Forums → The Tavern → AG Presidential Election 2012
| 197 | 30308 |
--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
The only Republican candidate that make more sens is Ron Paul even though he looks like a turtle out of his shelf. xD
Gingrinch is a racist Grinch who's going to do whatever he wants if he becomes President, Romney is an hypocrite, and Santorum, well, I don't know what to think of him.
I can say that I enjoyed hearing some parts of the debate last night. One of the only bright sides that I can see of having Gingrich or Romney win the election is that they would stand unwavering by Israel, in which Obama has failed in that regard.
I don't see why America has any obligation to stand by Israel, or any nation for that matter. In a realist world, a state does whatever it has to do to ensure its own survival and gain.
If they had built their companies in China from the start and they wouldn't get tax break for it, that wouldn't be as bad. What's horrible is that they closed the factories that were already in place in the US and, in certain cases, used some of the American workers to teach the Chinese who were about to replace them.
This is totally cruel! We could make them pay by boycotting their products but if they all do it then we can't do much about it except to encourage the patriotic ones who stayed by giving them the tax break, not the traitor ones.
Business is business. What has patriotism got to do with that? I don't even see why the two necessarily need to be interlinked. If my business is going to do well overseas, I'll jolly well pack up and go there. You don't own a business I presume, or you won't utter such uneconomic statements, just for the sake of a few dollops of patriotism and flag waving. When millions are at stake, I would like to see you choose.
Go on, boycott them then. It's not like you can survive long if you do so.
Go Obama! I hope he whips up his campaign magic again this round.
I don't see why America has any obligation to stand by Israel, or any nation for that matter. In a realist world, a state does whatever it has to do to ensure its own survival and gain.
If we have Israel as a friend maybe it will make our war crimes look less bad.
But no... I don't see why would stand by them either.
Israel hasn't done anything wrong, necessarily. Why wouldn't we support them?
I can give you dozens of examples of Israel launching pre-emptive strikes on very shaky grounds, Israel carrying out state-sanctioned terrorism, Israel repressing the Palestinians, Israel shooting innocents. It would be hypocritical to claim that only the Palestinians commit such atrocities.
And no, I can easily think of a dozen countries who don't shout murder at Israel. America IS caught up in much bigger issues, its own economic recovery ranks way above dealing with an obstinate Prime Minister who refuses to budge in the way of world opinion.
I don't think I was claiming that... But Israel as a nation and religion has a right to that land, does it not? It is also rather small - it could fit in Florida eight times. It has as much right to that land as other countries have rights to theirs. Besides, nations war, that's what they are usually for.
I would move the discussion to the Israel thread if you want to continue, but in a nutshell, what right did the Jews have in dumping millions of refugees on land that the Palestinians owned and then claiming it? It was never the British to carve up to boot.
Yes, but do they have the power to do so? And yeah on America having its own problems. Pulling back on the troops and looking weak just seems like it's trying to create another one.
Britain, France, Germany all have troops in other parts of the world. And I disagree, since America has been deploying thousands of troops to Israel, which can only raise tensions with Iran, which conflates and not solves its Middle East woes.
Israelites do have prior claim to that land. The Bible talks quite a bit about Israelites in that land, and that was written before the Palestinians ever inhabited the land.
So now we're going to lay claims to land that we inhabited thousands of years ago? I suppose the Italians as descendants of the Romans can now start to claim that Paris is theirs? The Israelis were but one of the few people to own the land, they lost it, and that's that.
Sorry, one last post :3 From that point of view, Israel has all the right in the world to hold that land over the Palestinians. They lost it, it's Israel's now.
Fourth Geneva Accords and International Law. Go read up on them, and how they treat ''conquests'' these days.
Obama: 9
Paul: 8
Go Obama, ( cant stand republicans)
Ron Paul because i think he has better ideas of job creation
Sorry, you'll have to provide more reasoning in order for me to count your vote.
Business is business. What has patriotism got to do with that? I don't even see why the two necessarily need to be interlinked. If my business is going to do well overseas, I'll jolly well pack up and go there. You don't own a business I presume, or you won't utter such uneconomic statements, just for the sake of a few dollops of patriotism and flag waving. When millions are at stake, I would like to see you choose.
Go on, boycott them then. It's not like you can survive long if you do so.
What do you know about life besides getting your info off Wikipedia?
Are you some kind of know-it-all? Have you ever worked? You're 18yo and you're always arguing in every forums as if you had all the answers. Have you ever supported a family? Are your parents so rich that you never had to do anything in your life? You don't live in the US so you don't know anything about what's going on over here.
Come live in the us for 10 years, work hard and then you'll see how it is over here.
You must be logged in to post a reply!