Forums → The Tavern → AG Presidential Election 2012
| 197 | 30320 |
--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
practiced on women (gynecologist).
What's wrong with being a gynecologist? For that matter, what's wrong with being old?
Obama: 3
Paul: 5
what's wrong with being old?
My mom would say wrinkles, but I personally don't see whats so bad about it.
You might want to take a gander at this Perry.
I can't vote for a man who has promised to fix the country, and then promptly gone and made it worse.
Ron Paul is going to make it better? How?
Ron Paul is going to make it better? How?
Hes a staunch libertarian, so that always helps.
A revision of the tax code, pro-free market principles and legislation, and creating an environment that will promote small-business growth are all things he's said he will do.
And now I'd like to ask you a question: Why should the next four years under Obama (provided he were to be elected) be any different than the past four years?
And now I'd like to ask you a question: Why should the next four years under Obama (provided he were to be elected) be any different than the past four years?
To be fair, Mav, Obama might be able to accomplish a bit more if the Republicans didn't shoot down all of his proposals as soon as they came up.
A revision of the tax code, pro-free market principles and legislation, and creating an environment that will promote small-business growth are all things he's said he will do.
Yes, I get that we need to improve our economy. But I still don't think that we should do it at the cost of people's well being. I think we can have some sort of balance.
And now I'd like to ask you a question: Why should the next four years under Obama (provided he were to be elected) be any different than the past four years?
I don't think it'd be much different. I just think that between the two, I'd rather have Obama. Ron Paul will hurt people, but Obama won't necessarily hurt people if he can get it together. The way I see it is
Ron= definitely
Barack= probably.
but he has a way too conservative view
Ron's prolly the most liberal candidate out there.
And now I'd like to ask you a question: Why should the next four years under Obama (provided he were to be elected) be any different than the past four years?
And why shouldn't it be? Politicians have always done volte faces, Reagan turned from a hawk to a peace negotiator.
We're merely playing parlour games if we insist on asking such hypothetical questions that carry no weight.
To be fair, Mav, Obama might be able to accomplish a bit more if the Republicans didn't shoot down all of his proposals as soon as they came up.
He head two years of a Democrat-Controlled House, and Democrats still have the majority in the Senate with 48 or 49 seats I think. He had plenty of time to fix it, and he failed. Miserably.
But I still don't think that we should do it at the cost of people's well being.
I'd rather fix the economy than have pensions and welfare and social security nickle and dime us to the poor house. These are broken systems, and they need drastic reform. Sorry Medicare, but you're going to have to take one for the team.
We're merely playing parlour games if we insist on asking such hypothetical questions that carry no weight.
I think its a very important question to be asking. Obama has shown in the last four years that he lacks the capacity to lead a country effectively. Why should election day bring about any sudden change in him? You don't just wake up one morning and say 'You know, I think I'm going to totally reinvent myself politically'.
As for Reagan, I think you're trying to take one issue and stretch it to cover all the bases.
I think Obama is taking to much heat for the economy. It wasn't his fault, it was George W. Bush. I certainly don't think he's done a lot to help, but he hasn't done anything to make our economy dramatically worse.
I also don't think Ron Paul can make it much better, and I think he is way to conservative.
Right now America is in a terrible position, in which there is no one that can appear to make the economy better.
If I had to pick someone, it would be Obama. It could be anyone right now, but I think we should stick with what we have because Obama isn't making the economy worse and I think he is slowly improving the economy.
Just my opinion.
Sorry Medicare, but you're going to have to take one for the team.
It's not just Medicare, its the over one million women who won't be able to get abortions. And the fact that pollution is being encouraged won't help the 20 million asthmatics who can bearly breathe now. The most ironic thing is that they won't be able to pay for the care they need.
Chalk another one up for Paul. He was one of the few who went against the Patriot Act. He wants less government control over people and strongly supports the constitution. He likes freedom. He wants to end the ineffective war on drugs. He wants to get troops out of the middle east (though he may attempt to combat piracy in Somalia if things get worse there). He dislikes that we spend so much money and time policing the borders of other nations instead of our own. Compared to the other candidates, Obama included, he seems to have the best plans.
its the over one million women who won't be able to get abortions
Good for those 1 million babies then.
The most ironic thing is that they won't be able to pay for the care they need.
Sorry 20 Million Asthmatics, you're going to have to take one for the team. 20 Million inhalers < Fate of the United States of America.
You must be logged in to post a reply!