1. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Cultural Settlement - Feudal Japan

    Arising from the Sengoku period of Feudal Japan, the clan of Akechi Mitsuhide has requested your help.
    As the Daimyo of his village, it is your task to lead the Feudal Japan to prosperity! Detailed information here!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Changelog 1.157

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.157 will take place on Wed, July 24, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Presidential Election?

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by Cincinnatus, Aug 3, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cincinnatus

    Cincinnatus Guest

    Can we express our views without it becoming a flame-fest?
     
  2. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Way to start it out. Well since you didn't actually post a discussion my response is...
    Presidential Election
     
  3. Cincinnatus

    Cincinnatus Guest

    Well, I have to admit to being rather reluctant to start this being new to the community but I figured I'd dip my toes in the water and see how it goes since nobody else had touched it and we're at Countdown to the 2012 Presidential Election
     
  4. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    I will respond, when you offer an opinion :D
     
  5. Cincinnatus

    Cincinnatus Guest

    I am a fire-breathing libertarian leaning Constitutional Conservative who can't think of one policy Obama has implemented, or attempted to implement that I supported.
     
  6. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    And there u have it. So the alternative is a Republican who not only argues for everything the previous President implemented that was unconstitutional, but also served as the catalyst for many of the things the present President implemented that was unsuccessfully challenged as unconstitutional.

    Perhaps before you leap, you should look...
     
  7. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    You think maybe part of the problem, no, all of the problem is perhaps government has become super polarized, and thus nothing can be compromised on, and thus everything is teeth pulling, and thus it is all partisan, and thus it is not in the best interest for the country as a whole? Do you think maybe Romney will be just as guilty, but on the other end of the spectrum?
     
  8. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    I tend to think that the Republican party is the one that has drifted the most from the center. I'm pretty sure the Democratic party will probably have shifted away from it to some degree as well, but when you look at the Republican party of today, it is incredibly different and far more to the right than the more centered Republican party two decades ago.

    And as for Obama, I am certainly disappointed in many ways, but unfortunately that is what we have: the lesser of two evils. Well, not exactly evils, but you get the point.
     
  9. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    I disagree Daniel. The Democrats of the Clinton era, were not as polarized. It isn't about who has moved the farthest from the center, not sure where you picked that vibe up out of my response...but whatever, moving on, it is about both sides being able to meet in the middle. In that scenario, BOTH sides are equally at fault.
     
  10. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    "Trying to meet in the middle" is exactly what poisoned some of the universal healthcare mandates and pushed them askew of their original intentions.
     
  11. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    I disagree. I think that what happened there was both sides dug in their heels and gave as little as possible....on principle or whatever reason they did, but neither side put that much of an effort to make it worth while. It was a grudge match from day one...a wizzing match if you will, and it turned out so poorly because the ends were on such opposite ends of the rope, and threw the crap into the mix to say "hey we tried."

    If their original intentions had been pure, they would have found legit compromise.....
     
  12. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Well then I suppose I'll have to be a bit offensive and say you really weren't following the entire healthcare event as it unfolded because your summation, at least in regards to this, is off the mark.

    Returning to "Presidential Election," the topic of this thread, where do we find comfort? In the examination of Congressional shenanigans or in the compromises of Presidents? Obviously not the former, and yet the latter is exactly the issue that serves as a two-edged blade, cutting both for and against the President, as he compromised on some core principles to a hostile GOP to gain other core principles. On a bad not, this is what the President did. But, on a good note, much of what he compromised on also hurt the GOP for their support of such compromises, like extending Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy, extending some parts of Bush's Patriot Act, etc and so on. In each compromise, he made a tactical trade-off. So while many libertarians are at arms for such things, in truth they should be at arms against the GOP for having forced such disreputable compromises on the President.

    And do consider, a GOP President wouldn't compromise on such issues, precisely because a GOP President would be advocating such. So I find it ironic there are citizens raging against such compromises, and the President who accepted such compromises, when the alternative is a President (GOP) that would maintain the very things these citizens are raging against.

    Frankly, it's as if common sense is taking a back seat to kneejerk emotional responses.
     
  13. well like mt grandfather always said the country cant stand having a good economy thats why they always vote for republicans to put us back in the hole as soon as democrates get us out.
    -----------
    http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

    as you can see as i just skimmed across the table and unemployment is higher with republicans and they national debt is higher. and as you take a look at the table you will see that republicans are heavier on your wallet then democrats.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2012
  14. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    I don't dislike the Healthcare law, I just don't think it went far enough, and I don't think it will work....but neither is that my major concern, more so is the whole budget issue. The healthcare bill increased our debt, and the morons in Washington can't get a budget passed. Will I go into details..no, because the debate isn't about congress. My point was, no matter which president we choose, the lines have been drawn and whoever wins is in for a dog fight with whoever wins congress. I am a republican, but I fear that after the last time Republicans ruled both congress and the white house. I dislike the thought of all the democratic socialism that will happen if the same thing happens with an all democratic government....so while I don't mind some of the things Obama has done, and I blame the republicans for A LOT of the nonsense going on right now. I dislike Romney, I dislike the stupidity of the Republican party, but I have to ask myself do I dislike them enough to let the democrats have at it again.....

    I miss the Reagan / Clinton days where you could disagree and find common ground to keep things going.....You don't have that now.
     
  15. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Yeah well racism, elitism, religiousism, and corporations' paid propaganda have surely posed a tremendous toll on the welfare and sanity of the American citizenry. Kinda hard to find logical, reasoned voters these days.
     
  16. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. lookie who is trolling me!!!!! You looking for a fight? I can't give you one :p
    I am not sure I am even voting for Romney this round....
     
  17. Dark Lotus

    Dark Lotus Guest

    OH NO HERO DID'NT!!! I think you have that backwards. You love posting your links. Go look at what the numbers were as far as unemployment, interest rates and things when Jimmy Carter was president. Then look at what they were with Reagan after he beat Carter. Sure you can look at 20 year spans on a chart, but they do not factor in the the numbers for Clinton were so good since he was riding the coat tails of Reagan. Clinton was actually not bad during his second term (when he came more center). That is what President Obama has to do. Even tho no president has ever had the bad numbers that President Obama has, and got reelected, I bet President Obama will (Carter actually had better approval numbers and lost by a land slide). The reason will not be that is President Obama is so bad (the far left dislikes him just as much as the far right) it will be that the Republicans offered up the worst candidate to run. I will abstain my vote this time. Neither one of them has the savvy to get things done in Washington. President Obama is very savvy on the streets. But those bully, thug type Chicago politics do not do well in the capital, and that is all he knows.
     
  18. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    Dark, what a load of nonsense, and you've missed the mark there too Hero. As others have acknowledged throughout the thread, alot has changed in twenty years, so let's look at what's on the table today. Over the past presidential term, the biggest drain on the government budget has been stimulus spending (and interest from resulting debt) in response to the global financial crisis, which was triggered by the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble. If you do want to lay blame then you'll have to examine numerous factors attributed to both sides. The obvious ones Wikipedia cites would be the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act (Ronald Reagan, Republican), Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (Bill Clinton, Democrat) and finally 'Mania' for home ownership spurred on by George W. Bush's (Republican) "aggressive housing agenda". Neither side has clean hands, but looking forward at this presidential election, only one has come with a cloth to clean the mess they've made. (And no, incase you didn't catch on there, it's not those still shouting "deregulate the world, small government!")

    I must also call your two bluffs there Dom. Firstly despite the truth behind the increasing polarization from the traditional American center, you cannot 'diss' Obamacare in one sentence and then critique it did not go far enough in another. It was precisely because the democrats did compromise on their original plan that the act does nothing to alter the capitalist behind the U.S. health care system. Secondly, if you acknowledge that the republicans have strayed further from the center than the democrats, why should blame be laid equally? That would be like saying Bush is at equal fault for September 11 as Al Qaeda since both have non-center ideologies that conflicted. If we assume that whoever strays from the center path is "at fault" for failing to compromise, it is only logical that whoever strays furthest, adopting the most 'unreasonable' position, is most at fault.

    Btw, the heck is up with the presidential election system? Why bother with the nominating process; we should just let parties field multiple candidates and use a preferential voting system to compensate for the intra-party split.
     
  19. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    (( With respect to all participants, and to keep this thread on-topic, I request to continue further debate on Universal Healthcare / Obamacare in a separate thread located here ---> Let's Talk Obamacare, where Dark Lotus has posed a meaty rebuttal. ))

    Apologies for the interruption, please continue debating the U.S. Presidential Election ...
     
  20. angelwerks

    angelwerks Guest

    The fact that the threat started about Obama and how he has disappointed one person about what he didn't do is missed. Actually, I agree. He had a hard time getting both houses to play ball with anything he did. That, and the fact that he was given a nation that was run aground by a previous party, didn't help. Unfortunately for him, he will manage to get nothing done should this continue. Unlike Clinton, who changed his direction while in office, he doesn't have a majority. And won't, as long as there is a complete and factually unsupported right wing saying, "No!", to anything he does. Some governors have gone as far as to NOT accept the Federal aid to the unemployment benefits and employment funds. Reason? Well, the Republicans must stick together, even if it means no relief for the people's they are responsible for.
    It will change when we say,,, ENOUGH!
    Which brings me to this next topic...
    the electoral college, how archaic is it? and who does it really benefit?
     

Top
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.