Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:
Neither of which would solve either of the problems I pointed out.

Nope, the Executive has tons of power in America.

Congress, hypothetically, has more, but being a group of people with a rather flexible hierarchy and a diverse set of interests it loses out.

You think your elections suck?

We have around 6 to 9 candidates - all crooks and smugglers. You don't know who is worse. At least your leaders promise something and do it, our leaders promise change and change never happened.

I will never go out on election in my country again. If they force me to go, I will just add God Emperor of Mankind to the list and vote.

Brother Coa wrote:You think your elections suck?

We have around 6 to 9 candidates - all crooks and smugglers. You don't know who is worse. At least your leaders promise something and do it, our leaders promise change and change never happened.

I will never go out on election in my country again. If they force me to go, I will just add God Emperor of Mankind to the list and vote.

I think this is people's general problem with a fair number of politicians... They don't do that or they do it half-assed...

DIDM wrote:I'm voting Paul

We'll probably have to write his name in

Im voting for not Obama, one of his campain promises is that he was only going to run for one term, he's done so well with campain promises why stop now?

Unless Gingrich is the nominee then ill vote for Obama. If Gingrich wins....so hows canada/england around Novemberish?

One is probably cold and snowy, and the other cold and rainy.

Enjoy your stay, Id rather be here, thick or thin

Really Geingrich is so bad he'd chase you out of the country? I think you give the man too much credit.

I don't recall Obama promising to only run for one term. That seems rather pointless.

soundwave591 wrote:Im voting for not Obama, one of his campain promises is that he was only going to run for one term

Citation needed

I agree, he's broken many (most?) of his campaign promises. But, I don't remember him ever saying something like this. And, I'd think it would be big news.

That's not exactly what he said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_02_11_President_Barack_Obama_says_he_won_t_seek_re-election_if_stimulus_fails/

AustonT wrote:That's not exactly what he said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_02_11_President_Barack_Obama_says_he_won_t_seek_re-election_if_stimulus_fails/

And seeing it has...

Well, he didn't say "I won't run for re-election" he SAID (summarized) "you won't re-elect me"

DAaddict wrote:

AustonT wrote:That's not exactly what he said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_02_11_President_Barack_Obama_says_he_won_t_seek_re-election_if_stimulus_fails/

And seeing it has...

Looks at February 2009 unemployment rate.

Looks at December 2011 unemployment rate.

Er, what?

^^^ doesnt matter we are reverting to our old ways, november or december, dont remember which one, had the highest borrowing in around 4 years i belive. the problem is if anyone brings this up it will be put down by people "feeling" that its gotten better



Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Really Geingrich is so bad he'd chase you out of the country? I think you give the man too much credit.

I know I do but I have a serious distain for the man and dont want to live where he can affect my life even in the slightest

The Economy is better well at least in states like California where people are educated and literate. I see tons of businesses hiring and it should be easy for me to get a job when I start looking again next month. As much as Obama has disappointed me, I was always skeptical of him from the beginning, I don't see Romney making things any better. Obama isn't the problem, its all the retards in congress C-blocking the man.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:The Economy is better well at least in states like California where people are educated and literate

California has the 2nd highest unemployment rate. Their GDP growth in 2010 was only 1.7% (US average was 1.6%). Wyoming and North Dakota grew 4% and 3.9%, respectively.

biccat wrote:
California has the 2nd highest unemployment rate. Their GDP growth in 2010 was only 1.7% (US average was 1.6%). Wyoming and North Dakota grew 4% and 3.9%, respectively.

California's present GDP growth rate is 3.1%, and its GDP growth in 2008 was .4%.

The nation's highest growth rate is 5.2% in North Dakota (booming tech industry), and its lowest growth rate is Wyoming (2.4%).

Wyoming? Really?? Im not kidding, last year, there was a BOOM in Michigan of people leaving this state FOR Wyoming. I guess they made a error in judgment eh?

KingCracker wrote:Wyoming? Really?? Im not kidding, last year, there was a BOOM in Michigan of people leaving this state FOR Wyoming. I guess they made a error in judgment eh?

well they are from Michigan.

Huntsman is now out of the mix.

Who will go next? Let's start a Death Pool!

I would say Perry is next to officially drop. Depending on Romney's results in SC I would guess Perry, Gingrich, and then Santorum. It is hard to say with Gingrich, as he is a bit of a camera whore so he may trying to squeeze every last once of time out of it he can.

SC is going to determine if it is realistic to stay in or not. If everyone "hates" Romney but "hates" him less than the other Rep choices, he will be the defacto nominee.

Since Gingerich is really just promoting himself and promoting his own product, Newt; the longer he stays around the better. Plus, he can gets lot's of super PAC money support.

Paul has said he is in it to get delgates for the convention and try to force changes to the party platform. Pretty interesting strategy really.

I think Perry is next, then Santorum, and Gingerich and Paul will just sort of fade away as Romney v. Obama picks up steam in the media.

If Romney ends up president I hope the first thing he does is fire congress because they suck are are inefficient..

If there is one good thing about this election, it's that most people are shying away from the gay-bashers...

Melissia wrote:If there is one good thing about this election, it's that most people are shying away from the gay-bashers...

It is heartening, I'm watching CNN atm and the title at the bottom of the screen is "Evangelists losing power in the GOP." God, I pray they are. If we could have a presidential debate that didn't involve abortion, church in schools, and gay marriage I could die happy. Instead I'll be a bitter old husk when I'm buried.

But then what would there be arguments over? We have to have something to bring out the base of each party while at the same time distracting them from deeper issues.

EDIT: I just realized the vast majority of politicians, and an essential source of my dissapointment in the last several election cycles, is the apparent inability of politicians to move beyond their respective talking points. Its not that they won't. Its that they can't. They really can't think of anything better.

AustonT wrote:
It is heartening, I'm watching CNN atm and the title at the bottom of the screen is "Evangelists losing power in the GOP."

It has been said that evangelist voters have backed away from the GOP after Bush, who basically ran on that platform, didn't do anything to help their cause.

It isn't so much that they have stopped preferring Republicans, as they simply stopped voting with the same fervency.

Standard disclaimer, I don't know if this is true, as I haven't really looked into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:But then what would there be arguments over? We have to have something to bring out the base of each party while at the same time distracting them from deeper issues.

Don't worry, socialist is still a dirty word.

I frankly don't care who they vote for, don't take it the wrong way its just a true statement.
I don't want them to dominate the party I nominally belong to. So if their POWER fades in the party and the dominant faction becomes more like say the Rockefeller Republicans I'll be pleased. I'd be more pleased by the lunatic fringes breaking off into hard left/right and centre left/right parties leaving us four or more options. But you cant get everything you dream of.

AustonT wrote:I frankly don't care who they vote for, don't take it the wrong way its just a true statement.
I don't want them to dominate the party I nominally belong to. So if their POWER fades in the party and the dominant faction becomes more like say the Rockefeller Republicans I'll be pleased. I'd be more pleased by the lunatic fringes breaking off into hard left/right and centre left/right parties leaving us four or more options. But you cant get everything you dream of.

I was merely saying that, with evangelicals turning out (pun intended) at a lower rate, their power in the party will naturally diminish as it is largely based on being a highly reliable voting bloc.