2012 Election Thread

[proracer]

im sorry but all the republican candidates are retarded, except ron paul sometimes.



and obama was doomed to fail because he had to recover from all of bush's shit, and it fracked him. he has also made some durab choices, but he will do a better job than any republican durabass

[cedrpnt]

huntsman 2012

[jethom33545]

If the Republican party does not nominate their least insane contender, they will lose to Obama.

This isn't even about economic policies at all, I wouldn't mind a person with a republican style economic plan coming into the White House. It is just that the republican candidates are so mindbogglingly intellectually backward, scientifically ignorant and so outspokenly against humans being equal (gay marriage, and gays serving in the military) that it will hurt their chances at securing crucial votes.

[corpsefingers]

I was thinking stupidity but sure. And by no purpose I meant that a period of deficit spending was not imposed as an active fiscal policy and then reeled back in. It seems to have gained a sense of permanence to it, as if ever-increasing debt is just the way our gov operates, no biggie.

I like Ron Paul, I just worry that if he were elected absolutely nothing would get done because most politicians might disagree with his ideas. And idk if this notion of "let the states decide" sits well with a lot voters when it comes to matters like medical marijuana (not saying I disagree with him, just saying others will). I also remeraber him saying that he doesn't believe in climate change, and that idea would not sit well with a lot of people.
.

[Alternative Chick]

[Zach]

ron paul since 2007. he and kucinich imo were the only ones who even knew what the hell was going on and had coherent logic then. the fact that i just happen to agree with paul on many things is just icing on the cake for me. hilary, sheeple for McBama, pailn, romney, most of the other people who ran, the fact that people were even taken seriously greatly concerned me (well ok i think romney IS bad no doubt but he isnt THAT THAT bad).

my view on current candidates:
Obama: what a joke. did everything bad that bush did and then more. seriously how are people not complaining about him more than they did about bush - completely durabfounRAB me. im also very disappointed and amazed people in our younger generation fell for him in 08. i mean come on i was just out of high school then and even then he was already so easy to see through. that and he wasn't even that persuasive or charismatic.

Gingrich: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. if he enRAB up winning against the other republicans, im probably going to write in dick cheney... b/c in all seriousness even cheney would be better than this guy. irl just seeing this guy on tv i burst out laughing. im laughing right now as i write this.

bachmann: just looking at her background and her husbanRAB background concerns me. hearing her speak really concerns me. really how does this lady appeal to anyone?

perry: stereotypical white trash male republican douchebag, ie the kind of person that gives republicans and white people a bad name and the republican stereotype. for those of you who may need me to explain why, i think that even if i did, you wouldn't get it or agree with me.

romney: yet another stereotypical old white male republican, same kind of guy who gives republicans and white people a bad name, the same image i imagine that the republicans would like to escape. not as big of a straight up asshat as perry though and amazingly somewhat coherent in thought here and there. between this guy and obama, idk, they would be the same thing to me.

paul: i like him b/c he is coherent and makes sense. thats about it. i dont agree with him 100% on everything but for the most part i do. that and i know he isn't in it for the politics, power, ego boost, etc. b/c many of the things he is willing to do aren't play now pay later unlike all the other candidates. ie he will make us take some bitter medicine and face some hard truths to fix shiz for real, which politicians running just to win and have power WONT do.

my only concern if he wins is that the american public and media is ADD and will want results right away. ie when u quit being an alcoholic it gets worse at first before things get better for real and i imagine that a large portion of america wont want to wait. so we will get many of the withdrawal symptoms and few of the benefits if people dont wake up and think. if we do ride it out though, i think it will be like japan who rode out their 30% inflation in the 70s and 5 years later with 10% of the US population could do about 50% of the US's work and GDP/output. things got a bit worse during those 5 years, they came out REALLY ahead after. and their people at all levels of society did better and had more money and economic freedom, not just their rich. or west berlin/germany that went from one of the most broken nations to probably the strongest country in europe (economically, well maybe minus england or what the swiss could be if they werent like 10 people in a small mountain) in 10 years doing something similar. unfortunately, i see people trending towarRAB bigger and more controlling gov like east germany, and i think we all know how that turned out.

[Robeerto]

on climate change:
i do legitimately believe that man has done a lot of harm to the environment and can continue to do much more. however, i used to believe in climate change until i was thinking about it one day and realized that fundamentally most people approach it in the wrong way. now i would say i simply dont know because of a lack of firm data and a good approach:
how i think we should approach it: how much have average temperatures changed on other planets and significant points in the solar system vs earth.
- if the change is the same or close, then its natural.
- if everywhere else has been getting colder the last 40 years and we got warmer, we are probably in trouble.
- if we are warming up just a little faster, then its natural/mathematical variation OR the difference is caused by man.

but remeraber this, about 40 to 50 years ago, people thought the world would freeze over and enter a new ice age - wrong. the same (mathematical) models and such from today applied to data we have gotten for the past several decades cannot even ballpark our climate and such today - wrong again. could go on, but point is im legitimately on the fence here and i feel many more people would be too if they thought this through instead of listening to the media (the yes or no side).

[Doctor Monmon]

i dont agree w/ ur other posts, but i too feel that kennedy was the last real american president. reagan kind of but im probably one of those crazies who think he was in fear the entire time he was in office and was a right man made to do the wrong things in many instances.



milton friedman = the shiz. this man continuously opens my mind and i learn something new from him almost every time i watch his videos. sure he may be a bit liberal for some people's tastes (he openly says so himself in a few videos), but overall imo best economist of the 1900's.



i believe only $1 trillion total of our debt actually went into all, direct and indirect, spending for our military and war machine. not saying its justified, imo that was probably 900billion too much for sooooo many unjustified actions, but i dont think the military and such can bear that much blame for all of this.



^this.
still cant believe people actually believed him when he said he would make jobs. didn't bush say the same things? im amazed they havent done anything to encourage pulling the manufacturing and production back into the us. seemed to work pretty well for almost 100 years, especially 1950 to 1980 when our products and technology were the envy of the world.
- and b/c i know someone will say this:
cheap stuff from china or any country xyz today = ok fine. but id rather spend $2 for a superior product (and believe it or not, yes, its often american) that will last than $1 on a xyz product i will have to replace 3 or 4 times. although with all of these entitled and lazy workers/people in america (or wherever) that seem to be spreading, unions, laws/regulations and other bs, in all seriousness ive seen several better chinese DESIGNED and manufactured products than US or other countries now days. and if skilled labor was being forced to turn out poor products, then in a more fluid society the workers simply up and leave and work elsewhere to ensure their long term financial safety or start up their own company. if crappy labor was mixed in w/ good labor, the employer or other employees could simply get rid of the crappy worker and b/c of this, the wrong person can be made to do the right things.

[# 23]

While I agree with this wholeheartedly, that is what separates the ridiculously extreme lefts and rights of the modern parties in america. stupid ass social issues. My parents like that they are stupid about gay marriage and such.

I'm registered republican to vote in primaries. Mitt Romney is who I liked before and who I still like (after Ron Paul of course)

Sad truth: I will probably vote for him but he will not win. I hope if its not Paul, its Romney because he is not as bad on social issues and isn't a loon.

[KK3vin]

Krugman's New Trade theory basically expounRAB upon Ricardo and H-O models of comparative advantage, adding the ideas that consumers prefer various branRAB of products, and production leans towarRAB economies of scale (i.e. producers will produce where it is most efficient to do so). This explains the diversity of the smaller branRAB of products we have today....such as electronics companies or car companies. Krugman explains why consumers achieve more utility from diversity.

Friedman was Reagan's economic adviser, and a pioneer of the "Chicago school" area of economics. He delved into stabilization policy unlike any economist before him, and eventually won the Nobel for his work. He was originally a Keynesian economist, but was one of the first touted economists to raise his voice/scholarship against Keynes. He was a laissez-faire monetarist and believed that government regulation should be kept at an absolute minimum, if existent to begin with. It's thanks to him and a corabination of Keynesian theory that Bernanke started the quantitative easing series in 2007. He was a complete genius, and arguably the greatest economist of the 20th century (as penguin said). All that being said, he was very, very liberal, and it often clouded some of his policy suggestions. Friedman kind of had a problem with everyone, and he taught that fiscal policy should not be used to affect demand. At the same time though, he blamed the Fed for the length and severity of the Great Depression. He said that the Depression was originally just an ordinary financial shock, but was prolonged by the idiots controlling the money supply.