Forums → The Tavern → AG Presidential Election 2012
| 197 | 30306 |
--I'm not sure if this fits better in the Tavern or in the WEPR, so mods, move it as you see fit(of course you would do that regardless, but still--
As I'm sure AG's American members know, in 2012 the United States will be electing a new president or reelecting the incumbent. Normally this is done with electoral colleges, primaries, etc. on a national level. But I thought it would be kind of cool to hold a mock presidential election in AG, just to see what happens. The candidates will be the same, the only difference is that the voting will be on a much smaller scale. You guys will vote for which presidential candidate you like best, and at the end of two weeks(I may extend or shorten this deadline) we will see who the president of the United States should be, according to the members of AG.
But before we start voting between Obama and the Republican candidate, first we have to vote for a Republican candidate in the primary. I'm gonna change the rules a bit on the primary: you don't have to be a Republican in order to vote on the Republican primary. That's because there is no Democratic primary, Obama is the undisputed presidential candidate for the Democrats. The Republican who gets the most votes on AG, regardless of who wins the actual primary, will be the one moving on to face off against the incumbent Obama.
Rules
1. You can only vote once, unless you vote once in the primary and once in the main election.
2. In order for your vote to count, you must provide a reason for why you want that person to be president or to win the primary.
3. Let's try and keep this civil: no slandering, name-calling, or making fun of anyone because of their vote.
We are currently voting on the Republican primary(so no voting for Obama yet, vote for which Republican you want to be the party's candidate). I will be tallying the votes at the end of week one to determine the Republican primary winner, then we will start voting on who should be the actual president. At the end of week two, I will tally the votes from that election and post who is the official President of the United States as decided by ArmorGames.
- 197 Replies
My vote for the Republican nominee for the position of President of the United States of America goes to Mitt Romney. My reasoning for this is because I feel that out of all the Republican candidates, Mitt Romney is the least likely to screw us all over. Rick Santorum would attempt to impose "Christian Shariah" on America, Ron Paul is older than John McCain, and because McCain can't even remember who to endorse, how can we trust someone older than he is to make difficult decisions on Iran and the economy? Plus, Ron Paul is way too right-winged for my liking. Newt Gingrich is the wrong candidate because he has been reprimanded by the Senate, and among other things, has had many affairs over the past few years.
In conclusion, I feel that Mitt Romney should be the candidate of choice for the Republican Party, and should be the one to face Barak Obama in the general election.
Republican Primary
Mitt Romney: 1
Ron Paul: 0
Rick Santorum: 0
Newt Gingrich: 0
Jon Huntsman: 0
Rick Perry: 0
All right Zakyman, thanks for your vote. The updated vote count is above.
Do you guys think it would be fair if I voted?
Do you guys think it would be fair if I voted?
Why ever not? Just cause you made the rules doesn't mean you can't vote in a popular election.
I've written too many debate cases:
My vote for the GOP Nomination for The President of the United States goes to the esteemed Senator Ron Paul. The three things I really looked for in the go around is their record, their response on the Middle East, and their personal character.
The record is the most important part of a politician's life. If its bad, then they're not going to go anywhere. Ron Paul has got the best record among any of the candidates running. He's never voted to raise taxes, he has forseen the economic crisis since 2000, and he has promised to bring our troops home. None of the other candidates can say this: Mitt Romney has repeatedly switched his sides to the point where no one really knows where he stands. Newt Gingrich is viewed as too much of a Washington Insider to hit it off with many of the GOP members. Rick Santorum has the wrong reasons for the right ideas (not saying all his ideas are right, however). So Ron Paul's record is the best among all other candidates.
As for the Middle East, Ron Paul has repeatedly said that its not the US' role to go nation building. We allready toppled Saddam. We allready booted the Taliban out. So why are we still over there? We've done our job, and now its up the Iraqis and Afghanis to decide is they want Democracy and Liberty enough to fight for it. The other candidates have either been too soft with the Middle East, Iran for example. Or they have been too belligerant, such as Rick Perry. And then look at the Military: The Fed reported that Ron Paul recieved 50% of all Military Campaign Donations. So even the people who are fighting the wars aggree with his message.
Finally, Ron Paul's character excedes that of the other candidates. Look at Newt Gingrich: At the same time he was leading the charge to impeach Clinton over his affair, he was having one himself! When his second wife got cancer, what did he do? He divorced her, and married a younger wife! Do we *really* want this man leading our nation? Look at Mitt Romney: He has repeatedly switched his views to fit his audience; from abortion to health care to taxes. He's more slippery than a snake! And he's been running since the mid-90s, with no success. So do we really want this man to run our nation?
My choice is pretty clear: I'm voting for Ron Paul.
Republican Primary
Mitt Romney: 1
Ron Paul: 1
Rick Santorum: 0
Newt Gingrich: 0
Jon Huntsman: 0
Rick Perry: 0
Wow. I'm starting to wonder if maybe the WEPR was the right forum for this thread after all, I didn't expect nearly this level of thought and consideration to be put into the reasoning behind votes. xP
Why ever not? Just cause you made the rules doesn't mean you can't vote in a popular election.
Okay, thanks.
How many of ya'll watched the New Hampshire debate? Pretty good stuff.
I didn't expect nearly this level of thought and consideration to be put into the reasoning behind votes. xP
hai guize i r gon v0t3 4 obama cuz he iz blk & if u dont u r racist
How many of ya'll watched the New Hampshire debate? Pretty good stuff
I liked watching everyone bash Mitt Romney. Good stuff indeed.
my vote is rick santorum. i agree with most of his thoughts. and im sorry, im not wrighting a three paragraph vote, im lazy. maybe later. and maybe, just maybe this should be in the forum games....maybe....but whatever im no mod.
maybe, just maybe this should be in the forum games....maybe....but whatever im no mod.
That would be why I require a reason when voting.
my vote is rick santorum. i agree with most of his thoughts. and im sorry, im not wrighting a three paragraph vote, im lazy.
I'm sorry, you don't have to write three paragraphs, but could you explain that a little better? What thoughts of Santorum's do you support, specifically?
Are we allowed to debate with other users about why they voted for a candidate?
Are we allowed to debate with other users about why they voted for a candidate?
Sure, knock yourself out.
My vote for the Republican Primary would have to be Jon Huntsman. I'm going to divide things up in order to explain why I support this candidate as nominee for the United States presidency by the Republican party.
First: the economic crisis. I'll start by saying the bad things about the other candidates. Ron Paul is an extremely staunch right-wing conservative. "No" is Ron Paul's kneejerk reaction to any kind of government spending or tax increase, and I think that a reasonable amount of thought should be given to such issues because there are times when raising taxes and increasing government spending would be appropriate. A super-right wing that won't so much as consider an increase is bad news. Mitt Romney is on the other end of the spectrum: he flip-flops like nobody's business. Romney says one thing to please one crowd, then he turns around and says something entirely different. It's impossible to know just what he wants anymore! What we need is a good balance between "sticking to your guns to the point that you're blindly shooting down everything" and "changing your mind every five seconds just to get another vote". Newt Gingrich is too much of an insider, we need someone who can see things from a smaller perspective, and Rick Santorum is just corrupt. Huntsman has already proven that he is capable of maintaining a relatively stable economy(look at his tenure as the governor of Utah) without overly high tax raises, but he has also made concessions when necessary. I don't see that as "flip flopping" like Mitt Romney does, because Huntsman doesn't do it as often, I see it as being able to consider other points of view.
Second: foreign policy. I'll go for the cheap shot first, who is of course Rick Santorum. He is hungering for war even though he doesn't seem to understand how things work in the Middle East. Rick Santorum wants the U.S. to invade Iraq again, after Obama spent the last year pulling the troops out. Santorum's foreign policy is too heavy in the Middle East, and doesn't focus nearly enough on China. According to Santorum, Iran is our biggest problem, but last time I checked, this is the United States, not Israel. We should be more worried about China than about Iran. Romney, on the other hand, does want to pull the troops out of the Middle East, but his foreign policy is way too aggressive as far as China goes. Jon Huntsman's idea for foreign policy, which I agree with, is to draw troops out of Afghanistan within 2013: like he said, we shouldn't be nation-building when this nation is so badly in need of repair. But he also wants to leave behind a small counterterrorism group in the Middle East, for special forces and intelligence gathering. And out of all the candidates, Huntsman definitely has the best grasp on how things are in China. He was the ambassador for a few years, and even though Mitt Romney may bash him for it, this is a country. It doesn't matter if you're serving under a Democrat or a Republican, serving your country is always a good thing.
Now, on the subject of home. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both far too supportive of Christianity for my liking. According to Gingrich, the United States is racist against Catholics, of all people. Rick Santorum is too conservative: he wants states to be able to ban contraception, which will cause the population to skyrocket when it's already growing too fast, there will be more kids in an already overworked foster care system, and let's not even get into the spread of STDs. Huntsman, even though he is a Mormon, doesn't seem to have any bias as far as religion goes and out of all the candidates, he seems to be the most open-minded next to Ron Paul. Huntsman supports civil union for homosexual couples instead of marriage. Civil union is basically giving them the same rights and privileges as a married couple, but without hurting the tradition of marriage(I do support gay marriage, but this is the closest thing to it without angering the Bible thumpers).
Tl;dr: My vote is for Huntsman.
Republican Primary
Mitt Romney: 1
Ron Paul: 1
Jon Huntsman: 1
Rick Santorum: 0
Newt Gingrich: 0
Rick Perry: 0
my vote is rick santorum
Have fun having all US laws become similar with all Christian laws, have all forms of abortioned banned (if a woman who is ***** conceives a child, she will be sentenced to nine months of pregnancy), and generally have that thing called separation of church and state thrown out the door. Rick Santorum is the utmost hypocrite, as he decries the "creeping influence of Islam ideology" into our court system, however he says that "our laws should be similar to God's laws." Also, he compared gay sex to man-on-dog and incest, he says that wives should stay at home more, equating gay marriage to marrying your mother-in-law, and he opposes almost every form of birth control. Link.
My vote for the Republican Primary would have to be Jon Huntsman. I'm going to divide things up in order to explain why I support this candidate as nominee for the United States presidency by the Republican party.
Huntsman has already proven that he is capable of maintaining a relatively stable economy(look at his tenure as the governor of Utah) without overly high tax raises, but he has also made concessions when necessary
No offense, but Utah is not exactly the most complex economy. I have doubts on whether or not Former Governor Huntsman would have the capability to deal with not only a national economy that is just emerging from crisis, but with a global economy which is still trying to figure out what to do with the Euro.
According to Santorum, Iran is our biggest problem, but last time I checked, this is the United States, not Israel.
To an extent, Iran IS our biggest foreign problem. If Israel is destroyed by Iran, than we will lose pretty much our only staunch ally in the area. We will lose a big buyer of US made military equipment, and a strategic location from where we can moniter surrounding countries. Just because Iraq became our ally doesn't mean that they are a good one. They are currently wrecked with sectarian violence, and I feel that there will be civil war. However, I also think that a war with Iran will happen in the next decade, as one day they will overstep their boundaries with either us or Israel, and then there will be another major war. If Iran announces it has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, the president at the time will have to give marching orders to the troops almost immediately, as Israel will not hesitate to blow up anything that could threaten its existance.
As to your third point, I think that you nailed the issue right on the head. I cannot contest that point.
ROMNEY FOR REPUBLICAN NOMINATION!!!!
quote]If Israel is destroyed by Iran, than we will lose pretty much our only staunch ally in the area.[/quote]
Israel has survived for the last 30-some-odd years in the Middle East surrounded by enemies, Iran included. I very much doubt that Iran will be destroying it anytime soon. Just because the United States is stepping out of Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean we'll cut off support to Israel.
Just because Iraq became our ally doesn't mean that they are a good one. They are currently wrecked with sectarian violence, and I feel that there will be civil war.
Iraq is filled with sectarian violence, I agree. Could Iraq use a little more work? Yes, it could. But how exactly is it the United States' job to fix a country halfway around the world? If things in Iraq do come to a boil, and there is a rebellion like in Libya, and it reaches the point where intervention is necessary, then the United Nations should step in, not just the Coalition of the Willing and not just the United States.
However, I also think that a war with Iran will happen in the next decade, as one day they will overstep their boundaries with either us or Israel, and then there will be another major war. If Iran announces it has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, the president at the time will have to give marching orders to the troops almost immediately, as Israel will not hesitate to blow up anything that could threaten its existance.
It won't be just Israel. Nobody likes the idea of Iran having nukes, especially considering the psycho they've got for a president. I think that Iran's nuclear program will be stopped long before they are successful: if not by the U.N., then by lack of funding and the cutting of corners.
No offense, but Utah is not exactly the most complex economy.I have doubts on whether or not Former Governor Huntsman would have the capability to deal with not only a national economy that is just emerging from crisis, but with a global economy which is still trying to figure out what to do with the Euro.
Complex or not, an increase in jobs is an increase in jobs and a steady tax rate is a steady tax rate. It's still an impressive record, even if it is on a relatively small scale. Huntsman has a good idea of how to handle things economically: plug up the leaks in the American taxation system and start refocusing on the foundation of the economy.
Ron Paul is older than John McCain, and because McCain can't even remember who to endorse, how can we trust someone older than he is to make difficult decisions on Iran and the economy?
lol whut?
Saying you won't vote for someone because they're old is like me saying I won't vote for Mitt Romney because I don't like his hair cut. You should place your vote based on the ideas and thoughts of the individual, not because of there age.
then the United Nations should step in, not just the Coalition of the Willing and not just the United States.
I never said that the US should fix things. In fact, I am opposed to sending our troops back to that forsaken region for any reason except to fight a war with Iran if and only if push comes to shove.
It won't be just Israel. Nobody likes the idea of Iran having nukes, especially considering the psycho they've got for a president. I think that Iran's nuclear program will be stopped long before they are successful: if not by the U.N., then by lack of funding and the cutting of corners
Currently, Iran has the mentality of a two year old, in the sense that since we are telling them not to do something, they are trying to do it no matter how many time-outs (sanctions) we give them. Their main goal right now is to acheive nuclear capability, and since that is where they are devoting many resources, I feel that no matter how many sanctions we lay on them, nothing would deter them short of a complete economic shutdown or military strike.
Huntsman has a good idea of how to handle things economically: plug up the leaks in the American taxation system and start refocusing on the foundation of the economy.
Could you please post some of his economic theories on here? I am very interested in seeing what his taxation plan would be for the US, and if he is one of the mainstream Republicans who refuse to raise taxes.
You must be logged in to post a reply!