Poll: Would you vote for a presdential republican candidate...

lumenadducere

New member
May 19, 2008
593
0
0
Nope. With Republican Congressmen vowing before coming into office to not repeal the Bush tax cuts, to roll back the healthcare bill, and on top of all that voting not to approve the net neutrality bill that the FCC put forth, I have more issues with them than just their ass-backwards social and religious views. Their economic policies are laughable and they clearly have no care whatsoever for the 98% of the US population that isn't cutting them checks.
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
I vote for who I see as the best candidate. Their religion or lack thereof does not matter to me.
 

Glerken

New member
Dec 18, 2008
1,539
0
0
smallthemouse said:
I don't think Obama is really a Christian, and that he, just like the majority of US presidents, does it for the votes.
Yea, I think he went to church his entire life because of the off chance he may become president one day.

This kid's got the idea.

Also, how 'bout that birth certificate?
 

aashell13

New member
Jan 31, 2011
547
0
0
how about implementing an alternative vote system so a candidate who isn't beholden to the two party political machine can have half a chance of getting elected?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

take a gander.
 

hyzaku

New member
Mar 1, 2010
143
0
0
How about we just let the two party system die? Preferably in a massive fire. I can't be the only one sick of the rampant bullshit that goes on because of the party system. There should be no political parties, period. You run on what you believe not what you are told to believe by the rich bastards funding you. While we are at it, screw lobbying, screw any and all funding schemes. I would gladly pay a bit more in taxes to let the government provide perfectly equal "advertising" for each candidate.

Ug, I'm stopping now before I go into a full on rant.
 

Vash108

New member
Jul 18, 2008
232
0
0
I just wish the Two party system would go away because they both suck and do whatever to help "their side" at the cost of the tax payers.
 

Ham_authority95

New member
Dec 8, 2009
3,496
0
0
SaneAmongInsane said:
That was an atheist? He shares the same views as most of the Republican party except for the ones backed by theology. Not necessarily pro-gay marriage, more apathetic to it then anything else.

And for the sake of keeping the argument legitimate, this candidate is crazy rich so he can afford to run with out the help of lobbyists funding. Also he publicly states that while he lacks a "christian" moral compass he lives by a code of What Would Superman Do? ("You believe in your fictional character, I'll believe in mine" he defends)

The person running against him on the democratic ticket is Obama.

This is probably a poor discussion topic, I was just thinking to myself that though I agree with the republican party on some very major fundamental things (Small government) their extreme non-secular opinions on things like Gay marriage is something I can't compromise on (as well as certain social changes I agree with)
The persons religion is such a non-issue to me that I feel like I'm wasting my time by responding in this thread.

I will vote for whoever I think will do the job right. If it happens to be an Atheist, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Scientologist, whatever, than so be it.
 

Zenn3k

New member
Feb 2, 2009
1,323
0
0
I'll never vote for a republican, but I can't see myself voting for Obama again. He hasn't done JACK.
 

smallthemouse

New member
Feb 21, 2011
117
0
0
Glerken said:
smallthemouse said:
I don't think Obama is really a Christian, and that he, just like the majority of US presidents, does it for the votes.
Yea, I think he went to church his entire life because of the off chance he may become president one day.

This kid's got the idea.

Also, how 'bout that birth certificate?
You're right, that instantly makes me a birther.

Im sure he's "Christian," but when was the last time you heard him say "I'm gona go pray that this happens" like a certain recent president use to do.
 

Jabberwock King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
320
0
0
zarix2311 said:
Jabberwock King said:
Fuck no. Keynesian Economics FTW! Reaganomics is shit, and if you disagree with me... I'll explain why.
okay I'll bite, why?
Because John Maynard Keynes was awesome and suspected to have had insider information from a time traveler (joking).
But seriously, he was the British treasuries representative to the 1919 Versailles peace conference. It was there that he predicted that reparations demanded from Germany for WWI were at least 10 times the amount they could ever hope to repay, the German economy would collapse, and lead to radical political upheaval that would effect all of Europe. He was pretty much ignored, only to be proven right. This happened so many times it seems like he was perfect for this trope, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoMereWindmill , why he is not included is odd to me.
I believe this quote best proves my statement:

"If we aim deliberately at the impoverishment of Central Europe, vengeance, I dare predict, will not limp. Nothing can then delay for very long that final war between the forces of Reaction and the despairing convulsions of Revolution, before which the horrors of the late German war will fade into nothing."

There are several other examples of his remarkable foresight that I could cite, but that would make this post too long. As for policy, I'll have to get to that another time.
 

Jabberwock King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
320
0
0
101194 said:
Jabberwock King said:
Fuck no. Keynesian Economics FTW! Reaganomics is shit, and if you disagree with me... I'll explain why.
Austrian economics, Now I leave the room while you exploit the financial system to exploit your workers.
I find your statement deeply puzzling. What you just described was a common side-effect of laissez-faire economics. Keynesian economics is a system designed to save capitalism from it's greatest enemy, itself.

EDIT: Wait a minute, I may have misinterpreted what you meant. Could you clarify?
 

Jabberwock King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
320
0
0
smallthemouse said:
Glerken said:
smallthemouse said:
I don't think Obama is really a Christian, and that he, just like the majority of US presidents, does it for the votes.
Yea, I think he went to church his entire life because of the off chance he may become president one day.

This kid's got the idea.

Also, how 'bout that birth certificate?
You're right, that instantly makes me a birther.

I'm sure he's "Christian," but when was the last time you heard him say "I'm gonna go pray that this happens" like a certain recent president use to do.
I would argue that he downplays Christian rhetoric because (A) overly dramatic emphasis on religion tends to alienate his voter base, and (B) he sees that making policies from a Christian centric viewpoint ignores the fact that America is a country for all people, so the views of other factions should be taken into account.

P.S. I fixed the spelling in the quote because I'm obsessed with making things "NEAT UND TIDY".
 

101194

New member
Nov 11, 2008
5,015
0
0
Jabberwock King said:
101194 said:
Jabberwock King said:
Fuck no. Keynesian Economics FTW! Reaganomics is shit, and if you disagree with me... I'll explain why.
Austrian economics, Now I leave the room while you exploit the financial system to exploit your workers.
I find your statement deeply puzzling. What you just described was a common side-effect of laissez-faire economics. Keynesian economics is a system designed to save capitalism from it's greatest enemy, itself.

EDIT: Wait a minute, I may have misinterpreted what you meant. Could you clarify?
I have moon walked out, I'm going to assume you've read "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" my profession isn't economics, but economic equality that happens in Keynesian exploits the worker in the worst possible way, by attacking his paycheck through interest. Devalue work much?
 

Jabberwock King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
320
0
0
101194 said:
Jabberwock King said:
101194 said:
Jabberwock King said:
Fuck no. Keynesian Economics FTW! Reaganomics is shit, and if you disagree with me... I'll explain why.
Austrian economics, Now I leave the room while you exploit the financial system to exploit your workers.
I find your statement deeply puzzling. What you just described was a common side-effect of laissez-faire economics. Keynesian economics is a system designed to save capitalism from it's greatest enemy, itself.

EDIT: Wait a minute, I may have misinterpreted what you meant. Could you clarify?
I have moon walked out, I'm going to assume you've read "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" my profession isn't economics, but economic equality that happens in Keynesian exploits the worker in the worst possible way, by attacking his paycheck through interest. Devalue work much?
I believe I understand now where one might get that idea. Keynesian economic principles advise for increasing taxes or reducing spending during a period of growth in order to limit the effects of inflation, the 2nd benefit of such a policy is that the government generates a surplus of wealth in preparation for the inevitable "bust". When such a bust occurs, middle and lower income families ball up and engage in excessive savings. To ease the burden and encourage consumer demand the government is to reverse tax/spending policies to free up resources for consumers.
It is generally expected that this method will drain the aforementioned surplus or turn into deficit spending, but the benefits of extricating oneself from a scorpion infested hole far outweigh the detriments of deficit spending.
 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
Didn't entirely scan this, but I find it interesting that if we go back two leaders in the UK, Tony Blair only 'came out' as publicly being an active Christian after leaving office, as he knew it would count against him. It's kind of strange how two countries so close as the UK and US can be so different on such a major issue.

I just wish there was a way to not HAVE a leader of a party, or have one but not have his identity made public, so people had to vote on the policies of the party, and not whether he might be looking a bit too foreign or might not believe in the same God as me, or what sexuality or class he is, or whether I think his hair was born in the US, or an illegally imported exotic species. (yes, I'm talking about Trump).

People were sold the idea that AV was too complex for the regular man in the street in the UK, can you imagine how many millions of people would get brain strain if they had to make a decision based on the policies, rather than whether they like red or blue?

Hell, I'd disguise the entire thing, in the style of one of those old 'blind taste tests' Pepsi ads, and have 'Party A is commited to *list of policies* whereas Party B is going to *list of policies*. Make people actually read and think. No campaigns either, they're allowed to write and formulate their list, and then hand it in, but not allowed to spend any money promoting Party A or B.

Unfortunately I believe it would lead to the lowest voter turnout in world history.