The US deficit is also larger than all of the eurozone's debt (which the US shares fairly equal population to), despite being supposedly less socialist:
Not supposedly less, actually less. Socialism does not automatically lead to a deficit, just as the opposite doesn't automatically lead to non-deficit. It's simply about balancing the budget, something that everyone serious ultimately strives to do.

You need to get your debt down, and I seriously doubt you can save or cut yourselves out of this. You have to raise taxes. You've taken a loan collectively, you have to pay it back collectively.

Less government spending tends to leads to smaller or no deficits, that is undeniable. And yes, I (and most of the GOP) know that taxes will eventually have to be raised in order to eliminate/reduce the debt. That said the tax pool can only grow so big - if the government outspends that then what? This is unsustainable.

US Debt Explained Spoiler:



If you keep increasing the amount the government spends every year how are you supposed to decrease the debt? When a individual or family is living beyond their means, they have to decide what expenses are necessary and stop spending more than they currently do. We may not like the cuts, but US citizens are going to hate the consequences of the government going "bankrupt" aka, defaulting, even more.

Also, socialism in general breed inefficiency and higher costs: Government control of sectors of industry lead to inefficiency (aka, higher costs). Compare the post office with UPS and FedEx, Amtrack with Union Pacific, the VA hospital system compared to privately owned hospitals, etc.. All government owned services do not have to worry about making a profit or competition and run at dramatically higher costs with lower quality of service.

Quote:
Ca Putt wrote:
You forgot the 3rd exterior choice:

CHINA!
That's not a choice.

Not much of an option if the US defaults.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SAOL
Emperor
Emperor


Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 23251
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject:

Dark Force wrote:
Less government spending tends to leads to smaller or no deficits, that is undeniable.
That is a truth with modification. There has been several, in fact a lot of, instances throughout the history of the world when governments have lowered their spending but at the same time lowered the taxes even more, thereby creating a deficit. Whether there is a deficit or not is thus a question of spending in relation to income rather than spending and only spending.

With the kind of do-do you are in you probably need to increase the income as well as lower the spending, for instance by sorting out some priorities and reforming some of your inefficient and ill-designed social security systems. Quite honestly you still have comparatively low taxes.

Quote:
Also, socialism in general breed inefficiency and higher costs: Government control of sectors of industry lead to inefficiency (aka, higher costs). Compare the post office with UPS and FedEx, Amtrack with Union Pacific, the VA hospital system compared to privately owned hospitals, etc.. All government owned services do not have to worry about making a profit or competition and run at dramatically higher costs with lower quality of service.
I'd rather say that it is corruption and nepotism that leads to inefficiency than the idea of collective ownership; there is nothing inherent in that idea leading to inefficiency.

The argument usually goes that a company run by the government never would have to worry about money and profits, and the the people working for the company somehow would lack motivation and incentive to improve it - and more importantly that it is necessarily true.

On the other hand most government-owned companies I know of has to carry their own cost and make their own profit. They don't get tax money at random or at all. The government has as much interest as anyone that its enterprises are profitable. More so the entire population has an interest in the company being efficient and making a good profit, since that pulls in money to the government, money that can be used to either lower taxes or provide more services. Each employee is a shareholder, and everyone holds equal shares, which is a lot more than can be said about most big companies.

Still, I think quite a lot of people don't think that far, and I think the directions of most state enterprises are bad at motivating their staff with it, partly because people have prefabricated perceptions and negative attitudes to begin with. It even makes sense from the 'economic man' view of life market economy is based on: "if you work harder you will be rewarded" is a much better incentive than "work harder to please the limited number of shareholders".

And it's not like there aren't examples of state-owned companies that have been very efficient and well working. I can pose some examples from my own country.
Spoiler:

  • Apoteket AB until recently had a monopoly on pharmacies in Sweden. As Sweden was the only country in the world along with Cuba and North Korea to have that monopoly it was decided that the monopoly should be broken and 60% of all the pharmacies owned by the government should be sold.

    The problem was that the state's pharmacies, who only had a demand on them to break even, were so efficient that to be able to sell any pharmacies the government had to increase the subventions on prescription drugs at a vast annual expense - everyone get the same subventions so the government owned-enterprise has no more backing from the government than the private actors. Furthermore the old demand that any pharmacy in the country should be able to provide any medication within 24 hours (naturally) had to be dropped. To top it off some one time premiums and goodies had to be offered.

    So, we have higher annual costs for medicine subventions and it can be harder to get hold of some medications. What did we get in return? Lower prices? No - actually they have gone up because they weren't profitable enough. Longer opening hours? No. Better service? Certainly not that I've noted; I get rather annoyed when people try to sell me stuff I don't need. More pharmacies? Yes. Only, a massive majority of them have opened very near to where there already were a pharmacy, so that we have three instead of one in a shopping mall - so generally availability has only increased marginally. Success? No. Especially since they're all tax evaders.

    Now they're doing so bad that they've started whining about the government selling the remainder of the pharmacies as well.

  • Vin & Sprit was owned by the Swedish government until a few years ago. It was very profitable, being one of the largest manufacturers of spirituous beverages in the world. Perhaps you've heard of ABSOLUT vodka?

  • LKAB, the state's mining operations. Pulls in huge amounts every year and has a better profit margin than many actors in the business.


All examples of 100% government-owned efficient and profitable companies with high quality of service. It's most certainly doable.



Now, initially I had not intended to speak of government enterprise but of redistribution of wealth, which I think is of more significance for this topic than the potential quality of the former. Since this got so long I'll hold my tongue and wait for a while though. ^^
_________________
Join
WWLLUASCLWPJ
We Who Loathe Long or Unnecessary Abbreviations and Similar Clusters of Letters Without Proper Justification

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Name
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT
Go to page 1, 2, 3 ... 83, 84, 85  Next
Page 1 of 85

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group | Page design by Tilanus Commodor & michfrm.