Short and simple. Who do you want for president, Obama or Mitt Romney?

[Stranger]

If we have obama for another 4 years, the constitution won't mean anything anymore.

[frat_tastic]

If we have obama for another 4 years, the constitution won't mean anything anymore.

How so? Care to elaborate?

[Balcerzak]

Gary Johnson, please.

Edit: To elaborate, I don't like either of the main party choices, I never have. I only very rarely vote main party, ever.

If it came down to it, I would prefer Romney as president, as economic issues are more important than social issues. Social issues will change with time, as polls show that young people tend to support the social liberties overwhelmingly.

Economic liberties however, have a habit of getting kicked to the curb. There's nothing reliable indicating that a Republican can actually show fiscal restraint anymore, given the example of the most recent Bush and his ballooning budget, but I'd trust them more than a Democrat.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Balcerzak

[Stranger]

During his term, Obama has made quite some acts that have had conflict with the constitution (ObamaCare is the big one, Libyan Civil War without congress' consent, etc.). And I believe somewhere there was a college thesis written by Obama that clearly didn't show any signs that he intended to preserve, protect, and defend the Consitution to the best of his ability.

[I.M. Gei]

Obama may be lackluster but when the alternative is millions of poor people dying in the streets under Ryan's budget, he's really the lesser of two evils

Oh wait, this is 'Murka, those poors should go bootstrap themselves

[Ein]

Obama may be lackluster but when the alternative is millions of poor people dying in the streets under Ryan's budget, he's really the lesser of two evils

Oh wait, this is 'Murka, those poors should go bootstrap themselves

You know, it'd probably be a better idea for us to actually do something about the crap that's happening rather than just pick the "lesser evil" when both parties have been pretty damn crazy as of late. Honestly, would you really want to choose an "evil" in the first place?

Too bad we're lazy.

See CPP? This is how you post cleverly.

[Original Alear]

Gary Johnson, please.

Edit: To elaborate, I don't like either of the main party choices, I never have. I only very rarely vote main party, ever.

If it came down to it, I would prefer Romney as president, as economic issues are more important than social issues. Social issues will change with time, as polls show that young people tend to support the social liberties overwhelmingly.

Economic liberties however, have a habit of getting kicked to the curb. There's nothing reliable indicating that a Republican can actually show fiscal restraint anymore, given the example of the most recent Bush and his ballooning budget, but I'd trust them more than a Democrat.

Why do you want fiscal restraint? I mean, low inflation, high # of nonemployed but work seeking people, businesses aren't spending. It's not like the government is gonna be putting the hurt on the private sector by decreasing the unemployed but work seeking pool - it's already high enough! I also think that the tendency for humans to be replaced by automation may continue to rise, reducing the need to employ humans, and that if this happens, it is in a basic sense a good thing.

Edited September 27, 2012 by L1049

[Esau of Isaac]

During his term, Obama has made quite some acts that have had conflict with the constitution (ObamaCare is the big one, Libyan Civil War without congress' consent, etc.)

How does Obama Care conflict with the constitution?

[Excellen Browning]

He means this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

What he forgets to mention is what is actually considered unconstitutional. (I picked out these two, there are some more arguments but those make too many assumptions to be worthwhile as an argument)

1. some argue that imposing a fine on those refusing to buy insurance is not within the taxing power alotted to congress by the constitution

2. some consider it a violation of state sovereignty, which is described in the constitution

and that judgment is still pending in most cases. Which makes doesn't make obamacare unconstitutional before proven otherwise and it seems it will be upheld in court.

[Samven]

I do not understand how anyone can say that Obama performs or promotes "unconstitutional" actions given how many amendments there have already been to the it in the past. Said amendments just prove that the United States Constitution is not, nor has it ever been, infallible. It's a piece of legislation that can be chopped and changed depending on the needs of the government at the time.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Samven

[I.M. Gei]

I do not understand how anyone can say that Obama performs or promotes "unconstitutional" actions given how many amendments there have already been to the it in the past. Said amendments just prove that the United States Constitution is not, nor has it ever been, infallible. It's a piece of legislation that can be chopped and changed depending on the needs of the government at the time.

To add onto this, even some of the Founding Fathers themselves thought that the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years or so just to stay relevant to the changing times.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.

...Then again, many of the people who howl about NOBUMMER VIOLATING CONSTITUTION also nod in agreement with Ron Paul saying "The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society".

Edited September 27, 2012 by Black★Rock Shooter

[Caliban of Sycorax]

I'll be registering to vote, and come November, I will vote for President Obama.

I'm from Massachusetts, where Romney was governor. Under him, universal healthcare and legal same-sex marriage were both passed. Yet, here he is, trying to change all of that.

He and Paul Ryan are so anti-human rights it's sickening.

[Life]

If I was American, Romney in a heartbeat.

Let's just take a look at each candidate's job before he got into politics. Obama was a lawyer, someone with no business experience whatsoever. Romney founded Bain Capital, a successful private equity firm, which takes more than just a smile. Not to mention that he used to be in management consulting (AKA explaining to others how to run firms properly).

Well, that pretty sums up the private sector view and which of the two is actually qualified to deal with the vast amount of financial problems in the USA (Hint: It's not the black guy).

Next point. Iran. Little bit of a sore point considering that the Iranian public (sorry Nightmare) stormed the US Embassy, killed the US Ambassador to Iran (on American soil, no less) and then managed to have the President of the United States apologize for their actions. Embarrassing to say the least and it severely makes me doubt Obama's "foreign policy skills" (of which he has none). Speaking of which, Romney wants a majority of Iran to burn for that action rather than risk 9/11 v2.0, something Obama would also apologize for. Imagine the press conference from the Oval Office if the Sears Tower or the Superdome take an airplane to the face.

Granted, Romney's made some social blunders. He's not a speaker like Obama but a lot of his comments have been taken the wrong way. The 47% comment was meant to show that the vast majority of Americans will eat up the words of Obama like butter because they actually believe that he is taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Newsflash, America is still capitalistic, not socialist. While free health care is a basic necessity (something I grew up with), it also involves paying high taxes to fund it (something else I grew up with). Obama doesn't seem to understand that money doesn't pop out of thin air.

The insult he gave Netanyahu was the last straw though.

EDIT: Anyone here who actually believes that Obama is more qualified and would do a better job than Romney with regards to fiscal policy is out of their goddamn minds. Here are some choice words from one of my buddies about that.

a) Romney supported backed-loan guarantees to private sector investors in the auto industry as oppose to direct bailouts that would shut down the industry completely, which Obama did...how's the auto industry looking today in the States?

b) Romney is in favour of military spending and investment, crucial for a potential nuclear dismantling that may take place in the coming year, in the hopes of "supported dialogue and efforts to establish cooperation with the Muslim world to fight the war on terror". I can understand if people are in favour of military spending cuts, but where does Obama plan to re-allocate the money, other than 900 billion dollar stimuluses that create temporary jobs? Where is the long-term growth sustainability in the country's business sectors?

c) Romney supports domestic big business and entrepreneurship with tax cuts to big business so that they can hire more domestic labour. Not to mention, he supports NAFTA and WTO for global trade. Even if you say that Romney is an expert at laying people off, sometimes you need to do that to grow a business. It's a harsh reality. To build and grow a business, you need inexpensive labour that will increase profits. With increased profits, you are able to hire more workers. Job creation is not an issue that is solved overnight. Rather, Obama seeks government direct bailouts. Where is the long-term job growth that is promised? Are people really much better off today than they were 4 years ago?

Aside from Obama having worked for a year at the Business International Corporation after receiving his undergrad, what big business experience does he have in the private sector? Meanwhile, Romney helped found and bootstrap a private equity investment firm and has helped grow it to one of the largest investment firms in North America. Do you have a clue how hard it is to bootstrap a firm like that, nevermind the fact that it controls roughly 66 billion in assets? Isn't this a good thing to have someone at this expertise on the business forefront to help try and grow a struggling economy? He may not put half of the unemployed into jobs right away. But I mean, even if you don't think he is the best candidate or won't be able to sustain long-term job growth, wouldn't he be at least a half-decent guy to take your fucken chances with on the business side of the picture?

It's not even that I'm an avid Romney supporter. But you have to appreciate someone with big business experience in the private sector versus someone with virtually no experience in private sector.

Between the two candidates, I see it as a fight between who can spend a dollar (Obama) and who can make a dollar (Romney). Why don't you take the route Canada is taking? Provide funding to early stage business and startups and help them try and grow your economy? I think it's time to start businesses and create jobs so we can make money and put some of the unemployed back to work.

I suggest reading properly before responding.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Life

[frat_tastic]

Two thing I'd like to point out:

Next point. Iran. Little bit of a sore point considering that the Iranian public (sorry Nightmare) stormed the US Embassy, killed the US Ambassador to Iran (on American soil, no less) and then managed to have the President of the United States apologize for their actions. Embarrassing to say the least and it severely makes me doubt Obama's "foreign policy skills" (of which he has none). Speaking of which, Romney wants a majority of Iran to burn for that action rather than risk 9/11 v2.0, something Obama would also apologize for. Imagine the press conference from the Oval Office if the Sears Tower or the Superdome take an airplane to the face.

1.) Libya, not Iran.

2.) Nobody apologized for anything. Romney's claim that Obama had apologized for the attack on our embassy was false. Prior to the attacks in Libya and Cairo our embassy had condemned the anti-muslim film that was posted to YouTube, but nobody apologized for anything. Before or after the attack. It was a false claim from Romney.

[Constable Reggie]

I'm a bit surprised at the overwhelming number of democrats here. Is it an age thing?

I just recently turned 18, but I'm going to vote for Romney. Sure, he's said some stupid things (the whole 47% thing, while widely misinterpreted, probably put the last nail in the coffin for Romney's campain, imo), and he's not perfect, but really, anyone's better than Obama at this point imo.

Obama's whole idea of redistribution to me is pretty sickening. He's really going overboard with it, what with Obamacare taking a great deal out of Social Security, and the like. My parents literally built up what they had from almost nothing, and they relied on hard work, not the government.

Besides that, I believe a businessman could probably help the economy better than what Obama could. I don't know too much about politics, and I'd probably have to research more about the two's policies before voting, but what I think of right now.

Of course, this probably doesn't change the fact that unfortunately, Obama's probably got the election in the bag. Romney's ideals and direction are great, but his public speaking isn't.

[Emeraldfox]

I'm a bit surprised at the overwhelming number of democrats here. Is it an age thing?

Ah yes, because Independants are fairy tail creatures hm?

To actually be useful to the topic I'm voting for Obama, because he makes sense to me, unlike Romney. Also, I wonder why people let their religion influence their voting choice, I do not understand.

[FionordeQuester]

Religion is that important to some people. In any case, I'm voting Romney, because even if many of the things I've heard about Obama don't turn out to be true (friends with an unrepentant terrorist, funds Middle Eastern efforts for drilling oil while stopping U.S. efforts to drill, attended the Church of a pastor who was all "GodDAMN America", etc...), I still think he's done a horrible job with the economy, and is absolutely nuts if he thinks increasing the national debt from 10 Trillion to 17 Trillion is a good idea.

Even if Romney is as bad as people say (and I doubt that), what good is it going to be to have idealistic aims if you bankrupt the country trying to achieve them? Then you're completely unable to help out ANYONE!

[Parrhesia]

Same deal as I would in Australia; vote Obama purely because it's a more effective stance AGAINST Romney. Granted, Obama and Romney are both preferable to the respective chucklefucks we have here, but...

[Constable Reggie]

Ah yes, because Independants are fairy tail creatures hm?

edit: whoops, misread the poll. I'm betting even without independent count, Obama's vote would still be much higher than romneys. Even half of 72% is still overwhelmingly higher than 14.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Davinatorman

[Emeraldfox]

I wasn't comparing democrat to only republican. Pretty sure 72% compared to 14/14% is overwhelming.

Yeah, but I'm sure not everyone here who picked Obama is a Democrat.

[Constable Reggie]

Yeah, my bad, edited my post right when you posted rofl.

[TwinBlade]

Both are corrupt. But at least Romney doesn't want to take our guns away from us. And since we don't even know who Obama really is for certain, I'd go with Romney. Just because things with Obama are pretty ridiculous. Obama promised things would change, haven't seen any of that in the last 4 years.

[Excellen Browning]

Both are corrupt. But at least Romney doesn't want to take our guns away from us. And since we don't even know who Obama really is for certain, I'd go with Romney. Just because things with Obama are pretty ridiculous. Obama promised things would change, haven't seen any of that in the last 4 years.

obamacare exists and a president who challenges the idea that an assault rifle is necessary for home defense and not a highly efficient and powerful tool of murder (as a certain Anders Breivik proved, as well a numerous anaymous American citiziens) and that giving them to people who don't deliver it to the armoury for keeping after they're done using it is a recipe for murder

[Esau of Isaac]

obamacare exists and a president who challenges the idea that an assault rifle is necessary for home defense and not a highly efficient and powerful tool of murder (as a certain Anders Breivik proved, as well a numerous anaymous American citiziens) and that giving them to people who don't deliver it to the armoury for keeping after they're done using it is a recipe for murder

You can't trust people with guns. That's why you let the government have all of them. You can trust the government to never murder innocent people.

Putting words in peoples' mouths is bad

[Excellen Browning]

You can't trust people with guns. That's why you let the government have all of them. You can trust the government to never murder innocent people.

Putting words in peoples' mouths is bad

You can't but that's when you realize death penalty is silly - like us Europeans. After that you limit the access militaries and other government agencies have to their weapons. Like us Europeans.

And hey, the entirety of Europe minus Eastern Europe has like a quarter of the murder rates of America.