ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Bocefish]

Well, let's weigh out the choices; either I vote for Obama to spend 4 more years in office and get nothing done or vote for Romney who will squash most of our constitutional rights and only really cater about the upper class and pvt. sectors.

Name one constitutional right he will squash.

 

[LolasLiger]

But when the international community does actually ask it for assistance, it drags it feet, vetoes intervention or on the very rare occasion that it does assist as part of something international, it ends up running chicken shit away (Lebanon and Somalia being two recent examples).

Blame America!

After all, we very rarely assist and if we do... we end up running away like chicken shits from Lebanon and Somalia?

WTF did you do?

"We" tend to participate in the UN and then stick to our commitments a lot more, after we said we would.

 

[Lintilla]

I've been a permanent resident more than long enough so that I could have been a citizen with plenty of time to spare before this election. Just haven't gotten around to it, I guess (plus that shit's expensive!)

But, well. Even if I could vote, although I detest Romney I would certainly not want to vote for Obama. In Canada there was always the option to vote for a third party and have it potentially make a very real difference. Here, on the other hand, not so much. Once I'm able to vote in this country I'm going to have a lot of mental discomfort over the concept of voting for "the lesser of two evils". There's the conservative party and the even more conservative party, neither of which I care for one bit. The ridiculous years-long election campaigns just give you so much time to realize that doom is inevitable.

"Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate..."


So no, I guess it'd have to be Obama's brand of doom for me.

This country really needs some electoral reform, but that's not about to happen. Corporations and their lobbyists run America these days, so I guess the best option for actual change is to become a billionaire?

BTW, anyone familiar with The Political Compass? This is me... I've actually moved out of the bottom left corner a bit


Obama and Romney are both quite oppositely aligned from me, and really have very similar politics. If it wasn't for the moderately different social platforms I'd have infinitely more trouble choosing.

It always amazes me how much denial there is in America about it being an imperial power no different from Britain and many European countries. Its unilateral actions in Hawaii, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Cuba (repeatedly), Philippines, Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile Grenada, Panama, Iraq and Afganistan (to name but a few in the last century and half), have been, in almost every case carried out for American business interests or to create spheres of influence. And that list doesn’t even include covert interventions nor wars fought by proxy. But when the international community does actually ask it for assistance, it drags it feet, vetoes intervention or on the very rare occasion that it does assist as part of something international, it ends up running chicken shit away (Lebanon and Somalia being two recent examples).

This, so much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism. It's like America felt it went as far as it could go with its original definition of Manifest Destiny and decided to push ever outward. I feel like this country has and is essentially infringing on the sovereignty of other nations far more than is appropriate, and this is one of the reasons people elsewhere in the world have negative options of the United States. I do believe that the American ideal, as outlined in the constitution etc. is just freaking fantastic. I would absolutely call this the freest country in the world. But it's none of our business (I guess although I'm not a citizen I do consider myself more or less the equivalent -- I've lived here nearly all of my adult life) to impose our own paradigm (I hate that word but I'm not currently arriving at another one) on others. Especially when we're whittling away at the freedoms this country was founded on all the time these days right at home.

I'm drinking and rambling at the moment, and probably way off topic, so I shall cease typing.

tl;dr I think this country and the ideals it was founded on are fantabulous, and it greatly disturbs me that I'm now unavoidably of the opinion that things are on the decline and that I don't consider either option for the next "Leader of the Free World" to be capable or particularly desirous of turning things around.

If that's how it's gonna be, then...

I actually might have voted red this year because I feel that Obama is an idea man, but doesn't have the necessary backbone to really stand behind his choices. However, there is NO way that I can justify voting for a Mormon. It's not politically correct of me, and I don't care. Someone who subscribes to a religion that openly dismisses Women, Blacks and Native Americans has no business being in charge of anyone but themselves. So, Obama it is. They're really all two sides of the same coin anyway. :roll:

This had me confused for a second because I still can't get my head around the fact that the colours are exactly the opposite in Canada :lol: Yes, though... personally I'm an atheist and I think that most religions are pretty loony. Some of them, though, especially when they've been founded in and continued to expand during times when people ought to have known better, live in the special OMGWTFBBQ sector of my brain. Scientology, Mormonism, Raelism... well, anything involving aliens, really.

It's a bit hypocritical of me, perhaps (definitely), to hope that other sorts of religious folks will consider Romney's Mormonism to be a deal breaker. Then again, all sorts of people still think Obama is Muslim.

I'm really babbling, now. Probably you can all ignore the entirety of this reply, I'm probably expressing my thoughts pretty inadequately/imprecisely...

 

[Nordling]

Well, let's weigh out the choices; either I vote for Obama to spend 4 more years in office and get nothing done or vote for Romney who will squash most of our constitutional rights and only really cater about the upper class and pvt. sectors.

Name one constitutional right he will squash.

Separation of Church and state. Equal Rights. Just for starters.

 

[Bocefish]

Well, let's weigh out the choices; either I vote for Obama to spend 4 more years in office and get nothing done or vote for Romney who will squash most of our constitutional rights and only really cater about the upper class and pvt. sectors.

Name one constitutional right he will squash.

Separation of Church and state. Equal Rights. Just for starters.

How so?

Obama's have been on just about every late night TV show trying to show how cool they are just like the average family...

Well... NEWS FLASH! We don't give a shit! We want some actual fucking leadership from our President and the first family instead of wtf Sasha wears or their diet.

 

[EmilyConrad]

I took the quiz too and I got...

After looking to see what leaders have also landed in the same box, I feel pretty good. In the company of Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela. Very interesting.

 

[Nordling]

Oh, please. You have it in for him because he's not a member of whatever party you think will do wonderful things for you. Here's a clue--they WON'T.

If you'd spend less time reading the "human interest" crap, and maybe go to whitehouse.gov and other sites that tell you what the administration has REALLY accomplished, you'd get the log out of your eye.

Here's a primer for you: http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

 

[Bocefish]

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Yeah, that's a real political compass brainwashing question to begin with. :lol:

Economic globalization refers to increasing economic interdependence of and national economies across the world through a rapid increase in cross-border movement of goods, service, technology and capital.[1] Whereas globalization is centered around the rapid development of science and technology, and increasing cross-border division of labor[2], economic globalization is propelled by the rapid growing significance of information in all types of productive activities and marketization, and the advance of science and technologies.[3] Depending on the paradigm, economic globalization can be viewed as either a positive or a negative phenomenon.

Economic globalization comprises the globalization of production, markets, competition, technology, and corporations and industries.[1] While economic globalization has been occurring for the last several hundred years (since the emergence of trans-national trade), it has begun to occur at an increased rate over the last 20–30 years under the framework of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and World Trade Organization which made countries to gradually cut down trade barriers and open up their current accounts and capital accounts.[4] This recent boom has been largely accounted by developed economies integrating with less developed economies, by means of foreign direct investment, the reduction of trade barriers, and in many cases cross border immigration.

It can be argued that economic globalization may or may not be an irreversible trend. There are several significant effects of economic globalization. There is statistical evidence for positive financial effects as well as proposals that there is a power imbalance between developing and developed countries in the global economy. Furthermore, economic globalization has an impact on world cultures.

 

[LolasLiger]

BTW, anyone familiar with The Political Compass? This is me... I've actually moved out of the bottom left corner a bit

Thank you. I decided to follow the link...I am not surprised by the results :lol:

 

[schlmoe]

Funny how things change. Less than 5 years ago, I bet I would have been in the upper right box. :lol:

 

[LolasLiger]

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Yeah, that's a real political compass brainwashing question to begin with. :lol:

Economic globalization refers to increasing economic interdependence of and national economies across the world through a rapid increase in cross-border movement of goods, service, technology and capital.[1] Whereas globalization is centered around the rapid development of science and technology, and increasing cross-border division of labor[2], economic globalization is propelled by the rapid growing significance of information in all types of productive activities and marketization, and the advance of science and technologies.[3] Depending on the paradigm, economic globalization can be viewed as either a positive or a negative phenomenon.

Economic globalization comprises the globalization of production, markets, competition, technology, and corporations and industries.[1] While economic globalization has been occurring for the last several hundred years (since the emergence of trans-national trade), it has begun to occur at an increased rate over the last 20–30 years under the framework of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and World Trade Organization which made countries to gradually cut down trade barriers and open up their current accounts and capital accounts.[4] This recent boom has been largely accounted by developed economies integrating with less developed economies, by means of foreign direct investment, the reduction of trade barriers, and in many cases cross border immigration.

It can be argued that economic globalization may or may not be an irreversible trend. There are several significant effects of economic globalization. There is statistical evidence for positive financial effects as well as proposals that there is a power imbalance between developing and developed countries in the global economy. Furthermore, economic globalization has an impact on world cultures.

Nice cut and paste job (next time try putting the source or removing the footnote numbering). How about telling us what YOU think?

 

[Bocefish]

Nice cut and paste job (next time try putting the source or removing the footnote numbering). How about telling us what YOU think?

OK, let's try again...

Yeah, that's a real political compass brainwashing question to begin with. The rest was an explanation.

 

[Nordling]

Yeah, my dot tends to wiggle around in the lower, left quadrant. lol

 

[Bocefish]

If you'd spend less time reading the "human interest" crap, and maybe go to whitehouse.gov and other sites that tell you what the administration has REALLY accomplished, you'd get the log out of your eye.

If you'd stop pretending to know everyone, including me and be less of a fucking asshole know-it-all, I might actually begin to give some consideration to what you have to say.

 

[Nordling]

If humanity is to survive, some form of globalization will be necessary, but I don't think it's something you just jump into, it must be done slowly, like molasses, because economics isn't the only issue. Freedom of choice for all humans must come before we simply tear down all borders.

I'd love it if Putin, e.g., would say, "gee, I'm an authoritarian dick! Let's have some truly free and open elections!"

 

[Nordling]

If you'd spend less time reading the "human interest" crap, and maybe go to whitehouse.gov and other sites that tell you what the administration has REALLY accomplished, you'd get the log out of your eye.

If you'd stop pretending to know everyone, including me and be less of a fucking asshole know-it-all, I might actually begin to give some consideration to what you have to say.

 

[LolasLiger]

Nice cut and paste job (next time try putting the source or removing the footnote numbering). How about telling us what YOU think?

OK, let's try again...

Yeah, that's a real political compass brainwashing question to begin with. The rest was an explanation.

Not sure how the question can be described as brainwashing. It was not a loaded question because it allows the respondent to disagree with the statement. The very nature of brainwashing/loaded questions is that they all direct you towards a specifically appropriate response, one that the questionnaire wants you to give. One of the first things taught to sociology students in research methodology classes is not to have such questions. This passed the test.

As for the "explanation", for the sake of evenness I will post the link, so members can also read the section about criticisms of globalisation:

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

 

[Bocefish]

If humanity is to survive, some form of globalization will be necessary, but I don't think it's something you just jump into, it must be done slowly, like molasses, because economics isn't the only issue. Freedom of choice for all humans must come before we simply tear down all borders.

I'd love it if Putin, e.g., would say, "gee, I'm an authoritarian dick! Let's have some truly free and open elections!"

Putin respects strength, not some overly bowing apologetic wuss.

 

[AllisonWilder]

I can't get behind Mitt Romney with his 'values'. We're in the worst shape as a country as we've ever been in my lifetime and he wants to focus on overturning Roe v. Wade, pulling funding from Planned Parenthood clinics and amending the constitution to suit his beliefs? :? :snooty:

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

 

[Bocefish]

I challenge anyone to take that test and try to end up anything but left.

 

[Kradek]

Obligatory meta commentary on the next 27 pages of where this thread is headed. Feel free to substitute Google as well.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

You have only 2 realistic choices, only one of 2 men have a chance to win.

So vote for a slow moving progressive liberal who needs 4 more yrs to get anything done, or vote for a sellout to the religious right who will pass whatever insane bill the tea party shoves in front of him.

With Obama you know what you have, with Romney you have no fucking clue what you'll get. Most likely you'll get another war, social security turned into a voucher program, supreme court appointments who will quickly overturn Roe V. Wade, and more than likely a quickly passed personhood amendment that will outlaw most forms of birth control and abortion.

If you vote for anyone else than one of these two you might as well save your time and not vote at all. Protest votes for obscure 3rd parties are just throwing away a vote.

So... Vote to keep what you have for 4 more yrs, or vote to take your chances with the teaparty driven crazy train.

Choose wisely.

Do you really want to vote for a guy who's running mate says rape is just another "method of conception"?

 

[Bocefish]

But when the international community does actually ask it for assistance, it drags it feet, vetoes intervention or on the very rare occasion that it does assist as part of something international, it ends up running chicken shit away (Lebanon and Somalia being two recent examples).

Blame America!

After all, we very rarely assist and if we do... we end up running away like chicken shits from Lebanon and Somalia?

WTF did you do?

"We" tend to participate in the UN and then stick to our commitments a lot more, after we said we would.

So do we, however, when the UN tries to tell us how to run our country and disregard our constitution, they can go fuck themselves.

 

[camstory]

Oh my gawd, there has been a page of post while i causally composed mine, while cooking dinner, feeding the dogs, and what not. I may be repeating others or,,, i don't know. should read those that have posted between, and i will, just not first.

Four more years of Obama's lack of leadership is NOT what we need. He's proven how desperately low he will stoop for votes with his ads of trying to brag about Bin Laden's demise

Not so much defending Obama, but more puzzled than anything. We did catch up to dumb dead bin well into the rain of Obama, did we not? I am sure that other than saying, "yea, lets do it" he had very little to do with it, but you don't suggest he not at least bat it up in the air once or twice so everyone can see it. I'm all for humility, but humble presidential candidates aren't. Its not the nature of the beast, there never has been one, and never will be one, who wouldn't wave it around, more or less, and the smart $'s on more.

I know many Americans would say that it is not our business as to whom America chooses as their president. And I would agree with that if America stopped interfering with the rest of the world. But because it insists on doing so, the rest of the world worries quite a bit

I would not be one of those Americans. We make huge vile waves around the world, always! But what about all the good, what about all the international aid? What about it? there are many other countries who give a relatively substantial % of their GNP to aid those who are in need, yet don't act as if their entitled to get in everyone's business.

It's nothing new, since we became powerful enough to start pushing less powerful folk around, we have been pushing. It is, like it or not, how we got the biggest club, and you better not raise too big a ruckus about it, cuz if we aren't currently clubbing you, we can start. It is history, maybe not the doctored history we, here in the states subscribe to, but why would we? That factual type of history, is just a bunch of liberal crap prolly pulled straight from the pages of Mother Jones or some other commie rag. It hasn't been 100% successful, well if you factor in human life, and the rights of others around the world, but that would be just plan silly forget about the trivial bits. No, not 100% successful cuz we let a few of the weak kids struggle free. Those Cubans are a scrappy bunch. And whats the deal with those Venezuelans? Yea, so maybe we bullied them some for the better part of a century, and stirred shit up pretty good in their hood, but its like their bitter or something. :lol: You know those fiery Latins, what are you going to do.

I've heard tell that Persian rugs once were made in Persia. That was before they developed their own Democratic government and there was a name change. I doubt we would have taken any notice, sept our buddies the Brits, seeing we were looking for sumenz to bully anyway, said, "Hey.... Well no need go into it, it's a rather crude story. What did they end up calling that place? Let me see, who hates us with an irrational frenzied passion, Oh yea, Iran. It can be argued that the intensity of their hate is extreme, maybe even a little crazy. Anyone who argues they are crazy for hating us is a jackass.

Oh why couldn't they all have been like the Hawaiian Islands? I can't even start - I don't care to do furious on the cusp of anguish right now. The really sad part beyond the original atrocity, is most are clueless. Everyone knows how we did the Native Americans. It does not make it OK, but just having others know your story, no matter how tragic provides for others to feel badly for you. To be part of a huge abusive tragedy and have no one take notice, must be an awful thing indeed.

No, do not count me as one of those Americans.

 

[LolasLiger]

I challenge anyone to take that test and try to end up anything but left.

Challenge accepted and taken. All i did was answer the questions based upon what I have heard people like Romney spout in public.

 

[Bocefish]

With Romney you'll get another war, social security turned into a voucher program, supreme court appointments who will quickly overturn Roe V. Wade, and more than likely a quickly passed personhood amendment that will outlaw most forms of birth control.

Right on :thumbleft: Ignorance, paranoia and fear mongering... Next you'll say incest will be the norm and forced rape by republicans. Let's see... who can we go to war with next?

 

[Nordling]

With Romney you'll get another war, social security turned into a voucher program, supreme court appointments who will quickly overturn Roe V. Wade, and more than likely a quickly passed personhood amendment that will outlaw most forms of birth control.

Right on :thumbleft: Ignorance, paranoia and fear mongering... Next you'll say incest will be the norm and forced rape by republicans. Let's see... who can we go to war with next?

:lol: No, we already HAVE been forcibly raped by the Republicans.

 

[Bocefish]

I challenge anyone to take that test and try to end up anything but left.

Challenge accepted and taken. All i did was answer the questions based upon what I have heard people like Romney spout in public.

That's funny because I wound up lower left and have taken dozens of those so-called tests and ALWAYS ended up just right of center. Every one of those questions were leading in one way or another.

 

[Red7227]

You have only 2 realistic choices, only one of 2 men have a chance to win.

So vote for a slow moving progressive liberal who needs 4 more yrs to get anything done, or vote for a sellout to the religious right who will pass whatever insane bill the tea party shoves in front of him.

With Obama you know what you have, with Romney you have no fucking clue what you'll get. Most likely you'll get another war, social security turned into a voucher program, supreme court appointments who will quickly overturn Roe V. Wade, and more than likely a quickly passed personhood amendment that will outlaw most forms of birth control and abortion.

If you vote for anyone else than one of these two you might as well save your time and not vote at all. Protest votes for obscure 3rd parties are just throwing away a vote.

So... Vote to keep what you have for 4 more yrs, or vote to take your chances with the teaparty driven crazy train.

Choose wisely.

Do you really want to vote for a guy who's running mate says rape is just another "method of conception"?

Its a widely held Commonwealth view that the role of government is to do nothing. Ideally doing nothing as cheaply as possible. Taking 10 years to actually make a decision and implement a piece of legislation means its probably quite well thought out and reasonably innocuous.

 

[Nordling]

If humanity is to survive, some form of globalization will be necessary, but I don't think it's something you just jump into, it must be done slowly, like molasses, because economics isn't the only issue. Freedom of choice for all humans must come before we simply tear down all borders.

I'd love it if Putin, e.g., would say, "gee, I'm an authoritarian dick! Let's have some truly free and open elections!"

Putin respects strength, not some overly bowing apologetic wuss.

More ignorance. You really do believe Limbaugh, O'Riley, Hannity, Coulter, Savage and all those other pricks with big mouths don't you?