AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Elections 2012

57 12641
tankbuster37
offline
tankbuster37
6 posts
Nomad

I can't imagine what idiots are going to run
for president this election. Does anyone know who
is running so far?

  • 57 Replies
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Why not Trump? The man knows how to make money, I think he can throw us out of the recession


He was also 900 million in debt at one point. I don't think someone who couldn't handle the recession of the 1980s for his company could handle the massive problems our government has.
indie55
offline
indie55
608 posts
Nomad

What has Obama done? Nuthin'.

Making a situation worse isn't nothing. lol.
mdv96
offline
mdv96
1,017 posts
Nomad

Making a situation worse isn't nothing. lol.


Your right. Lemme rephrase:

What GOOD has Obama done asside kill Osama after we knew where he was for 8 years?
indie55
offline
indie55
608 posts
Nomad

What GOOD has Obama done asside kill Osama after we knew where he was for 8 years?

We actually had plenty of chances to kill him before. Especially during the Clinton administration.
mdv96
offline
mdv96
1,017 posts
Nomad

I think if gas hits $5 a gallon, Obama's goose is cooked. By that point anyone would beat obama.

Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Making a situation worse isn't nothing. lol.


The situation is worse for the long term, but isn't as bad as it was for the short term. And its arguably better than it could have been. The problem is that no one agrees on how spending should be changed to help long term.
indie55
offline
indie55
608 posts
Nomad

The problem is that no one agrees on how spending should be changed to help long term.

Well how are people supposed to agree. When you have a large body of people there always going to argue and rarely get things done.
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Well how are people supposed to agree. When you have a large body of people there always going to argue and rarely get things done.


That is why you need people in government who want to help the country and not just themselves, its easier to agree when everyone has the same goal.
indie55
offline
indie55
608 posts
Nomad

That is why you need people in government who want to help the country and not just themselves, its easier to agree when everyone has the same goal.

While this sounds good in writing it will never happen. (I wish it would). But people have to realize that most of the politicians while they try to help, are to threatened by others and with the fear of the media. You're right in the sense that things would get done if everyone agreed and looked for the same goal. It just won't happen. Especially with the political party system that we have in place. People need to be individuals and not feel restrained to represent a party.
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

Yay the Graph is diverging to no!


This would be disatrous in our fragile economy; this is probaly the WORST thing you could do.
Right -- because increasing/killing Bush taxes and using THAT money for tax breaks isn't a good idea. Instead, we just waste more money. what's not to stop them from raising the price AFTER subsidization?

Also, what ELSE could the money be spent on? Oh, nothing, since the USA has practically no natural resources, it's a land of crap, and we don't have any oil, natural gas, wind, or sunlight at all. --> And don't tell me the technologies aren't developed yet, the government can fund for their future development. I like long-term approaches. Our 'FRAGILE' Economy is going to take a hit whether it wants to or not, it's not as if gas prices instantly going down would make this America's best tourism season ever.

And that automatically makes him a genius?

No, but it clearly defers him away from being an imbecile.


Dems have had Majority in the House from 2006-2010. Dems have held majority in the Senate from 2006-Present. GOP has held majority in the House from 2010-Present. Dems have held the White House from 2008-Present (2012 min, 2016 max). Yup, its all the GOPs fault. :/


That's after the initiation of war, tax cuts, and a year before the housing bubble burst. Or two. Honestly, you expected the '06 Dems to stop a problem that began in 2002?

And I understand that time has passed and the Democrats have not been able to fully solve our problem. But the tiny bounce back I've seen is all I care about, I think it sounds better than to throw it to the GOP again so they can toy with crapanomics.

I honestly think we need a president who isn't a politician. Look at Eisenhower, a military general, great president. Washington, once again a general, founding father. Hell, Reagan, actor, great president.


I'd like that. As long as he's still smart, he can pull out good ideas and lead the country. But some polls I saw on CNN when I was watching it once that talked about Obama's youth support were about not-as-politically active politicians-to-be, and many younger people felt that lack of credentials was a weakness.


Yes, because when a man adds 3 trillion to our national debt in just 2 years, I really want him back for another 4. Obama's idea of foreign relations is 'If I close my eyes, may be it will all just dissapear...'. The Stimulus packages have failed, unemployment is rampant, and we're set to have our Debt reach 100% in early August.


Just a quick question. Are you saying, that, if Bush were in office, he would have halted the debt's increase to 100%?

USdebtclock states our '08 debt was 9.7 Trillion.
Obama is 3 Trillion in 2
Bush is 10 Million in 8.

Obama's more, but then again, all of the money he spent was cleaning up for Bush's war, he also had to spend on Bush's war ontop of that, returning soldiers like pension, and he's also spent money on things such as the stimulus and programs for the society.

So yes, he's increased the debt. But at least the 'money' he's wasted is going to something worthwhile, and i see that as having a better impact for America's future than the bs spending we could get with anyone else.

Why not Trump?

Because, he's a politician. He's also a politician with money. He's also, as Moe stated, had a 900 Million dollar debt. He's also not to popular with religious people.

Obama's idea of foreign relations is 'If I close my eyes, may be it will all just dissapear...'.

More drone attacks, less people on the ground, and... he got Osama
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

Maverick, you really need to do better research


60% of African Americans are Against Gay Rights

Most Americans disaproove of Gay Rights (Poll Question 21)

You forget, the last election, the GOP soapboxed on bringing the economy back into line, which is why they were elected. They don't deliver, it's on them.


Actually, they are trying to deliver. The Dems, meanwhile, are trying to remove tax breaks to large corporations, which will in turn drive up the cost of consumer goods, further weakening our already weak economy.

http://theredhunter.com/Obama%20v%20Bush%20debt.jpg

Clintons numbers are largely distorted. In order to give off the appearence of 'lowering' his expenditures, he decided to raid Social Security and count that as an 'income'. So thanks to Clinton's 'Shift-o-nomics', Social Security is bust. And you also failed to include Obama's years. Wait a minute! Obama is a DEMOCRAT, yet you just put forth the argument that only REPUBLICANS are BIG SPENDERS. Hmmm...

I'll just ignore the fact that Obama has added more debt than George Washington through Ronald Reagan COMBINED.

Refused to back DOMA in court


So rather than do the morally correct thing, and follow his party, he decided to not back DOMA. Why can't he harness this 'iniative' and put it to good use? Like say... in the Middle East?

Passed the universal healthcare bill like he promised


Rasmussen Poll

May 13-14, 2011:
Favor Repeal: 55%
Oppose Repeal: 38%

Got Osama in 2 years (Which Bush couldn't do in 7)


But wasn't it Bush who set into motion the chain of events that eventually led to Osama's demise? So it would just seem that Obama is trying to take credit for something that he had no real control over, when he really just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

Also, what ELSE could the money be spent on? Oh, nothing, since the USA has practically no natural resources,


Lies. We have vast oil desposits in Alaska, ANWR, Gulf Coast, and the East Coast. Our Glorious President, however, had decided to ban all deep water drilling.

we don't have any oil, natural gas, wind, or sunlight at all


While the US doesn't have the amounts of Oil and Gas as say, Venezuela or Brazil or Saudia Arabia, we still have fairly large amounts that have yet to be tapped (see above post).

To say that the US has no SUNLIGHT or WIND is just plain ignorant of basic solar-system science from the third grade. The Earth is round, and orbits the Sun, so all parts must recieve sun. And sunlight causes wind, so all parts must also recieve wind too. If you've ever been to the South West or the Deep South in August, than you'll become a fast believer of the power of the Sun.

The US, like most other countries, is only in the beginning stages of tapping the renewable resources. Technology in the form of batteries and other equipment capable of storing this energy has yet to catch up with the technology that produces this energy (HINT HINT, invest in Lithium while its cheap).

I won't even get started about the Coal desposits that the US has.

it's not as if gas prices instantly going down would make this America's best tourism season ever.


Thats true. But to deny the fact that a decrease in oil prices will cause no good to the American Consumer is turning a blind eye to common sense.

May be Voltaire was correct in saying that "Common Sense is not so common."...

Honestly, you expected the '06 Dems to stop a problem that began in 2002?


Let me put it this way. The '06 Dems had no right to bail out companies that should have failed in 2008. And if I remember correctly, wasn't it those same companies that caused the '2002' problem? Hmmm?

But the tiny bounce back I've seen is all I care about


I like long-term approaches


No comment.

I think it sounds better than to throw it to the GOP again so they can toy with crapanomics.


But we certainly shouldn't hand it to the Dems and Liberals 'Blaze-o-nomics', with the notion that 'If I keep throwing money at it, may be the fire will go out'. Albert Einstein defined 'Insanity' as 'Repeating the same action with the hope of a differen't outcome'. A question we should be asking our President is:

"You've spent how much money and our economy is 'better' now? And you want to spend how much more money to make even better?"

Are you saying, that, if Bush were in office, he would have halted the debt's increase to 100%?


So are you saying that Obama hasn't contributed at all to making our debt go up to 100% of our GDP? (Since thats what '100% seems to be referencing).

all of the money he spent was cleaning up for Bush's war, he also had to spend on Bush's war ontop of that, returning soldiers like pension


So you're saying that we shouldn't value National Security and defend ourselves from those who attack us?

and he's also spent money on things such as the stimulus and programs for the society.


Because as history has shown us, Progressive Welfare always turns out so nicely in the end. /sarcasm

{url=http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/15/morning-bell-why-the-obama-stimulus-failed/]Heritage Foundation: Obama's Stimulus Package a 'Flop'[/url]

And if you look at USDebtClock.org, which you cited previously, you'll see that Medicare, Medicaid, and other 'Social Programs' are 55 Trillion in the hole.

More drone attacks, less people on the ground


Because the Drone and Cruise Missiles attacks in Libya have worked out so well to take down Ghaddafi. Yeah, we don't need any boots on the ground at all.

And as for Osama, please see my above response.

And that chaps the GOP's *** like you would not believe.


Again, see my above response.
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

I'll just ignore the fact that Obama has added more debt than George Washington through Ronald Reagan COMBINED.


Its not that big of a stretch since you seem to be ignoring Bush's additions to the debt.

So you're saying that we shouldn't value National Security and defend ourselves from those who attack us?


Defend? Sure. Attack multiple countries for the hell of it? No.
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

Lies. We have vast oil desposits in Alaska, ANWR, Gulf Coast, and the East Coast. Our Glorious President, however, had decided to ban all deep water drilling.


HOLY @#@#$#@$
I was BEING SARCASTIC. WE LIVE ON ONE OF THE MOST FERTILE GROUNDS ON THE EARTH LMFAO.
I was saying that because of the previous comments about how we should waste our money on lowering the price of oil INSTEAD OF INVESTING IN BETTER ENERGY.

Sorry for CAPS LOCKING the living crap out of you, but your response to my post was so long it looked as if you put actual effort into it. Sorry, I know it's the net and being sarcastic doesn't make sense.
I just thought that people would assume it common knowledge to know that our country is filled with stuff.



Let me put it this way. The '06 Dems had no right to bail out companies that should have failed in 2008. And if I remember correctly, wasn't it those same companies that caused the '2002' problem? Hmmm?


Right, so spending goes out of control, we get a bubble burst, bad credit is everywhere, all because government regulation was so poor that a bunch of idiots got to make mistakes.

So in turn, we let these companies fail and wait for 30 years as a new era of companies emerge, meanwhile we all just stay poor.


ts not that big of a stretch since you seem to be ignoring Bush's additions to the debt.

Yeah, imagine how much the economy has grown since the '70's and '80's. We got computers, a lot of things have changed. A lot more money has been made. And a lot more has been spent.


To say that the US has no SUNLIGHT or WIND is just plain ignorant of basic solar-system science from the third grade. The Earth is round, and orbits the Sun, so all parts must recieve sun. And sunlight causes wind, so all parts must also recieve wind too. If you've ever been to the South West or the Deep South in August, than you'll become a fast believer of the power of the Sun.

The US, like most other countries, is only in the beginning stages of tapping the renewable resources. Technology in the form of batteries and other equipment capable of storing this energy has yet to catch up with the technology that produces this energy (HINT HINT, invest in Lithium while its cheap).

I won't even get started about the Coal desposits that the US has.



Again, sorry I made you go through that. Very informative, but ... my comment was sarcastic. I'm pretty sure it was clear that it was, but again, sorry.


"You've spent how much money and our economy is 'better' now? And you want to spend how much more money to make even better?"


If I recall... The republicans wanted to raise the debt ceiling a lot more than the Dems did.


So are you saying that Obama hasn't contributed at all to making our debt go up to 100% of our GDP? (Since thats what '100% seems to be referencing).


I'm saying at bush's rates, we would have hit 100%. It is not fair to tell Obama that he is a source root of the problem. Yes, he has amassed debt. Then again, the majority of it is not his, and the amount he has amassed is at least going towards counteracting the problem. and the problem, if you'd like me to repeat, is not his fault at all. Yes he has contributed. But in the best way of explaining it, I'll just say that he had to contribute. It's not like you can save the economy without spending a dime.


And if you look at USDebtClock.org, which you cited previously, you'll see that Medicare, Medicaid, and other 'Social Programs' are 55 Trillion in the hole.


Sorry I'm not sure you read correctly. The 55 Trillion is listed under 'TOTAL DEBT'. The medicare tab is a little northwest of it.
Also, most of that 55 Trillion is continuously put back over time, especially things such as Social Security. Once we get over the 'baby boom' hump, the program should run extremely smooth.


So you're saying that we shouldn't value National Security and defend ourselves from those who attack us?


National Security? Boots = Kill ppl. Drones = Kill Ppl. Drones die = Nobody dead.
In terms of security, the Drones win.
In terms of the amount of oil we waste, we win.
In terms of morale, we win.
In terms of defending ourselves, more boots ready to deploy = more defensive structure.
Randomly invading the middle east? Stupid

Because the Drone and Cruise Missiles attacks in Libya have worked out so well to take down Ghaddafi. Yeah, we don't need any boots on the ground at all.


So... what are you suggesting? The US INVADE Libya? If that's the case then you are insane.

Otherwise, yes, the Drones are not the best. But I doubt a full-scale US mass invasion would be any different. We'd piss people off and result in making terrorist spawning camps due to the issues we'd bring with war


Our Glorious President, however, had decided to ban all deep water drilling.


It's all politics. People in the coast see what happened, and they'd rather not like their economies ruined. These people vote. He could have not banned it, but again, he'd like to be president re-elect.



But wasn't it Bush who set into motion the chain of events that eventually led to Osama's demise? So it would just seem that Obama is trying to take credit for something that he had no real control over, when he really just happened to be at the right place at the right time.


^ No. it wasn't. By no means was it.
Bush started a war
Sent in a gajillion men and hoped to conquer. 7 Years, nada.

Lets go to Obama. He cuts off on the amount of men there. He uses Navy SEALS. He uses more intel then bombs.

Bush started the war, Obama got the kill. End of it.

And again, really sorry about the sarcasm. lol
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Yeah, imagine how much the economy has grown since the '70's and '80's. We got computers, a lot of things have changed. A lot more money has been made. And a lot more has been spent.


My point had nothing to do with how the economy has grown, it was about how he was complaining about Obama's additions to the debt(which you have explained quite well) while he ignored the pointless, and massive, additions made by Bush.
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

I would just like to add.
When Clinton balanced the budget.
He didn't take away jobs of our soldiers.
He just stopped making the countless bombs and jets we have on continuous production.
I know it'll be nice to have when we need them.
But just as a note to those paranoid -- We're at war, and we've proven, that we don't need them. We never peaked towards using them, and we haven't downsized to use them. We have gained NO industrial benefit.

And, it's not as if we're having a war with China anytime soon.

Showing 16-30 of 57