or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections - Page 3

post #41 of 172

Grrr, Romney,  changed his WHOLE ENTIRE tax plan according to what he said in the debates. And please, if he didnt know that there are tax deductions for moving corporations overseas, he DOES need a new accountant. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, did anyone know that a few years ago he completely fired three people for wanting to ban formula giveaway bags at hospitals? What a douchebag. 

post #42 of 172

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

Grrr, Romney,  changed his WHOLE ENTIRE tax plan according to what he said in the debates. 

He didn't really change his plan.  He's just lying about what it is.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

And please, if he didnt know that there are tax deductions for moving corporations overseas, he DOES need a new accountant. 

 

truedat.gif

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

Also, did anyone know that a few years ago he completely fired three people for wanting to ban formula giveaway bags at hospitals? What a douchebag. 

Yup.  I mentioned it on page one of the discussion.  Hope you don't mind me making your text a little bigger when I quote you, though.

lactivist.gif

 

 

 

Something that surprised me in the debate, especially considering the current condition of the environment, was Romney's willingness to come right out and say "I like COAL" and to actually *criticize* the President for supporting green energy.  If that is the attitude that appeals to the populace, then that is very frightening.

post #43 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by anjsmama View Post

I am somewhat of a political moderate, although I usually lean towards conservative and consider myself a Republican, I tend to lean heavily toward liberal when it comes to issues of human rights. 

 

I voted for Obama in 2008, not because I liked what he presented at all, but rather because I saw the McCain/Palin team as the world's fastest route to destroy the country. 

 

I will not vote for Obama in 2012. I also absolutely will not vote for Romney, who as a PP said, makes my eye twitch!  Truthfully, I was really hoping that Ron Paul would run independently if he didn't win the Republican nomination, and I think he would be one of the first outside of the two parties to have a legitimate chance. However, his campaign maintains he will not run independent. I will not try to vote "lesser of two evils" again... what a broken system.

 

I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012 even if I have to write it in, because he is the only person in the current political system I believe has the best interests of both the people and the world in mind. He is not blind to what is happening around us, nor is he trying to cover it. In fact, he has predicted the financial collapse and the food crisis and has proposed solutions to both. He has an open stance on health freedom as well - that Americans should be allowed to make our own choices involving food, vaccines, and medical interventions or lack there of.  My vote probably won't "matter" in a true sense, but I won't contribute to the election of either Obama or Romney.

This pretty much sums up what I would've posted but to be honest I am kind of over the whole thing. DH and I are election judges in our tiny township and I get a bigger kick out of counting the votes at the end of the night and getting to know how everyone voted before everyone else does, haha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sustainer View Post

Just watched the first debate.  Boy did I get tired of seeing Romney's smirk.  And is it just me, or did he insist on having the last word on practically every topic, no matter which of them spoke first?

 

C'mon people, let's get this discussion rolling again!  smile.gif

I can't believe how angry the president looked. Although I don't think he was as prepared as he should've been, but also I don't think ANYONE expected Romney to do or say what he did. I felt bad for the moderator. There was like no rhyme or reason to the format. The moderator was kind of a doormat. I get why Romney kept insisting on having the last word if Obama really was lying but I don't really know either way if what Romney said was true or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sustainer View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

Grrr, Romney,  changed his WHOLE ENTIRE tax plan according to what he said in the debates. 

He didn't really change his plan.  He's just lying about what it is.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

And please, if he didnt know that there are tax deductions for moving corporations overseas, he DOES need a new accountant. 

 

truedat.gif

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

Also, did anyone know that a few years ago he completely fired three people for wanting to ban formula giveaway bags at hospitals? What a douchebag. 

Yup.  I mentioned it on page one of the discussion.  Hope you don't mind me making your text a little bigger when I quote you, though.

lactivist.gif

 

 

 

Something that surprised me in the debate, especially considering the current condition of the environment, was Romney's willingness to come right out and say "I like COAL" and to actually *criticize* the President for supporting green energy.  If that is the attitude that appeals to the populace, then that is very frightening.

Did he fire them for wanting to give formula away or because the people wanted to ban giving it away?

 

That was weird when Romney just kind of blurted out, "I like coal!" I thought, huh? But then again 90 billion on green energy that didn't seem to go anywhere (that I know of) is a little excessive.

post #44 of 172

He fired them for wanting to ban formula give away bags. 

 

 

Also, we arent burning clean coal- go visit the people of eastern kentucky and ask their doctors if we are burning clean coal. We arent. 

post #45 of 172
Quote:

Originally Posted by BaileyB View Post
I get why Romney kept insisting on having the last word if Obama really was lying but I don't really know either way if what Romney said was true or not.

The candidates always accuse each other of lying.  That's a given.  But no matter how much one debater objects to what the other just said, they are supposed to take turns with being the first person who gets to speak and being the last person who gets to speak.  They're supposed to get to speak first as many times as the other person, and, more importantly, they're supposed to get to speak last as many times as the other person.  And, overall, they're supposed to get to speak as many times as the other person.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaileyB View PostBut then again 90 billion on green energy that didn't seem to go anywhere (that I know of) is a little excessive.

What seems excessive to me are the tax giveaways and corporate welfare that the Republicans want for the already-rich oil companies.

post #46 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

He fired them for wanting to ban formula give away bags. 

Correct.

 

http://banthebags.org/27/

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

Also, we arent burning clean coal- go visit the people of eastern kentucky and ask their doctors if we are burning clean coal. We arent. 

 

Also true.  There is no such thing as clean coal.

post #47 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaileyB View Post

This pretty much sums up what I would've posted but to be honest I am kind of over the whole thing. DH and I are election judges in our tiny township and I get a bigger kick out of counting the votes at the end of the night and getting to know how everyone voted before everyone else does, haha.

I can't believe how angry the president looked. Although I don't think he was as prepared as he should've been, but also I don't think ANYONE expected Romney to do or say what he did. I felt bad for the moderator. There was like no rhyme or reason to the format. The moderator was kind of a doormat. I get why Romney kept insisting on having the last word if Obama really was lying but I don't really know either way if what Romney said was true or not.

Did he fire them for wanting to give formula away or because the people wanted to ban giving it away?

 

That was weird when Romney just kind of blurted out, "I like coal!" I thought, huh? But then again 90 billion on green energy that didn't seem to go anywhere (that I know of) is a little excessive.

 

The problem with Romney is that he completely changes position nearly everyday.

90 billion in green energy? I guess you're referring to Solyndra. That is a big talking point and it's not widely understood. Solyndra was Bush's baby. He chose that company among many applicants for part of a loan program. There were loose ends with the loan when Obama took office. Obama's administration tied up those loose ends and expanded some of the loan under the stimulus act. At the time, Solyndra was extremely promising. Most solar companies, including those in China who we were competing with, used silicone in their products.Silicone was incredibly expensive at the time. Solyndra came up with a new technique that didn't require silocone. It did well for a while, but then the prices of silicone dropped dramatically and Solyndra was left having the more expensive product. So, it failed eventually. Interesting fact - the very conservative Walton (Wal-Mart) family invested in Solyndra big time. You never hear about that...

Worldwide, oil companies received 409 billion dollars in subsidies  in 2010. Think about it - what should we invest in? Should we invest in renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar, which have a less negative environmental impact. Should we invest in fossil fuels, which we know harms the environment, and are not renewable and WILL run out. What will we do when the oil runs out if we're not prepared to move towards renewable energy. It's a damn shame that the environment has become such a political pawn and that there are large groups of people who think environmentalism is akin to slaughtering babies on some satanic altar.

P.S. Clean coal is like clean poop.

post #48 of 172

Romney scares me. Why would he want to be in charge of the federal government if he doesn't seem to believe it has a purpose, and instead wants to give all power to the states? Really curious about that one. 

post #49 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveandgarbage View Post

Romney scares me. Why would he want to be in charge of the federal government if he doesn't seem to believe it has a purpose, and instead wants to give all power to the states? Really curious about that one. 

Kingship.  :) 

 

I often scratch my head too at all the people running for government positions who toot about being against government, but accept the benefits of their positions and accept any and all deals that they can get from those positions.  They are central to the problem.

post #50 of 172

I think it's prestige he's after. 

 

Bill Maher's theory is that he wants to be the first Mormon president.

 

Here's Jon Stewart on the green energy issue:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjI3Bygvk

post #51 of 172

Obama or Romney? Oromney or Robama? Lol, they are both terrible, so my vote goes to NEITHER!!!!!

    

 

For all you Obama lovers out there, PLEASE read this and let me know what you think. I haven't fact checked this yet, since I just came across it last night. Love to know how wrong it is (or isn't)  http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2012/10/can-it-all-be-coincidence.html   Read it, read it, please debunk it if you can. Don't dismiss it because you don't like what it says. Prove it's wrong. For all of you science lovers out there, ignore your emotions and judge based on facts alone. Can it be done? I do it all the time. I used to like Rand Paul, but when he endorsed Romney I changed my opinion immediately. You do realize it's ok to change your opinion if you're presented with facts that debunk your opinion? Shouldn't we all strive to learn the truth, and not accept anything less? Why so many excuses for these lying politicians? Just because you "like the guy", you overlook the lies and broken promises? headscratch.gif

 

Obama's promise to label GMOs? Lied about it. Put Monsanto's Michael Taylor in the FDA. How's that for a promise. That's abominable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqaaB6NE1TI He's a liar folks, admit it to yourselves. I would divorce my husband if he lied to me like this! Stop making excuses for the man and see him for who he really is. It is unacceptable to vote for him just because you don't like the other guy. Is that what our country has come down to, voting for the lesser of two evils? We deserve better.

 

Republican or Democrat, nothing will change no matter who is in office. With Bush, the country got a stimulus check, and with Obama the country got a free phone. Whoop de do, the country is failing because of terrible decisions throughout the years, and I don't know how it can be saved as long as we are stuck with these awful choices. All the promises a candidate makes on the campaign trail are lies, plain and simple. Obama lied about many of his promises, and Romney will do the same if he's elected.

 

They. are. all. liars. Banker-bailout lying, Wall Street-funded actors. USA has become a terrible reality show. Watch as the Constitution is shredded! It's so entertaining! (NDAA, look it up)

post #52 of 172

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

It is unacceptable to vote for him just because you don't like the other guy.

 

 

 

Boloney.  It is NECESSARY to vote for him because the other guy is worse.

 

Either Obama or Romney is going to become president.  It is our DUTY to vote for the better of the two.

 

If we don't vote for Obama, then Romney will win.  It is a FACT that if there aren't enough people who vote for Obama, then Romney will win.  We must face that fact.  It would be foolish and, indeed, catastrophic not to face that fact.  If we allow the worse of the two "evils" (if you will) to win, that would be -- say it with me -- WORSE.  We must do the best we can do with the situation that we have.  When the only real choices are A and B;  and A is better than B;  the only intelligent thing to do is vote for A.  Otherwise, B will win.  And that would be worse.  WORSE, get it?  I explain this to people every four years, and it is so simple, but there are always people who don't get it.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

 

Quote:
Republican or Democrat, nothing will change no matter who is in office. With Bush, the country got a stimulus check, and with Obama the country got a free phone. 

 

Not true.  If you really pay attention, it is clear that different Presidents have different effects on the world, and those effects are numerous and profound.  The country got a lot more than a free phone under Obama.  It is blatant ignorance to suggest that the only benefits from him were as frivolous as free phones.

 

The economy is in trouble right now because of failed Republican policies.  Obama has been turning things around.  If we put a Republican back in office, he would take us back to the failed policies that put us in a bad position.

 

Obama accomplished many of his promises.  He tried to accomplish others, but he was blocked by the Republicans in Congress.

 

It is a waste of time to complain that both candidates are unacceptable.  There is no "none of the above" option.  Hold your nose and vote for the better one.

 

 

 

 

post #53 of 172

Also, the phone thing...not accurate.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/27/924011/the-truth-about-the-obama-phone/

 

Biased source, I admit, but links to fact check.

post #54 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveandgarbage View Post

Romney scares me. Why would he want to be in charge of the federal government if he doesn't seem to believe it has a purpose, and instead wants to give all power to the states? Really curious about that one. 

Because we are "The United States of America". Notice the name of our country. We are supposed to be a untied grouping of states. The original intention and structure of our government was for the states to have the majority of the power. Federal government was supposed to be there for issues that absolutely needed to be uniform throughout the states.

 

States rights is about putting the power in the hands closest to those of the people as possible. So governance decisions should be made at the lowest level possible. 

 

So a decision about your local school should be made at your school, if it needs to be made higher than that it should be made at your school board level, if it needs to be made higher than that it should be made at your state level, only if it cannot be handled at a more local level should it be handled at a federal level.

 

Honestly, both parties are in favor of too big of government for my taste.

post #55 of 172

You're right AdinaL!

 

"There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush. "

LOL, so Bush gave the country both the stimulus check AND the phone! I guess Obama gave us nothing, except a continuation of Bush's wars, plus a few new (undeclared) wars, continuation of Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and the all-new fabulous NDAA. Romney is guaranteed to continue these as well.

 

Sorry Sustainer, I can't vote for either. Blue crap or red crap is still just.......crap. How do you expect me to vote when I can't tell which one is worse? Did it ever occur to any of you that there might be people who influence whatever pres is in office, so no matter who fills the seat the same agenda will continue?

 

In closing,

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy."

- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

 

Open your mind for a second and ask yourself if this might be true. I believe it is. Until more people realize we've been fooled, nothing will change. Our country will continue to deteriorate, one president at a time.

post #56 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyGG View Post

Because we are "The United States of America". Notice the name of our country. We are supposed to be a untied grouping of states. The original intention and structure of our government was for the states to have the majority of the power.

 

Under the Articles of Confederation, perhaps.  When we adopted the Constitution, the country evolved.  It was settled that more control should be held at the national level.  This gives us more consistency.  If I have the legal right to exercise a certain freedom, I should not lose that right when I cross the border into New Jersey. 

 

You mention schools.  A child in one part of the country should not be in a worse public school system than a child in another part of the country, just because of the local community.  All public school children should have equal opportunity.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

How do you expect me to vote when I can't tell which one is worse?

 

 

Well, you could do more research.  It is obvious from many of your comments, such as 'If Obama didn't give us free phones then I guess he didn't give us anything,' that you lack a great deal of information about the candidates.  However, I was not specifically trying to get YOU to vote.  My goal was to encourage anyone who might be reading the post.  If you really can't tell which of the two major candidates is worse, then feel free not to vote for either of them.  I was only responding to *your* comment that *we* would not be justified in voting for the better of the two candidates who have a chance of winning.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Until more people realize we've been fooled, nothing will change. Our country will continue to deteriorate, one president at a time.

 

 

If you have a plan that would result in a better candidate than Obama having a chance to win a Presidential election, I would be very open to hearing it.  In the mean time, in this particular election that is taking place in less than a month, the only possible winners are Obama and Romney, so the only effective action we can take as voters is to vote for the better one.

post #57 of 172

Oh my goodness, from now on I will let you know when I'm being sarcastic, ok? (re: phone issue)  I could care less about the silly phones, especially since I didn't even get one! What's more important than this distraction is Obama's newest gift to the country.....NDAA. Do you know anything about that? It's much more important than an argument over a free trinket.

 

You do realize there are more than 2 parties in the country, right? Maybe voting for a third party candidate would be a great way to show our distaste for the Republicans and Democrats. If I cannot support the policies presented by either Republican and Democrat candidates, then why should I (or anybody) be expected to vote for the "better one"? How about neither? If you were pro-(fill in the blank)  and both candidates were not, how could you live with yourself if you voted against something you believed in? This is my situation, and I don't like to be bullied into doing something I'm not comfortable with, thank you.

 

So, the plan:

Look up  Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. If you like him better than Oromney or Robama, why not vote for him. And please don't patronize me--I KNOW one of those clowns will win and Gary Johnson won't have a chance. Please, I know. I know. I know.

I know! But if you are looking for a change in the system, you actually have to do something to change the system. Change must begin with the first step.

 

If you think voting third party is a waste, please read this. If you want to continue to debate with me, you should to know my side. Here's a snippet: "We have been deluded in this country into thinking that a Third Party won't work. How? Well, first we're told that if we vote for a third party, we'd be wasting our vote."

Read on if you want to know more about why voting third party is not a waste at all.  http://www.nysthirdparty.com/why.html

post #58 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

You do realize there are more than 2 parties in the country, right? 

 

There are only two parties that have a chance of winning the Presidential election.

 

 

 

Quote:
Maybe voting for a third party candidate would be a great way to show our distaste for the Republicans and Democrats.

 

 

I agree with the Green Party more than I agree with the Democratic Party.  But if I actually VOTED for the Green Party, that would be a great way to help the Republican candidate, whose views are further away from the Green Party's views, defeat the Democratic candidate, whose views are closer to the Green Party's views.  The Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate are the only candidates with a chance to win the Presidential election.

 

 

 

Quote:
If I cannot support the policies presented by either Republican and Democrat candidates, then why should I (or anybody) be expected to vote for the "better one"?

 

 

Because one of them is going to be the President.  And we have a choice which one.  And one is better and the other is worse.  No one else has a chance of winning.  Either the Democrat is going to win or the Republican is going to win.  I really don't know how to state this any clearer.

 

 

 

Quote:
How about neither?

 

 

Because that's not an option.  "Neither" is not one of our realistic choices.  I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but one of them is going to win.  Either the Democrat or the Republican.

 

 

 

Quote:
If you were pro-(fill in the blank)  and both candidates were not, how could you live with yourself if you voted against something you believed in?

 

 

Very easily.  Because there are only 2 real choices, and one of them is better and the other is worse.  So I'm going to pick the better one.  That's all there is to it.  To my knowledge, there is not a single other person on this Earth who has the exact same opinion that I have about every issue under the sun.  

 

 

 

Quote:
I don't like to be bullied into doing something I'm not comfortable with, thank you.

 

 

Maybe you didn't see what I said in my last post, but I am not specifically trying to get YOU to vote for the Democrat or the Republican.  Do whatever you want in the election.  I have simply been defending my own position and my own decision.  You are the one who has been saying things like "Stop making excuses for the man and see him for who he really is. It is unacceptable to vote for him just because you don't like the other guy."

 

 

 

Quote:

why not vote for him. And please don't patronize me--I KNOW one of those clowns will win and Gary Johnson won't have a chance. Please, I know. I know. I know.

I know! But if you are looking for a change in the system, you actually have to do something to change the system.

 

 

 Yup, you just answered your own question.  Why not vote for him?  Because he's not going to win.  He can't win against Obama and Romney.  As you said, he doesn't have a chance.  And you know that.  And here's what you need to realize:

 

Voting for a third party candidate will NOT change the system.  Not at all.  Not even a little bit.  It won't have any effect on it.  The ONLY thing that a voter would accomplish by voting for a third party candidate instead of voting for someone who actually has a chance of winning, is to make it more likely that the next President will be the candidate whose views are FURTHER from that voter's views, instead of the viable candidate whose views are closer to the voter's views.  That's it.

 

I am in favor of changing the election system so that more than 2 parties have a chance.  But the actions that need to be taken to bring about such a change cannot be taken in the voting booth.  What we need to do is educate the public about instant run-off voting, and then demand instant run-off voting from our Congress members.  In the mean time, we’re just going to make matters worse if we allow the worse of the two viable candidates to win, by casting our vote for someone other than the better of the two viable candidates.

post #59 of 172

Actually a third party candidate has won the presidency before and one will probably win again. This elections cycle? Probably not.

 

The first two major political parties in this country were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists eventually became a minor political party and eventually ceased. The Democratic-Republicans became the Democrats and Republicans. This happened when a third party (Republican - Abraham Lincoln) won the presidential race.

 

Check out this chart - there has been more than once that a third party candidate got a significant portion of the votes - http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/3rdparties.html

 

With the polarity that our parties are exhibiting right now I'm guessing it won't be long before we see some new political parties take the forefront. It's possible that with the information systems available to most Americans that it won't be a single party replacing another major party this time, but an increase in all third party voters resulting in something other than a two party system. 


Edited by JollyGG - 10/11/12 at 1:19pm
post #60 of 172

Thanks JollyGG.

 

Sustainer, let's declare this a stalemate. We disagree, and that's that.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections