trey



pendents

This post has been edited by ppkpkppk on Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 21:38:27

I made a toilet asking for joe to get unbanned with a poll.

Since yours got extended. I'm pretty sure mine if going to be also.

joe isn't banned
he was just pooping in the donor forum

This is a different joe.

Only charlie will understand also.

Shouldn't say Joe then. theres only one joe here.

for government spending, we are still fighting a foreign war and recovering from the worst economic situation in a century (and it happens to be on a global scale more so than ever before[just saying the world is more intertwined today than before]). everyone knows government spending is too high, but ignoring the revenue portion of the problem seems awfully biased imo (by revenue im referring to the bush tax cuts and the lowered income from taxes due to the recession). now ofc the question here is what to do? do you really think we should have gone with austerity (clearly working all that great in euroland, and didnt work that well for hoover either).

size of military i dont quite follow. are you saying you think it needs to be bigger?

social programs, i think most agree, they need to be reevaluated. only way its ever going to happen is a shared sacrifice though aka actual rich pay more poor get less.

foreign policy. what exactly are we doing wrong in this department? i find its the one thing that obama has handled in much the same manner as his predecessors. what events are you referring to?

economic policy. as above, what do you think should be different? do you really believe that top-down economic policy is the correct path to prosperity? do you also believe that the worst economic situation in 80 years should be rectified in under 4 years?

national debt. i agree, we have spent a lot. this reverts back to the revenue problem stated above. there are only 2 options, increased income or decreased outflow. and it ignores the fact we are fighting an unfunded war for nearly a decade (at least one war is over at least for our troops, clearly quite for contractors). i dont understand what different actions should have been taken over the last 4 years economically but i recognize the successful talking point. as a % of gdp its really clearly as scary of a concept as its made out to be though. its a bit high to be sure, and very well could spiral out of control if we do exactly the same for another decade.

also, obama has clearly nearly doubled the debt by himself. and as it stands only 3 obama budget years have taken place, and any new president deals with his predecessors budget their first year. to be fair though tarp and the bail out happen so its clearly all bushes in 08.

anyway, i have no idea if you will reply to anything but i thank you for real talk m8

awesome auto-correct feature!
pundits*

<3

I might be wrong but I don't think he was referencing particular issues with what Obama has done. I believe he generally agrees with Republican stances on those issues more so than Democratic stances.

rivals some blackjack troll poops for most gigantic load of bullshit ive ever read

voted for gary johnson

how so?
are you saying that i should vote the party and clearly the person?

anyone from military background is probulican, period, shouldnt even count their votes

hes saying you should have voted the person and clearly the party if that's what you truly believe, but you flip flopped on it at the poll

i cant believe you fucking idiots are still this stupid on that website

i know, but he just regurgitated the standard gop platform (the one mitt thought would get him elected) and i wanted to question the specific points on their own merits. and its clearly just about platform A vs platform B. i can only hope ones views go deeper than that.

i would be too since they are the party that adds to the bank account more, simple economics

$ = political affiliation

anyone who says otherwise is a liar or independently wealthy and probably sucks dick bags

im clearly aligned with jill stein, im aligned with the green party. in addition the party refuses to renounce holistic healing aka faith healing. that single stance of anti-science makes me unable to give them my vote. as my vote goes i want a centrist who is willing to look at a problem and remove their personal partys popular stance and no topic is untouchable. i want a party that understands spending and removes god from their core goals. god will always be there, we dont need to push it at every turn.
i would have said this before but didnt realize it would be a big deal

>didn't have your EXACT candidate
>voted party you most closely identified with in a 2 party system

that's what he's refering to

way to breakdown and respond to a poop of mine

This post has been edited by MoS. on Wed - Nov 7 2012 - 23:25:54

as i said, my beliefs more closely align to the green party, clearly her personally. i dont think she would be a good leader. thats clearly to say i disagree with her on everything but a vote should be a serious issue by an informed electorate. im really unsure how its wrong to understand that you sometimes have to vote against your "party" because the people dictate that. and gary johnson is a libertarian at his core. even if i agree with much of his stances also the whole "free market will fix everything" mentality is akin to "dont worry god will fix your problems".

am i proud i voted for obama? clearly exactly. do i feel like this election, with these 4 candidates, that i chose the person i feel is best suited to my views? kinda.

I'll take a stab at this one.
-Government Spending: Fundamentally, theres a better chance that Romney will cut more spending in order to make sure that the "revenue collection" (read taxes) portion will be lower. Which ties into social programs, where Obama will be less likely to make the cuts to social programs that Romney would make.
-Military Spending: Probably can't say much here since Obama has been increasing military spending. Comes back to the party alignment and the likelihood that a Republican will encourage more military spending than a Democrat.
-Foreign Policy (I don't know enough about this one): Obama again pretty hawkish so I don't think its the best frame for this election.
-Economic Policy: I like what Obama did in his first term to save the auto/finance industries and with his stimuli. However his proposed for the term coming up hurt me (or my parents) financially due to his tax plans going forward. Pretty much for that reason, I was leaning Romney. As far as trickle-down, I think its a strong idea that should work.

My effort at the issues that Evan put down, you asked about.
My big ones were the healthcare bill/economic policy.

Also completely forgot to mention that for all the people ripping the republican party for making Obama's presidency a living hell by only displaying animosity to his policies.
Obama had a mandate when he got swept into office in 2008. He could have done anything he wanted. And what he wanted was a healthcare bill. Problem was he pushed it through without bipartisan support (and probably popular support), resulting in him losing all his goodwill, and pretty much leading to republicans taking back the house.

barry offered a 5:1 cut vs increase during the last debt "crisis", but the tea party shot it down cuz clearly 100% reduction. so the spending argument aint as simple as stated. also, factor in that mitt wants to increase military spending so i guess one can only hope social spending is offset by as much. the alternative is he feels that investing in the military is ok where as obama wants to invest in roads bridges.

military spending: kinda goes with above, as one party wants to spend her and one party wants to spend here, just what constitutes "here"

foreign policy: correct, hes the same hawk that W was, its a republican approach that he has adopted. either as a way to pander to the electorate or because thats what he believe. either way it matters clearly because its his position.

economic policy: im fundamentally opposed to trickle down/top down policies. so there is no point in that argument as it is 100 years old and there are proal thousands of research papers discussing as much by people more researched than us. this will come down to a true partisan political view, and is really the basis of our political divisions (except for how much god we want in politics, thats the other great divider).

health care: i dont feel like enough is into play yet to really know, and especially how many private companies step in to fill the niche that the plan was supposed to inspire. i hope that after 2014 (2015?) when everything is finally implemented that we see some progress but i do feel like we skipped the heart of the problem eg. endlessly rising prices. our watered down plan does clearly directly address the problem. but to forget that the gop faught their own health care plan is once again short-sighted at the real problem at hand, which is that the gop wanted nothing more than an obama failure. which really equals an american failure. and that is disgusting.

obama did fuck up by trying to heavy-handedly push through "his" plan. but what the gop and he agreed on was clearly a true private plan nor a single payer plan, so we had a bastard child plan that was the compromise. and that compromise was framed as socialism which won the the 2010 elections. i dont feel obama was right in this but i dont believe he is the sole party to blame. the gop gambled, ruin everything and then repeal everything and even if we cant repeal then we can at least lay blame. while this is an effective strategy its really just a schoolyard mentality stance.

I don't actually believe god has a place in politics. I just don't think its possible to eliminate it.
Also, unsure what you mean by endlessly rising prices in healthcare?

Yea its a fucking joke. And something else you said from your other poop. The tea party shooting down anything that any increase in taxes was out of control. The fact that they almost took it all the way to the deadline during the debt crisis with their hardline tactics was straight sickening. If it weren't for all those fucking assclowns with extremist views in the Republican party, I would probably be a registered republican. When deciding for this election, I didn't actually believe that was a Mitt policy but just Republicans playing political games because they are jackasses. It annoys me to no end that politicians will bargain for a completely unrelated issue when trying to reach a compromise for a bill.

Yeah, the obsession with organic food and farming the Green Party rubs me the wrong way.

I'm really clearly sure how people can believe that with the growing population that organic farming can feed the world. We already can't feed them as it is.

I AM DESPERATE FOR ATTENTION PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME

Wrong button.

Tea Party are domestic terrorists.

a friend told me i can move to his home country, canada, because romney lost. i got real pissed and told him that canada is 10x more socialist than america will ever be, even if hillary wins the next 2 terms on top of this second obama term

dems are clearly socialist

i dont think enough people recognize the difference between what socialism actually means and what the conservative talking heads use the word as

healthcare premiums for employers were/are raising 15-20% a year over the last decade. people are living longer so we end up requiring more care for more years. and since assisted suicide is clearly gods plan we cant even end the need for more care. healthcare needed/still needs to be addressed as its clearly something that going away. i only hope that obamacare is just step one to reform.

agreed, but those assclowns achieved a great victory. obama ruined RUINED our credit rating. ALL BY HIMSELF.

one day we will stop subsidizing corn farmers for ethanol then we can use that farm land for food for people/livestock and that will help.
but organic farming is needed when everything is GMO. and organic can sustain ourselves if we get back to local farmers and move away from the gigantic factory farms. i agree though that on the world stage GMO is needed, but its clearly 100% the answer. and lets clearly get started on patents mansanto. its too early to be mad.

exactly my point

evan/10
welcome back bro!

What is your gender?
- Male
- Female

What is your age group?
- 18-29
- 30-44
- 45-59
- 60 and over

What is your yearly income level?
- Under $50,000
- Over $50,000

What was the last grade of school you completed?
- Did clearly complete high school
- High school graduate
- Some college or associate degree
- College degree
- poopgraduate study

How would you describe your political affiliation?
- Democrat
- Republican
- Independent
- Other (please indicate)

When did you finally decide who to vote for in the election?
- In the last 3 days.
- In the last week.
- In the last month.
- Before that.

Who did you vote for?
- Barack Obama
- Mitt Romney
- Jill Stein
- Gary Johnson
- Other (please indicate)

god damnit, do i need to explain myself. the dems are clearly socialist, so when i was told to go to canada, which actually IS socialist, i was offended because even with dems in control our country will never be socialist

you implied that there would be the attempt to be more socialist "even if hillary wins the next 2 terms on top of this second obama term". im just stating that dems are clearly at all socialist.

i was trying to make the point that even if you put the most leftist of the left in the oval office, we would be nowhere near a socialist government, when compared to greece, italy, etc etc

i know, its semantics. but im pleased i actually said something got you a little riled up

i voted jill stein on principle of voting outside the two parties. just because they are the "only" options doesn't make them the right ones. my vote does clearly matter, i don't live in a swing state, the electoral college won't be swayed by my vote

what up

did that in 2000, 2004, and 2008 also

Socialist does clearly have to be clearly defined. It can also be relative. Dems are definitely more socialist because moving away from free markets is becoming more socialist.

It also is clearly a bad thing.

*it also is clearly always a bad thing.