|
Thread: Obama WINS!!
-
11-08-2012, 08:52 PM #241
-
11-08-2012, 09:15 PM #242
Again, these are non-issues that have NO impact on any election. Further, some of the stuff above is just silly .... Did Romney mention anything about pornography on the campaign trail? Nope, because it is a non-issue. Nobody cares about it. You are throwing out useless red herrings here.
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
-
11-08-2012, 09:18 PM #243
-
11-08-2012, 09:20 PM #244
- Join Date: Nov 2006
- Location: Texas, United States
- Age: 64
- Posts: 17,022
- Rep Power: 33557
Most liberals are just stupid. They believe the larger the government is, the better it is for everyone. Never mind the fact that billions fall through the fingers of the Federal Government minute by minute. It is worse than the most 'suspect' of charitable organizations. For every dollar spent, 20 to 30 cents actually does some good. As far as the great majority who voted for Obama, they aren't liberals. Hell, they don't know what they are. They're just looking for the outstretched hand of the Federal Government to meet their needs. And by the way, someone else should always pay for those needs.
paolo59
"If you're going through hell, keep going!" Winston Churchill
-
-
11-08-2012, 09:37 PM #245
- Join Date: Apr 2008
- Location: San Jose, California, United States
- Age: 48
- Posts: 2,580
- Rep Power: 4461
I didn't vote just on these issues, but some people do. Obama automatically won the vote of the vast majority of gays and lesbians when he came out for gay marriage. Even some of the Log Cabin Republicans voted for Obama this time because one candidate was clearly on their side and one candidate wasn't. Some people with gay relatives voted that way too, not because of economic issues. Not everyone follows the economic issues that closely. Some vote based on emotional issues like this.
Romney didn't come out and personally talk about pornography like Santorum did, but there was a sh*tstorm on slashdot, ******** and some other sites I'm on when they changed the party platform a few months ago. People were joking about it (they can take my porn when they pry it from my warm sticky hands), but a lot of people were seriously pissed off. They didn't want to vote for someone who would try to censor the internet, even if Romney didn't say that personally. The Republican Party officially endorsed that position.
I wouldn't vote just on that issue either, but when you put them all together it seems like one party is for personal freedom and the other one isn't. The Republican Party isn't like that as a whole, but it seems like the evangelicals are the ones currently in control of the party. I have nothing against evangelical Christians either; I just don't want them telling me how to live my personal life. The younger voters feel that way in increasingly higher numbers.
-
11-08-2012, 09:44 PM #246
Not enough to impact an election.
I wouldn't vote just on that issue either, but when you put them all together it seems like one party is for personal freedom and the other one isn't.
If any part of your contention was true, Ron Paul would have huge support during his many presidential bids. The fact is, he doesn't. Let's be honest here -- The things you mention are issues that are important to YOU ... but they aren't issues that largely drive elections.It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
-
11-08-2012, 10:34 PM #247
- Join Date: Apr 2008
- Location: San Jose, California, United States
- Age: 48
- Posts: 2,580
- Rep Power: 4461
When there's less than a 2% difference between the winner and loser, social issues like this most certainly make a difference.
Bloomberg became mayor of New York as a Republican. I don't know what you mean about speech codes, but Republicans want to restrict free speech too. Some of them, anyway. The issues you listed are part of the reason why I'm a Libertarian. Republicans (some) want to let bars set their own smoking policies, but they want to put people in prison for smoking a safer plant. Democrats (some) want people to be free to smoke that safer plant, but they want to make tobacco increasingly expensive and eventually illegal. I'd rather just let people and businesses decide what's best for themselves. The same goes for gun ownership, food, personal relationships, etc.
Ron Paul did have support this time. He did better this time than he ever had, but it wasn't enough to beat Romney. He didn't win partly because of his personality and lack of charisma. A lot of people think he's too extreme on economic issues too. I'm not saying a different candidate with his positions would have won the election, but I am saying the Republicans would do better in a general election if they followed his lead on social tolerance. Every generation is more socially liberal (or socially tolerant) than the one before. Social conservatives just won't do as well in future elections if they hold on to their old views.
-
11-08-2012, 10:39 PM #248Friday night. Date night in Miami. Every night is a date night in Miami, and everyone's having sex. But for me, sex never enters into it. I don't understand sex. Not that I have anything against women, and I certainly have an appropriate sensibility about men, but when it comes to the actual act of sex, it's always just seemed so undignified. But I have to play the game.
-
-
11-08-2012, 11:01 PM #249
- Join Date: Apr 2008
- Location: San Jose, California, United States
- Age: 48
- Posts: 2,580
- Rep Power: 4461
That was part of it. The media did the best they could to ignore him. I don't think he'll run again, but I hope he continues to work to influence the direction of the party. I'm hoping a more charismatic leader with Ron Paul's ideas about limited government emerges as the Republican frontrunner in 2016.
-
11-09-2012, 03:32 AM #250
Yes, but you are making my original point. You want republicans to become democrats on these issues.
Bloomberg became mayor of New York as a Republican. I don't know what you mean about speech codes, but Republicans want to restrict free speech too. Some of them, anyway
Republicans (some) want to let bars set their own smoking policies, but they want to put people in prison for smoking a safer plant.
Ron Paul did have support this time. He did better this time than he ever had, but it wasn't enough to beat Romney. He didn't win partly because of his personality and lack of charisma. A lot of people think he's too extreme on economic issues too. I'm not saying a different candidate with his positions would have won the election, but I am saying the Republicans would do better in a general election if they followed his lead on social tolerance. Every generation is more socially liberal (or socially tolerant) than the one before. Social conservatives just won't do as well in future elections if they hold on to their old views.It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
-
11-09-2012, 03:35 AM #251
Look, I like Ron Paul. I really do. But we have to be honest here. People don't want a libertarian candidate. They just don't. Most people aren't all that keen on legalizing drugs and prostitution, or an isolationist foreign policy. Ron Paul doesn't do well because his views do not resonate with most Americans.
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
-
11-09-2012, 03:47 AM #252
-
-
11-09-2012, 03:49 AM #253
-
11-09-2012, 03:55 AM #254
There IS support for them, I just don't think in terms of national elections, that a strong position on either side of these issues will have much of an impact -- And there are more people against them than for them, which means they aren't really political winners.
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
-
11-09-2012, 05:01 AM #255
-
11-09-2012, 06:15 AM #256
-
-
11-09-2012, 06:31 AM #257
- Join Date: Aug 2007
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 52
- Posts: 35,279
- Rep Power: 44724
I'm not sure we can say no one wants a libertarian candidate. I don't think the people know enough about libertarians because all of the focus in the media and education are on the 2 parties. I was a little surprised that my middle schooler, who is currently learning about the American government, was completely shocked when he went to vote with me and saw that there were more than 2 parties. Until this election, I didn't know much about them, either. I started looking around because I wasn't crazy with either candidate.
I'm not saying that if Americans were as versed in other parties as they were in the democratic and republican parties that they would change and support them. I'm just saying we don't know. Frankly, I don't think many Americans know much about any of the parties and where they stand on anything outside of whatever the media decides to pay attention to.https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=17995794
-
11-09-2012, 07:26 AM #258
I'm all for a Libertarian in a position of power so long as that person is balanced by the other parties. There seems to be a tendency to want to speak in terms of extremes; that is, a government of nothing but Libertarians or any other single party. A balance would be nice.
If the Republicans would move toward (not all the way necessarily) the conservative and tolerant principles of libertarianism they'd have my vote.2 + 2 = 5 (for extremely large values of 2)
Try SCE to AUX
-
11-09-2012, 09:07 AM #259
-
11-09-2012, 09:10 AM #260
-
-
11-09-2012, 09:25 AM #261
-
11-09-2012, 09:32 AM #262
-
11-09-2012, 10:00 AM #263
- Join Date: Dec 2006
- Location: Tempe, Arizona, United States
- Posts: 5,408
- Rep Power: 22388
I don't agree with the ACA. I think people should buy their own health care. My employer has purchased health care for us, but our paychecks are deducted to pay for it, so we are basically paying for it ourselves.
One mandate that I can not believe is that insurance companies are forced to cover people's children through the age of 26. Are you kidding me? 26 as a "kid". That's just ridiculous. I'm 32 I really have no benefit or loss on this particular mandate, but it's still retarded. I'm sure this means some people's insurance will go up to cover their 25 y/o "kid" insurance. It's more crap designed to make people rely on someone else. At age 26 you should be buying your own and not have your parents insurance forced to cover you.
I'm guessing another reason they did that is because many people under the age of 26 would financially qualify for assistance from the government, so they are making their parents pay for it instead.Transformation Log: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=170068283&page=1
Pinecone Fitness: https://www.********.com/Pinecone-Fitness-1635681273361328/
-
11-09-2012, 10:14 AM #264
- Join Date: Jan 2012
- Location: Alabama, United States
- Age: 50
- Posts: 18,105
- Rep Power: 136391
Never thought much about this but what happens if your 25 year old who is still on your insurance ends up pregnant and has a child. Would the grandchild be placed on the insurance as well? Just wondering how all that would work out.
I had my own coverage at age 19 through my employer so if that is the situation you would not be forced to stay on your parents plan right?**DIRTYSOUTHCREW**
#sizeistheprizeswoleisthegoal
-
-
11-09-2012, 10:23 AM #265
- Join Date: Dec 2006
- Location: Tempe, Arizona, United States
- Posts: 5,408
- Rep Power: 22388
-
11-09-2012, 10:31 AM #266
- Join Date: Jun 2009
- Location: Georgia, United States
- Age: 52
- Posts: 3,816
- Rep Power: 29578
No one's taxes should be raised during this economic crisis. If you raise taxes on the rich or corporations they will make cuts to offset them accordingly. Who the hell do you think the majority of middle income and lower income people work for? They work for corporations and rich people. If anyone's taxes are raised...lower and middle income families will suffer.
-
11-09-2012, 10:35 AM #267
-
11-09-2012, 10:37 AM #268
-
-
11-09-2012, 10:37 AM #269
-
11-09-2012, 10:53 AM #270
Bookmarks