US Presidential Election Poll

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

Presidential Election '12 Poll

Barack Obama (incumbent) Democrat
31
61%
Mitt Romney - Republican
10
20%
Gary Johnson - Libertarian
1
2%
Jill Stein - Green
3
6%
Ron Paul - Republican (actually Libertarian)
6
12%
Virgil Goode - Constitution
0
No votes
Rocky Anderson - Justice
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 51
User avatar
AIRburst95
level3
level3
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Seattle(ish), WA

US Presidential Election Poll

Postby AIRburst95 » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:02 am

No matter whether you are eligible to vote or not, this election WILL have an effect on the entire world. So this poll will determine, in the IV community, who we want as the next leader of the United States of America.

-Pro's and Con's- (feel free to comment on other pros and cons, but for now these are just my opinions.)

Barack Obama - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Pros - Scaled (and still scaling) back America's and Russia's nuclear arsenal by 50% (new START)
Led America out of the Great Recession
Supports modern civil rights
Supports unions
Severely crippled Al Qaeda and their leadership
Scaling back the wars caused by Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom

Cons - Didn't keep over half the promises he made before the election in '08 (includes GTMO)
Supported and signed the NDAA actively violating the constitution
Let the United States fall from a AAA economy to a AA economy.
Pursued illegal action against Iran and its nuclear program (debatable whether a Con or Pro)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mitt Romney - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

Pros - Despite opposition still states what his opinions on other republicans are without fear
Superior business experience
Supports small business
Religious diversity
Plan to actually fix the economy

Cons - Severe misunderstanding of 47% of the country
Flip - Flopper
Inferior foreign policy
Inferior scientific policy (Yes I made that up but its true)
Pro-Life & Anti-Planned Parenthood

"The guy gives 30% of his income. He spent two years in unpaid missionary service. He's spent years in unpaid ecclesiastical roles, including as a Stake President, which typically takes about at least 15-20 hours a week, and puts him on call 24/7. While at Bain, he once stopped the company business and dedicated its full time (as well as that of their accounting firm) to canvas the streets looking for the missing daughter of an employee. She was found because of those efforts, drugged in a basement and hours from death. He's also the only president in living memory who's never done drugs, been drunk, cheated on his wife, or been divorced. "
- Feud

"Well let's not forget he is (as a mormon bishop) against same sex rights in EVERY way possible. Wants to interfere with planned parenthood to essentially remove it, claims he has a five point plan to fix the economy, yet it's the same plan as both previous Bushs and all they did was plunge the US economy into a mess, he's anti education and anti-science, and is on record as saying that Russia is a big threat to the US, and last but not least wants to remove the separation of church and state. "

- Rkiver

Mitt Romeny's Book -
I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary Johnson - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill Stein - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Paul - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

"Now on economic issues, he's pretty much in line with the Libertarians. And with foreign policy, he's more or less in line with them too. But on some key issues, the man is not a libertarian. He's an authoritarian."
-Kudayta

"calling Ron Paul an authoritarian is silly. That's like saying that the hippie trying to trade you love beads for a new tie dye shirt is a capitalist."
-Feud

"Ron Paul has been a public figure for decades, he has said many things in many circumstances and contexts. That he might not chose to limit how he speaks to the official libertarian national party platform at all times isn't surprising."
-Feud

Quick Fact - Did you know that Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution? He's also somehow a doctor in medicine. Yeah, not kidding...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virgil Goode - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Goode

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rocky Anderson - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson
Last edited by AIRburst95 on Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:15 am, edited 14 times in total.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:53 am

Nuke W(h)ales
User avatar
kudayta
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 945
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:25 pm

Postby kudayta » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:11 am

You list Ron Paul as "actually libertarian". Here's a quote from Ron Paul:

Ron Paul on December 30, 2003 wrote:"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."


Here's the actual Libertarian Party position:

The Libertarian Party Platform wrote:We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion


Here's another from the Congressman:

Ron Paul said on June 3, 2003 wrote:"...my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court."


Here's the Libertarian Party position:

The Libertarian Party Platform wrote:We support full freedom of expression...


Ron Paul introduced the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2011", which would define a human life as beginning at conception and therefore banning abortions.

Here's the Libertarian Party's position on abortion:

The Libertarian Party Platform wrote:Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.


Now on economic issues, he's pretty much in line with the Libertarians. And with foreign policy, he's more or less in line with them too. But on some key issues, the man is not a libertarian. He's an authoritarian.
User avatar
AIRburst95
level3
level3
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Seattle(ish), WA

Postby AIRburst95 » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:23 am

kudayta wrote:You list Ron Paul as "actually libertarian". Here's a quote from Ron Paul:

Ron Paul on December 30, 2003 wrote:"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."


Here's the actual Libertarian Party position:

The Libertarian Party Platform wrote:We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion


Here's another from the Congressman:

Ron Paul said on June 3, 2003 wrote:"...my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court."


Here's the Libertarian Party position:

The Libertarian Party Platform wrote:We support full freedom of expression...


Ron Paul introduced the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2011", which would define a human life as beginning at conception and therefore banning abortions.

Here's the Libertarian Party's position on abortion:

The Libertarian Party Platform wrote:Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.


Now on economic issues, he's pretty much in line with the Libertarians. And with foreign policy, he's more or less in line with them too. But on some key issues, the man is not a libertarian. He's an authoritarian.


I cannot change the poll, but your quote has been added under the Ron Paul Bio section, thank you for commenting . :)
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:04 am

First, your initial posting is amusingly biased.

Second, I don't think that the Ron Paul/Libertarian by kudayta is accurate.

On the issue of religion: there's no conflict between those two statements. Claiming that there isn't a constitutional prohibition on something is not the same as saying that the government should do it.

On the issue of flag burning: there's no conflict between those statements. Ron Paul isn't advocating banning flag burning in what you quoted, he's saying that states should have the sovereignty to regulate it independently of the federal government. Advocating the right to do something isn't the same as advocating it, and shifting governmental regulatory from national to state government is distinctly libertarian.

On the issue of abortion: there's no conflict between those two statements. You are mistaken on what the bill does, the legislation you cited would remove federal judicial authority to regulate abortion. Instead, states would be free to act independently of federal judicial oversight in the matter. It does not make abortion illegal, and as stated above, advocating that the ability to regulate be transferred from one level of government to another is not the same as advocating that something actually be regulated.

I'm not a Ron Paul fan, and I'm no longer a libertarian, but you are mistaken in your comparisons of the two. Also, calling Ron Paul an authoritarian is silly. That's like saying that the hippie trying to trade you love beads for a new tie dye shirt is a capitalist.
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:06 pm

According to some test I did I sided most with Gary Johnson so I voted for him in this poll. Also I'm not that a big fan of the two party system so I'll support a third party candidate in the poll.

On a slightly related note: whatever happened to Ralph Nader?
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:16 pm

Feud wrote:On the issue of religion: there's no conflict between those two statements. Claiming that there isn't a constitutional prohibition on something is not the same as saying that the government should do it.

The Libertarian party position seems pretty clear: there should be a clear separation between church and state. Paul's position is that there is no evidence in the constitution or in the writings of the founding fathers that suggests that such a separation was intended. Certainly there is no conflict between those two statements, but if Paul's position is in line with that of the Libertarian party, why wouldn't he just say so? Either he does not believe that there should be such a separation, or he is pandering to a religious audience. In the first case, his opinion is unpalatable (to me, at least), and in the second case he is a liar. In either case, his comments are inconsistent with a clear separation of church and state.

Feud wrote:On the issue of flag burning: there's no conflict between those statements. Ron Paul isn't advocating banning flag burning in what you quoted, he's saying that states should have the sovereignty to regulate it independently of the federal government. Advocating the right to do something isn't the same as advocating it, and shifting governmental regulatory from national to state government is distinctly libertarian.

Either flag burning is an expression of speech, in which case the 1st and 14th amendments protect it, regardless of jurisdiction, or it is not an expression of speech, in which case it could be a state issue. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that flag burning is an expression of speech which is protected under the 1st and 14th amendments, hence constitutionally protected free speech. Paul claims that it was unconstitutional of the Supreme Court to decide this way, but I don't see any way in which their constitutional duty was violated. Perhaps you could explain it?

At any rate, I believe that the court made the correct decision and that anyone who is trying to pass the decision making off to the states is trying to make an end run around the constitutional process. Again, this is not in line with a platform of free expression.

Feud wrote:On the issue of abortion: there's no conflict between those two statements. You are mistaken on what the bill does, the legislation you cited would remove federal judicial authority to regulate abortion. Instead, states would be free to act independently of federal judicial oversight in the matter. It does not make abortion illegal, and as stated above, advocating that the ability to regulate be transferred from one level of government to another is not the same as advocating that something actually be regulated.

Again, devoid of context, you are correct---there is no technical conflict between the statements. However, you are ignoring the effect of allowing the states to regulate termination services. In many states, such services would be outlawed outright, leading to the situation we had prior to Roe v Wade in those states. People in the anti-choice camp want this outcome, hence supporting the idea that abortion is a state issue is tacitly supporting the anti-choice side of the aisle. If Paul supports choice, he should say so. As above, his statement is either a prevarication or outright pandering. In either case, he is not expressing an opinion in line with the Libertarian party platform.

xander
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:43 pm

You keep saying that if he meant "x" then he should say so. It should be noted that the discussion is limited at this point to the quotes that were picked and used. Ron Paul has been a public figure for decades, he has said many things in many circumstances and contexts. That he might not chose to limit how he speaks to the official libertarian national party platform at all times isn't surprising.

For all three of your points you seem to be taking the stance of "if he doesn't want it regulated by the government, why would he have an issue with the federal government protecting it?" By moving it from the federal to state forum, it seems to be trying to get around those protections. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that seems to be your overall point.

That isn't a bad point, but it's not necessarily consistent with constitutional libertarian thought. In such thought the federal government is by nature larger and more distant from the individual than more local governments, and empowering it for even those things which are good grow it. By growing it, you thus risk that growth and power being abused, with less accountability or close oversight than more local governments. Further, even if it's a something you agree with, if you bend the constitution to allow it when you like it means that the constitution may be bent for things you don't like.

For many libertarian constitutionalists, it's not just about the issues. The process, the forum, and the authority by which those issues are pursued or protected is just as important, and for them it is wrong to use the processes that they oppose even for that which they might champion and love.

It's not at all inconsistent of Ron Paul to say that states, not the federal government, should have the power to regulate something, only to then say that the state has no business regulating it. I'm not on the Ron Paul train, I have no great desire to defend him, but there isn't an inconsistency in what was presented and the libertarian platform. And, even if evidence were shown, it would have to be pretty substantial. I'm not sure who the libertarian thought police are, but I'd be curious as to what degree of differences from a national political platform disqualifies someone from being part of the general ideological movement.
User avatar
AIRburst95
level3
level3
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Seattle(ish), WA

Postby AIRburst95 » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:13 pm

I don't know what party Ron Paul now belongs to but it is obvious that he at least used to belong to the Libertarian Party, and as for an argument that he is authoritarian I think this is foolish, if he were an authoritarian that would mean he is in line with fascism, and he's not.

Personally I voted for Jill Stein because she holds most of my values concerning science and the environment which are my two most important issues aside from overpopulation of the planet (which isnt a talking point mind you). I think if I were forced to vote however I would vote for Romney. Why not give him a chance? Hell, i'm a leftist authoritarian myself and if i'm willing then so can everyone else.
User avatar
AndersBreivik
level2
level2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:21 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Postby AndersBreivik » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:54 pm

obama has to go, its time for you Amercians to go back to a president that the rest of the world can hate.
the last few years have been very confusing for us all, for all we know the next thing you guys will do is appoint a woman for the job...


Image
User avatar
AIRburst95
level3
level3
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Seattle(ish), WA

Postby AIRburst95 » Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:07 pm

-update-

Feud I updated a couple quotes of yours under the Ron Paul Bio. I also added a quick fact from me. :P
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:30 am

EDIT: I fell for a fake news story. Feel free to point fingers and laugh at me like I'm a fat kid in a speedo at the swimming pool.
Last edited by zjoere on Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
whodat30
level0
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:34 am

Postby whodat30 » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:59 pm

kudayta wrote:You list Ron Paul as "actually libertarian". Here's a quote from Ron Paul:

Ron Paul on December 30, 2003 wrote:"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."


Here's the actual Libertarian Party position:

The Libertarian Party Platform wrote:We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion


Here's another from the Congressman:

Ron Paul said on June 3, 2003 wrote:"...my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court."


Here's the Libertarian Party position:

The Libertarian Party Platform wrote:We support full freedom of expression...


Ron Paul introduced the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2011", which would define a human life as beginning at conception and therefore banning abortions.

Here's the Libertarian Party's position on abortion:

The Libertarian Party Platform wrote:Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.


Now on economic issues, he's pretty much in line with the Libertarians. And with foreign policy, he's more or less in line with them too. But on some key issues, the man is not a libertarian. He's an authoritarian.


hey you know libertarian is not a party in reality. libertarian is an ideal.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:24 pm

whodat30 wrote:hey you know libertarian is not a party in reality. libertarian is an ideal.

That is just nonsense. Demoncracy is an ideal, as well. But there is a Democratic party. Rebuplicanism is an ideal. But there is a Republican party. Socialism is an ideal. But there is a socialist party. There is idealogical libertarianism, and there is an organized Libertarian party.

xander
User avatar
The Mighty Santa
level2
level2
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:16 pm
Location: North Pole

Postby The Mighty Santa » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:12 pm

Obviously Abraham Lincoln is going to win this election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests