Forgot your password?

Re: the U.S. 2012 election campaign, I am:

Displaying poll results.
Uninterested or nearly so.
  7174 votes / 28%
Mildly, but not deeply, interested.
  4734 votes / 18%
Very interested, but not fanatical.
  4691 votes / 18%
Obsessed or nearly so.
  1034 votes / 4%
Ask me a year from now.
  7826 votes / 30%
25459 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Re: the U.S. 2012 election campaign, I am:

Comments Filter:
  • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @12:29PM (#36452012)

    Because they're corrupted by different corporate interests. On the one side, you've got the defense contractors, oil companies, and wall street traders. On the other you've got the copyright trolls, insurance companies, and wall street traders (they have the money to buy out both sides apparently). Pick your poison... or vote third party to show your anger, knowing the whole time that your candidate will not win (at least, not this year, maybe in 20 years or so if you keep voting and convince others to do the same). Also, keep in mind that by the time your third party is powerful enough to stand a chance, the odds are it will be just as corrupt as the other two, but maybe who they're corrupted by will be more in line with your beliefs, you never know.

  • by danbert8 (1024253) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @01:58PM (#36453130)

    Here's a hint... Ron Paul is running as a Republican, but he's really a libertarian. He is corrupted by personal liberty.

  • by danbert8 (1024253) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @02:07PM (#36453262)

    Just an FYI for you: oil companies pay BILLIONS in taxes, it's renewable energy companies like GE that can get away with 0 income taxes. In my opinion, 5 departments can be severely cut or eliminated: Energy, education, agriculture, defense, and the federal reserve. Once those are gone we can work on whittling away at entitlements.

    And if you want to end the wars, Ron Paul is your only hope.

  • by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @03:36PM (#36454232) Homepage

    Coolidge cut taxes boosted economic growth and increased tax revenue. Kennedy cut taxes boosted economic growth and tax revenues. Reagan cut taxes boosted economic growth and tax revenue. Clinton (forced by Newt) even had reasonable economic policies and saw economic growth and increasing revenue. Bush the younger cut taxes boosted economic growth and tax revenue.

    I swear, I think I just read a /. post from an alternate universe.

    Coolidge cut taxes on the poor. By the end of his administration, only the richest 2% paid any taxes at all. [1] [wikipedia.org] Kennedy cut taxes but also spent like mad; he created the first non-war deficit. [2] [wikipedia.org] Reagan raised taxes; he rejiggered the tax code but the net effect was increased revenue. [3] [cnn.com] And even that he pissed away on profligate spending.

    Clinton presided over terrific economic growth largely because he and his predecessor raised taxes. Bush the younger cut taxes and mired the economy in eight years of doldrums followed by a monetary crisis not seen in 80 years.

    It's very simple. If taxes are too high, cutting them will stimulate the economy and increase revenue. If taxes are too low, the only way to increase revenue is to raise them. Right now we are in an era of the lowest tax rates since the 1950s. [4] [politifact.com] I don't understand how anyone with half a brain can say that the solution to our current problems is to lower them further.

    This is all a basic disagreement in worldview between the two parties. The Democrats favor the European style of government, with strong social programs, powerful worker unions, and high taxes to pay for those things. The Republicans favor the Asian/Indian style of government, with taxes as low as possible, but that also brings little or no social safety net, no ecological protections, and full tooth-and-claw capitalism with sweatshops and pauper's prisons and so on. Both of these economic models are viable; both Germany and Bangladesh are competitive in today's world in their own way. The US has straddled the gap between them for decades but we can't play either part very well, and we will have to specialize along one or the other model before long.

    The problem with our politics is that neither party will be honest about it. Obama won't own up to the fact that raising taxes is the only way to make our current system work, and the Republicans won't let on that their vision for America is an anarcho-capitalist dystopia. Worst of all, neither of them will attack the other side about this, because that would expose the problems in their own vision. Politics in the US has turned into kabuki theater, while the stage is burning down around us.

  • Re:Obvious (Score:2, Informative)

    by similar_name (1164087) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:43PM (#36457600)

    But, like China or Russia, it doesn't really matter who will be the next president

    As an American I agreed with you up until ...

    (unless you're an American, of course).

    I would agree it doesn't matter as both parties are the same. However if you're suggesting that America doesn't affect you I'm genuinely curious where you're from? Do you have anything we might want?

    I can't help but add. America, Fuck yeah! [youtube.com]

  • by danbert8 (1024253) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @10:26PM (#36458296)

    Umm, yes... According to the constitution, people have 3 rights: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. You notice healthcare, a house, a job, and retirement money are not included. As for that "states don't have rights" comment, I give you the 10th amendment:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Hence, while the states do not have "rights" they do have powers. Specifically those powers which are not held by individuals or enumerated in the above Constitution. So since social liberty issues are not given to the federal government, either their should be no law (individual freedom) or the states can create laws governing those areas.

  • Re:Obvious (Score:4, Informative)

    by MichaelSmith (789609) on Thursday June 16, 2011 @05:19AM (#36460284) Homepage Journal

    The Sovereign would never direct her Governor-General to withhold assent if the Prime Minister recommends it...

    Aussie here. We had that little problem in 1975 [wikipedia.org] Long story short: the Governor General dismissed the government and appointed the leader of the opposition as the new Prime Minister.

: is not an identifier

 



Forgot your password?
Working...