AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-08-12, 14:02   Link #1
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

Now that the first official Republican debate has been held (technically, the May 5th debate was the first official Republican debate, but besides using the parties money it was a mostly inconsequential debate); 12 or so candidates have put forth their Presidential bid for nomination (and a few on both sides of the aisles have put forth their Gubernatorial or Congressional bids); and the first true straw poll is being counted, this seems like the opportune time to start the new United States Elections 2012 thread.

This thread is dedicated to discussion of the upcoming US Presidential, Gubernatorial and Congressional election in November 2012. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various candidates, their positions, and the various other positions being voted on across the country. All news and discussion of the upcoming election will be placed in this thread, and once the results are in a possible new thread dedicated to the 113th Congress could be made.

The usual forum rules apply (be considerate of others and their opinions, no flaming or cyclical posting, try and provide sources when possible, etc), and try not to get too caught up in the News coverage of the elections (i.e., we all know the mainstream media is inherently biased (toward the right and the left), so try not to create too much discussion based on how bad you perceive the individual networks are skewing the various elections). To clarify further, you can post any clips or excerpts you feel will add to this thread (as so long as they are actual news clips and not simply talking heads), but do not get too focused on the source of the information (which is partially irrelevant to the discussion topic)...

I will update this OP with recent information as it is presented (e.g., Presidential Candidiates; various primary results; and then finally Obama vs...?; etc)

This is the "sequel" to the US Election 2008 thread. Please visit that thread if you wish to learn how this discussion is held (or visit to read your old posts, and reminisce on happier times .)

---

Current Presidential Candidates:
Democratic Bids: Barack Obama (barring accident or resignation, Obama is the unofficial Candidate for the Democratic party.), Randall Terry.

Republican Bids: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, James "Rick" Perry, Jon Huntsman, Buddy Roemer, Fred Karger, Andy Martin, Roy Moore, Jimmy McMillan, Jonathon Sharkey...so far.

3rd Party/Independent: Kent Mesplay (Green Party), R. Lee Wrights (Libertarian Party), Jack Fellure (Prohibition Party), Roseanne Barr (Independent...though I am not sure she is serious), Robert John Burck (Tea Party/Independent), Joe Schriner (Independent)...so far.

And here are the non-Presidential listings for the 2012 elections (as they currently stand by region, specifics will be added later):

2012 Judicial elections
2012 House of Representatives elections
2012 Senate elections
and
2012 Gubernatorial elections

Last edited by james0246; 2012-08-29 at 01:05.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 14:05   Link #2
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Obama's new slogan - Yes, Maybe we can.

It is good thing i stop watching tv a decade ago. now i can miss all those wonderful political ads.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 14:08   Link #3
lightsenshi
Author
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 43
As I've said in the 2008 election: No matter who wins, we lose.
__________________
lightsenshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 14:38   Link #4
justinstrife
Queen Sheryl's Protector
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: John Galt Railroad
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to justinstrife Send a message via Skype™ to justinstrife
I didnt see anybody in the debate last night that I will vote for. I had hopes for Cain when he first entered, but that hope ended as soon as it was born. Unless someone comes out of nowhere, I will be handwriting someone in. This country is screwed whether it is Obama, or any of these candidates feom last night.
__________________
justinstrife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 14:45   Link #5
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
Cool. Anyone care to give a link to a streaming version of the republican debate, particularly one that streams to outside the USA?

EDIT: there seems to be a number of uploaded versions on youtube, including this one
DonQuigleone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 14:53   Link #6
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Aug. 11, 2011 Republican Debate



edit: DonQuigleone found the video in the meantime .
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 14:54   Link #7
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 23
And now begins my depraved entertainment in our public circus .
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 15:00   Link #8
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
And now begins my depraved entertainment in our public circus .
Begin? did it ever stop?
__________________
Xellos-_^ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 15:01   Link #9
Alchemist007
自分のチームにいるよ。
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Age: 26
Bachmann and 'that black guy' are robots in disguise.
__________________
Alchemist007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 15:16   Link #10
Archon_Wing
Throw it on the ground
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Mists
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Well, I live in California, so my vote doesn't count for presidential elections. California's going to the Democrats anyways, thanks to the electoral college. Much like frequently in ISML, I abstained for president in 2008. Same here.

Actually I was gonna handwrite myself in...

Doesn't matter since it's just about which business interests win,.

Now to look up the propositions, so we can waste more money on making people's lives miserable!
__________________
You just try again... through the darkness.You just go away... the future is waiting for us!
Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 15:34   Link #11
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
You aren't old enough to run for president (even as a write-in) Minimum age is 35.
(Mean I could run since I'd be 35 before the election.)
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 15:59   Link #12
Xagzan
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Ugh, these jaded attitudes are exactly why the 2010 elections went the way they did. And now look what we've got. Assaults on women, the middle class, the poor, even education now - essentially everyone and everything not part of the top 1%. And the people who are for this destruction, got bloody voted into the House! And considering the general spinelessness of the Dems, they might as well have both houses of Congress!

Yeah, things sucked in 08 too, and before and after Obama was elected. Politicians were, are, and continue to be corporate whores, no matter who's in charge. But I'd rather that be all we have to deal with, instead of adding a repressive, borderline-sociopathic social agenda into the mix. Letting the tea folks take control of half of Congress did nothing except let in people who want to see government, which in theory is people's one defense against trans/national business interests and their abuses, torn down (while displaying a remarkable lack of self-awareness for people who most likely use Medicare, SS, and other government services themselves). I don't see this as beneficial in any sense.

So yes, things suck. But apathy is a very quick road to the destruction of democracy. One party has shown themselves, ultimately by their actions and their beliefs, to be worse than other. And the 2010 elections only confirmed that, shifting the narrative further away from the people and towards the Kochs and their empires. And I, for one, would rather choose a lesser of two evils. No matter how weak an incentive that is, I'd rather not see the Scott Walkers of the world elected into office, as it means things will only get worse.
Xagzan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 16:11   Link #13
Archon_Wing
Throw it on the ground
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Mists
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
You aren't old enough to run for president (even as a write-in) Minimum age is 35.
(Mean I could run since I'd be 35 before the election.)
Curses; I forgot. Well, actually my county only lets you do them if they are registered so I didn't even bother trolling.

I'll vote for you if you register!
__________________
You just try again... through the darkness.You just go away... the future is waiting for us!
Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 16:20   Link #14
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xagzan View Post
So yes, things suck. But apathy is a very quick road to the destruction of democracy. One party has shown themselves, ultimately by their actions and their beliefs, to be worse than other. And the 2010 elections only confirmed that, shifting the narrative further away from the people and towards the Kochs and their empires. And I, for one, would rather choose a lesser of two evils. No matter how weak an incentive that is, I'd rather not see the Scott Walkers of the world elected into office, as it means things will only get worse.
Thank you. I do not know if I agree that the Republicans are the worse evil (I know plenty of upstanding Republicans, and I know of plenty of good Republican politicians (albeit mostly on a state level)), but this general apathy that has already reared its head after only a dozen posts is simply not the way to go. Giving up or not even trying is far worse than failing.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 16:28   Link #15
RandySyler
Onee-Chan Power~!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In this reality (A.K.A. Colorado, U.S.A.)
I very much disliked what Ron Paul said on Iranian foreign policy. To support his opposition on the nuclear sanctions on Iran, he argues that the Soviets had a very large amount of nukes while being the greatest threat to America in history, but he fails to realize that they were a conventional threat and had many reasons not to nuke America or Europe, like getting their nation retaliated against. The Iranians (or North Korea and other aggressive small countries) don't have much to lose in that sense, so whats to stop Iran from using a nuclear weapon on America or Israel just for the sake of Islamic extremism jihad? I really do hope that Dr. Paul comes to grasp that war isn't conventional when fighting insurgents anymore (not that I support the Iraqi war).

This article is biased toward Paul but provides oversight of what he said:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...nn-on-iran-war
__________________
/Users/TRendfrey/Pictures/pictures/anime/signature.jpg
RandySyler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 16:37   Link #16
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandySyler View Post
I very much disliked what Ron Paul said on Iranian foreign policy. To support his opposition on the nuclear sanctions on Iran, he argues that the Soviets had a very large amount of nukes while being the greatest threat to America in history, but he fails to realize that they were a conventional threat and had many reasons not to nuke America or Europe, like getting their nation retaliated against. The Iranians (or North Korea and other aggressive small countries) don't have much to lose in that sense, so whats to stop Iran from using a nuclear weapon on America or Israel just for the sake of Islamic extremism jihad? I really do hope that Dr. Paul comes to grasp that war isn't conventional when fighting insurgents anymore (not that I support the Iraqi war).

This article is biased toward Paul but provides oversight of what he said:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...nn-on-iran-war
i agree paul's view on iran is naive but how in the world does Santorum defend the coup of legit government and putting in a cia puppet and calling that a good thing.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 16:55   Link #17
justinstrife
Queen Sheryl's Protector
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: John Galt Railroad
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to justinstrife Send a message via Skype™ to justinstrife
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xagzan View Post
Ugh, these jaded attitudes are exactly why the 2010 elections went the way they did. And now look what we've got. Assaults on women, the middle class, the poor, even education now - essentially everyone and everything not part of the top 1%. And the people who are for this destruction, got bloody voted into the House! And considering the general spinelessness of the Dems, they might as well have both houses of Congress!

Yeah, things sucked in 08 too, and before and after Obama was elected. Politicians were, are, and continue to be corporate whores, no matter who's in charge. But I'd rather that be all we have to deal with, instead of adding a repressive, borderline-sociopathic social agenda into the mix. Letting the tea folks take control of half of Congress did nothing except let in people who want to see government, which in theory is people's one defense against trans/national business interests and their abuses, torn down (while displaying a remarkable lack of self-awareness for people who most likely use Medicare, SS, and other government services themselves). I don't see this as beneficial in any sense.

So yes, things suck. But apathy is a very quick road to the destruction of democracy. One party has shown themselves, ultimately by their actions and their beliefs, to be worse than other. And the 2010 elections only confirmed that, shifting the narrative further away from the people and towards the Kochs and their empires. And I, for one, would rather choose a lesser of two evils. No matter how weak an incentive that is, I'd rather not see the Scott Walkers of the world elected into office, as it means things will only get worse.
Let me just say, that it will be a snow blizzard day in hell before I ever vote for a Democrat pf today's kind. Their and your ideals are in complete conflict with my beliefs and ideals.

The Republican Party isnt much better, but there are at least a half dozen of their politicians in the House that I can support. Which is something at least.

This country is as divided now, as it was during its creation. During the Revolutionary War you had 1/3 who.supported the Revolutionaries, 1/3 the British, and 1/3 who didnt have a side. Today, 230 years later, you have 1/3 who are Conservative, 1/3 who are Liberal(of the leftist variety), and 1/3 eho dont side with either party or group. So not much has changed in the past two centuries.

To believe that the Tea Party and the Republican Party is the party of the rich, is ignoring the tens of millions of middle class and families who side with them(at least more so than the Democrats) and is just plain ignorant. It is the same stupid argument as those on the right who say that he Democratic Party is the Party of the welfare group. Neither is true.
__________________
justinstrife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 17:17   Link #18
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandySyler View Post
so whats to stop Iran from using a nuclear weapon on America or Israel just for the sake of Islamic extremism jihad?
Mutually Assured Destruction.

Whatever nation is hit first by a nuclear weapon will have the full sympathy of the rest of the world. Nuclear power is that terrifying. The nation who launched a first strike without the support of the world community would likely be invaded and ripped apart before it could do it again.

Either that, or WW3. Pick the size of your ashtray.

Iran's government is terrible, don't get me wrong, but even if they acquire nuclear weapons they wouldn't be dumb enough to use them unless they were positive it could keep them in power. They're already a regional power, and they're already up against Russia, Europe, Israel, Pakistan, India, and China, all of whom have better, more powerful armies and weapons. This isn't including the US who can wipe any nation on the planet out instantly if it wanted to (speaking in terms of conventional war here).

Iran is nothing more than a wedge issue to make Americans afraid of another boogeyman. Ron Paul is correct, there are more important things to worry about.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 17:28   Link #19
RandySyler
Onee-Chan Power~!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In this reality (A.K.A. Colorado, U.S.A.)
Mutually Assured Destruction would stop a country from using nuclear weapons, yes. But I'm talking more along the lines of Islamic violence, we already see suicide attacks from extremists around the Middle East. So in that case, what would stop Iran from selling or giving the weapons to terrorists to use against Israel (yes, I know that this happened already from Soviet fallout, but why give them more opportunities to aquire them?) or if an even more extreme government took over and used the nuke as a (figurative?) suicide weapon?
__________________
/Users/TRendfrey/Pictures/pictures/anime/signature.jpg
RandySyler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-12, 17:45   Link #20
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
I think it's absurd the way they all ideologically said that under no circumstances would they raise taxes. Taxes aren't an idealogical thing, they're a practical thing, they're a matter of policy. There's a right level at tax, and it shifts depending on the circumstances. Taxes still have to be paid one way or another, sometimes you need higher taxes to fund important programs, sometimes it's better to shift down (on a whole it's better to err on the side of lower taxes). Sometimes taxes can have positive effect, namely inheritance tax. Encourages people to spend their money while their alive, rather then give it to trust fund puppies.

I watched the debate, I'm going to give my impressions:

Michelle Bachmann: Palin 2.0, she's a little smarter then Palin, but I don't really think she has any proper awareness. I think she'll get votes from the radicals, but she'll ultimately flounder. Frankly, I found her all over the place, and unable to really form a sound logical argument.

Herman Cain: Bit better spoken then Bachmann, but I also think he failed to make much of an impression.

Newt Gingrich: Very well spoken, I thought he was able to clearly make his points, and he seemed pretty reasonable (as republicans go). However his popularity has been low for a while, and seems to have fallen from his previous heights. I think he can still be a contender.

Ron Paul: I disagree with him fundamentally, but I give him a lot of credit for consistency, and a willingness to stick to his guns and defend unpopular positions. But I'd say his campaign isn't going to do any better then his previous efforts. I also give him credit for being well read, he has more perspective then most of the other candidates.

Tim Pawlenty: Dull.

Mitt Romney: Smooth, made his points, I'd put him as the front runner. But what does he really believe? I feel like he's not being entirely honest about his views.

Rick Santorum: Failed to make an impression. Bit better then Pawlenty

Jon Huntsman: I like his record, but I think he failed to really make much of an impression here. I think he's compromising his views too much, he should speak more honestly and forcefully, otherwise he's just going to be lost in the crowd.

I think the front runners here were Romney and perhaps Gingrich. Bachman, Cain and Paul will appeal to their base, but not probably branch out further. Pawlenty, Santorum and Huntsman haven't really differentiated themselves.

I'd say victory: Romney. But there's another 6 months of this at least, a lot could change.

EDIT: @ Iran, I'm in favour of upholding non-proliferation through peaceful pressures, and also dealing with Iran with subtlety. Trade with them, but not get too friendly. If the opportunity comes, sponsor the nascent democratic movement there.

However I think Ron Paul is right that this is a diversion. This election isn't going to be won or lost on Iran. It's an issue, but I doubt there's going to be much difference between any of the candidates on it.
DonQuigleone is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
2012 elections, us elections

Thread Tools

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.