Who whould you vote for in the 2012 presidential election? - Page 6 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

View Poll Results: MT 2012 Presidential Poll:
President Obama 11 21.57%
GOP candidate 31 60.78%
Third party candidate 9 17.65%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-01-2012, 11:50 PM   #101
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,038
Total Cats: 407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparetire View Post
That would be....nobody.

Nobody has the ***** or inclination (no pun intended..OK maybe sorta) to handle that issue except maybe Obama. He has other priorities. Which sucks, because I would be a lot happier if he was focused on something like that instead of feeding me to Aetna and finding some BS green job for me to do that results in my having no higher cognitive functioning and/or trying to neuter my 2nd amendment rights.
then I guess my vote is for him because he'll probably stand up and support gay marriage as soon as he doesn't have to campaign anymore.
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 12:02 AM   #102
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,293
Total Cats: 180
Default

You are voting just on that issue alone?
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 07:01 AM   #103
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Soooo... we've got:
  • Romney might be worse than Obama - with no definition regarding in what ways he might be worse
  • He might get more done than other options, which would be bad, but no specifics on what types of things he might get done that would be bad
  • A Republican president might mean more Democrat congresspeople in the future

I guess I'll wait until blaen gets in here. He's talked enough smack about Romney that I assume he has a list of things that are bad about him.
Romneycare. 'Nuff said.

I've talked at length about my problems with Gingrich, it is the same problems with Romney.

Dude's a fracking hypocrite whose word means nothing.





I am a rabid Ron Paul supporter not because of his stances (I absolutely despise some of Paul's stances) but because he's been consistent and not a hypocrite. Someone who is truthful and holds a consistent stance gets my automatic support.

You'd think it's easy to get my support, but ------' hell, it's apparently not.

That, and quite frankly, minus the retard-right hot button issues (Islam, herp derp) that he deep throats like a two-bit -----, he may as well be identical to Obama politically.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 01:36 PM   #104
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
then I guess my vote is for him because he'll probably stand up and support gay marriage as soon as he doesn't have to campaign anymore.
What if a candidate supported same-sex "civil unions" that allowed same-sex couples the legal rights for things like medical visits even if it wasn't called "marriage?"

Also, I would think between things like TOD accounts, beneficiary designations, living wills and durable powers of attorney, a properly prepared same-sex couple could circumvent most of the main challenges? I'm not well-versed in the medical decisions area, though, and whether the above is superceded by "not being family."

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
What exactly were you expecting to hear?
Something like, "based on his previous voting record on the following, I would not support him over Obama" or "given his track record in the private sector, I could not support him over Obama."

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Romneycare. 'Nuff said.

Dude's a fracking hypocrite whose word means nothing.

[...]

That, and quite frankly, minus the retard-right hot button issues (Islam, herp derp) that he deep throats like a two-bit -----, he may as well be identical to Obama politically.
I wonder if he is as identical to Obama as you say or more centrist? Sort of somewhere in between Obama on the left and Paul on the right. For example, he may believe that the Earth is trending warmer and that people contribute to that - but cap and trade legislation and a more active EPA are not proper responses.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 01:41 PM   #105
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
For example, he may believe that the Earth is trending warmer and that people contribute to that - but cap and trade legislation and a more active EPA are not proper responses.
Pretty sure he's argued both sides of that case.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 01:47 PM   #106
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
I wonder if he is as identical to Obama as you say or more centrist? Sort of somewhere in between Obama on the left and Paul on the right. For example, he may believe that the Earth is trending warmer and that people contribute to that - but cap and trade legislation and a more active EPA are not proper responses.
Considering Obama's voting history and legislation, he's center right. (One of the many reasons I'm dissatisfied with him, actually).

I doubt Romney can be a Republican and "be more centrist" at the same time.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 02:29 PM   #107
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
Pretty sure he's argued both sides of that case.
From what I have been able to find on his stated positions and voting record (tough to apply since he was a Governor and not a congressperson affecting Federal legislation), his position appears to be what I stated:
he thinks the Earth is warming and humans likely contribute to it, but that legislation like cap & trade and EPA restrictions are not answers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Considering Obama's voting history and legislation, he's center right. (One of the many reasons I'm dissatisfied with him, actually).
Can you give some examples of his voting and legislative history (and how they weigh against things like the Obamacare, the push for card check, the auto bailouts, etc) that make him center-right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
I doubt Romney can be a Republican and "be more centrist" at the same time.
I don't understand that statement. Did you mean you "doubt Romney can be the Republican nominee" and be more centrist?
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 02:34 PM   #108
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Can you give some examples of his voting and legislative history (and how they weigh against things like the Obamacare, the push for card check, the auto bailouts, etc) that make him center-right?
Obamacare was originally a Republican plan, and had heavy Republican support untill Obama was elected in 2009 (Even as late as 2007, a similar plan still had heavy Republican support.)

The auto bailouts started in the Bush admin ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html ), so they are at the very least centrist, if not right. Etc. etc.

Quote:
I don't understand that statement. Did you mean you "doubt Romney can be the Republican nominee" and be more centrist?
Obama's center right. If Romney wants to "be more centrist" than Obama, he'd have to go to the left of Obama, and that won't fly as the Republican nominee.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 02:34 PM   #109
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
From what I have been able to find on his stated positions and voting record (tough to apply since he was a Governor and not a congressperson affecting Federal legislation), his position appears to be what I stated:
he thinks the Earth is warming and humans likely contribute to it, but that legislation like cap & trade and EPA restrictions are not answers.
It's changed over time, including the specific issue of cap-and-trade.

Quote:
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported a carbon-trading pact among Northeastern states that, like his health care bill, served as a potential model for a national version. Romney even said of the plan, “I am convinced it is good for business.” Of carbon emissions in general, Romney said, “These carbon-emissions limits will provide real and immediate progress.” But in just a few short years, Romney’s cap-and-trade feelings shifted. “We’re going to move our new facilities from the U.S. to China, where they don’t have those agreements. You end up polluting and putting just as much CO2 in the air because the big energy users go there. That’s why these ideas make sense, but only on a global basis. They don’t call it ‘America warming.’ They call it ‘global warming.’”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomi...mental-record/
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 03:29 PM   #110
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Obamacare was originally a Republican plan, and had heavy Republican support untill Obama was elected in 2009 (Even as late as 2007, a similar plan still had heavy Republican support.)
Can you help me with the main differences (if any)? e.g. The Republican version did not have the universal mandate or it did but with X provisions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
The auto bailouts started in the Bush admin, so they are at the very least centrist, if not right.
You could certainly argue that the bank and auto bailouts were to the left, regardless of whose administration they were issued under, but the point is taken.

I would probably still argue he is "center Left," but now I am beginning to wonder how useful those labels are without better definition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
It's changed over time, including the specific issue of cap-and-trade.
Sheesh. This guy really has been for-before-he-was-against a lot of issues including environmental regulation/legislation, abortion legality, gay rights, and gun control as far as I can find.

And he seems much more likely to push for military aggression versus Obama.

He does seem to have a pretty strong business record as a consultant, then PE manager... Maybe a Romney presidency + Conservative House + mixed Senate = minimal damage?
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 03:37 PM   #111
NB/VVT Connoisseur
iTrader: (23)
 
viperormiata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 6,072
Total Cats: 253
Default

viperormiata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 01:48 AM   #112
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Can you help me with the main differences (if any)? e.g. The Republican version did not have the universal mandate or it did but with X provisions?
The Republican's created the universal mandate in 1989 via the Heritage think tank, and it has shown up continually in Republican-or-Republican supported plans untill 2007. 2009 is the first time they decided they hated the universal mandate. (I am assuming you are referring to the individual fine when you say universal mandate, Republicans had it in health care proposals they created originally and then supported later up untill 2007. It was only once Obama became president that it became repugnant to them.)

Quote:
You could certainly argue that the bank and auto bailouts were to the left, regardless of whose administration they were issued under, but the point is taken.

I would probably still argue he is "center Left," but now I am beginning to wonder how useful those labels are without better definition.
How about he is center-to-the-slightly-left-of-Bush? When you hear some of us go off about Obama being Bush Jr, we're serious. He (mostly) just continued Bush policies, and even Obama's "obamacare" plan was just regurgitated Republican drek.


Quote:
Sheesh. This guy really has been for-before-he-was-against a lot of issues including environmental regulation/legislation, abortion legality, gay rights, and gun control as far as I can find.

And he seems much more likely to push for military aggression versus Obama.

He does seem to have a pretty strong business record as a consultant, then PE manager... Maybe a Romney presidency + Conservative House + mixed Senate = minimal damage?
No, I think that would be maximal damage. The last thing we want as a President is someone who is for taking more of our rights. Obama and Bush did enough damage - if you throw someone like Romney or Gingrich there, for the very reasons you outlined....We don't need yet-another-Bush, we need a Paul, or even just an extremist president to get people to get angry and wake up and vote.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:25 AM   #113
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
No, I think that would be maximal damage. The last thing we want as a President is someone who is for taking more of our rights. Obama and Bush did enough damage - if you throw someone like Romney or Gingrich there, for the very reasons you outlined....We don't need yet-another-Bush, we need a Paul, or even just an extremist president to get people to get angry and wake up and vote.
You lost me there. Can you expound? What has Romney done or said that makes you think he would favor a reduction in rights? Which rights are we talking about (e.g. Constitutional)?
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:30 AM   #114
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
You lost me there. Can you expound? What has Romney done or said that makes you think he would favor a reduction in rights? Which rights are we talking about (e.g. Constitutional)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
Sheesh. This guy really has been for-before-he-was-against a lot of issues including environmental regulation/legislation, abortion legality, gay rights, and gun control as far as I can find.
I'm going to just ask you the same questions you asked me.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 10:57 AM   #115
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
I'm going to just ask you the same questions you asked me.
You believe, if elected President of the USA (vs Governor of Mass), Romney will restrict the 2nd Ammendment and...?

As it stands now, is there anything in the Constitution that covers marriage? If there isn't, then not allowing the expansion of the legal authorities allowed by marriage to same-sex couples is a failure to expand more than a restriction.

Give me some specific examples of how he would "[take] more of our rights" as POTUSA?
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 11:14 AM   #116
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,889
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
The Republican's created the universal mandate in 1989 via the Heritage think tank, and it has shown up continually in Republican-or-Republican supported plans untill 2007. 2009 is the first time they decided they hated the universal mandate. (I am assuming you are referring to the individual fine when you say universal mandate, Republicans had it in health care proposals they created originally and then supported later up untill 2007. It was only once Obama became president that it became repugnant to them.)
You really have a hard time with facts.

First off, the Republican think tank, the Heritage Foundation, do not speak for all Republicans.

Yes, it is true, a concept of some sort of health mandiate steamed from a few indiviudals working at the Hertage Foundation tasked with the job to come up with new innovative solutions.

The Heritage idea itself was a a mandate for coverage for catastrophic illnesses, an "Oh ----" insurance mandate if you will. Not a comprehensive coverage plan like the current Bill; one must take a huge leap to link these two together.

The ONLY thing that the Obamacare Bill and the orginial Heritage Foundation concept have in common is the idea of forcing an individual to purcahse something.

The Heritage Foundation, and ALL the original supporters of the idea, all refute the idea, and all [still in power] have voted against Obamacare.

Saying that the Heritage Foundation has ANYTHING to do with the current Bill is like Al Gore saying he invented the internet. Plus, the idea of some sort of government run healthcare system was argued by Jefferson and Hamilton back in the 1700s.

now watch this:

Quote:
In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.
Oh ----. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_...isabled_seamen
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 11:44 AM   #117
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
You really have a hard time with facts. (rest of post truncated)
No, in this case you have a really hard time with the facts. Since I'm going to have to spoonfeed you, by god, fine.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s..._1770_1993.pdf

This was a bill written in 1993 by Senator John H. Chafee, a Republican. It received 2 Democrat and 18 Republican sponsors in support. It is the bill I most frequently refer to when I talk about Obamacare.

Since I have a strong hunch that you have better things to do then read that incredibly dense bill, here's a simple English version of it:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stor...form-bill.aspx

The argument "But this is SO DIFFERENT from Obamacare" holds about as much water as you trying to argue that being raped and killed by Charles Manson is superior to being raped and killed by Jack the Ripper. It's an argument focusing on truly insignificant differences (OMG, one wanted to use vouchers IN LIEU of expanding the Medicaid eligibility!!!! NOOOOO!!! Wait, you mean it's the same thing with the same desired result? That's unpossible!) while ignoring the substantive similarities between each. Or, to put it in other words, we're being raped and killed with any of the options. I'd hope you are more worried about the act of raping and killing then who the raper is.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s..._1743_1993.pdf

This was a bill introduced in 1993. It had 24 Republican cosponsors and widespread Republican support in Congress.

Let's go to 2007.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s...l_334_2007.pdf

This was a bill introduced in 2007. It had a Republican author, and it had 9 Republican sponsors, 7 Democrat, and 1 Independent. You'll note that even the 2007 bill had more Republican sponsors than any other party.

I'm reserving this post to edit as I find more english-readable versions of these bills, so be aware ninja edits are inc.

Last edited by blaen99; 02-03-2012 at 11:58 AM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 12:21 PM   #118
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,889
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Cool. I've seen all this before, I'm WELL aware. Still doesn't change my post and disagreement.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 12:42 PM   #119
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (18)
 
olderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 4,438
Total Cats: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post


Saying that the Heritage Foundation has ANYTHING to do with the current Bill is like Al Gore saying he invented the internet.
But he did invent global warming, didn't he?
olderguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 01:36 PM   #120
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,889
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

No, Alexander Hamilton invented that, as well, in the 1790s.

Last edited by Braineack; 02-03-2012 at 03:47 PM.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB HPDE miata - Texas Voltwings Cars for sale/trade 0 09-27-2015 07:40 PM
Squiblez 1996 Montego blue Squiblez Build Threads 2 09-22-2015 11:17 AM
Built 1.6l Engine, 1,820 miles Baxgordum Miata parts for sale/trade 19 09-05-2015 12:42 AM
PS3 or XBOX 360? Loki047 Gaming 153 03-05-2012 02:11 PM
Joe Perez, here's a far better source on the history of the Fed JasonC SBB Insert BS here 3 11-03-2008 05:55 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 PM.