One More Block

Adz wrote:As a person, I prefer Obama. Both for his personality, and awareness of/interactions with the online world (which most other presidents either ignore or don't totally understand)

As for what they say they'll do during the next term. Since I live in the UK, I don't really have a full understanding on how things work in Americaland. But it seems as if Obama has a slight edge.

Yeah, I would personally say he does- I am unsure if that is a bias opinion on my part, but I think it is fair to say that he definitely has an edge on the younger voters and I would say that Obama definitely know that, I think that is exactly who he is targeting. All the same, I am sure Romney knows that he has an edge on the older Americaland generation, and he is doing his best to target that audience. However, it is still unclear who is going to win out. Everyone knows that Obama didn't stick to all of the claims he made in his original campaign, it is simply up to how bad America think he did. I am sure Mitt knows this and is going to do everything he can to convince America that is plans either didn't work or he didn't carry though with them.

now i know that a lot of the polls are tied right now because the american people dont want to appear racist but they will vote for obama on election day youll see
obama has made it clear what a second term would look like and mitt has no idea what he would do if he was elected

Remember that the purpose of a debate is not to force your opinion on someone else, but to mutually seek the truth.

brendiculous wrote:Remember that the purpose of a debate is not to force your opinion on someone else, but to mutually seek the truth.

yeah well obama mutually forced the truth out of mitt romney which was that he just wants powre and money

I don't pay much attention to politics, but from what it looks like to me, this is what I have gotten out of them: They both have their pros and cons. Their pros are good things, but their cons HEAVILY out weigh the pros.

So they're both bad and either way America will continue to go downhill. And could they for once talk about what's good about them in their commercials instead of what's bad about the other? Seriously..

Well, seeing as I prefer to swing which ever way the candidate that gets my attention with thoughts and discussion goes, I'd honestly have to be the black sheep and vote for Romney. What?! Yes, you may be thinking this. No- it's not because he is rich, intelligent, or could be the antichrist. Nor because of his race.

No, I honestly think that what America needs currently is somebody with the nads to stand up for a term and set things as right as they possibly can. The fact that he is willing to cut some of the more superfluous budget kinks out of the nation's ever-increasing debt pool make him all the wilier. Sure, the chances of him being reelected for a successive term (assuming he is even elected at all) are slim, but think about it- he could very well be the first president since Clinton (a democrat, mind you) to not entirely bungle the budget.

That's just one of my thoughts.

While I agree with bits and pieces from both Mr. Obama and Romney's points of views on issues, I have to go with the Romnster and Paul Ryan- as, what we truly need to run this country currently is a businessman, not a career politician. And Romney/Ryan are the bigger businessmen of the two selections (Obama/Biden being the other).

G'day.

I'm voting for the Wii U! http://www.destructoid.com/the-wii-is-b ... 7009.phtml

I'm voting for Mickey Mouse. However, due to the heavy debate about Mickey Mouse not helping people, so I rather vote for Bugs Bunny. He is eating carrots for a while.

My two main issues with Mitt Romney are;
1. He is against equal marriage rights, hitting me in both a moral and future legal level.
2. Often under pressure in public appearances he will get harsh, although he is clearly fighting getting outwardly mad, he allows he emotions to affect his speech and word choice, not necessarily the most promising person for presidency.
Again as I said before, neither candidate is perfect and this is merely my choice, as a fifteen year-old-teen.
Wow, I say the best things to make my points sound valid, don't I?

is anyone gonna watch the debate

I really think Mitt's morals are kinda screwed up. He has 0 tolerance for gay marriage. I get it that it's in his religion, but when he starts implementing his religion into the way he governs, that's just messed up. Our country doesn't have an official religion. That's one of the great things about America. And I think he's almost breaking this freedom. There is no way he can just ban gay marriage just because HIS religion says it's wrong. That's like him saying he wants to ban fast food because he doesn't like it. So if his religion and other beliefs are going to interfere with him governing, then why should he be trusted as our president? Obama might not be the best president ever, but he didn't mix his beliefs and way of running the country.

dragonbo wrote:I really think Mitt's morals are kinda screwed up. He has 0 tolerance for gay marriage. I get it that it's in his religion, but when he starts implementing his religion into the way he governs, that's just messed up. Our country doesn't have an official religion. That's one of the great things about America. And I think he's almost breaking this freedom. There is no way he can just ban gay marriage just because HIS religion says it's wrong. That's like him saying he wants to ban fast food because he doesn't like it. So if his religion and other beliefs are going to interfere with him governing, then why should he be trusted as our president? Obama might not be the best president ever, but he didn't mix his beliefs and way of running the country.

+1

dragonbo wrote:I really think Mitt's morals are kinda screwed up. He has 0 tolerance for gay marriage. I get it that it's in his religion, but when he starts implementing his religion into the way he governs, that's just messed up. Our country doesn't have an official religion. That's one of the great things about America. And I think he's almost breaking this freedom. There is no way he can just ban gay marriage just because HIS religion says it's wrong. That's like him saying he wants to ban fast food because he doesn't like it. So if his religion and other beliefs are going to interfere with him governing, then why should he be trusted as our president? Obama might not be the best president ever, but he didn't mix his beliefs and way of running the country.

If you honestly think that Obama doesn't mix his beliefs with the way he "runs" the country, you haven't been paying attention.
Obama is the most collectivist president in HISTORY. There is NO disputing this. The redistribution of wealth under this administration is staggering.
He believes that it's "fair" for blacks to be held in a much lower standard of behavior (than whites and asians) in our public school system. Blacks can't get suspended for things that whites can be suspended for, because that's "fair".

TheLastLink wrote:If you honestly think that Obama doesn't mix his beliefs with the way he "runs" the country, you haven't been paying attention.
Obama is the most collectivist president in HISTORY. There is NO disputing this. The redistribution of wealth under this administration is staggering.
He believes that it's "fair" for blacks to be held in a much lower standard of behavior (than whites and asians) in our public school system. Blacks can't get suspended for things that whites can be suspended for, because that's "fair".

TheLastLink, I have not seen any official quotes for him ever saying that. I definitely believe that is unfair, I just couldn't see him actually ever saying that in public, regardless of his own beliefs, as the general public's response would hurt is voting far to much. Then again, I often question how many politicians rationalize what they say. Crazy world, huh?

Phantomboy wrote:TheLastLink, I have not seen any official quotes for him ever saying that. I definitely believe that is unfair, I just couldn't see him actually ever saying that in public, regardless of his own beliefs, as the general public's response would hurt is voting far to much. Then again, I often question how many politicians rationalize what they say. Crazy world, huh?

Of course he didn't say that. That would be an idiotic move.

He signed an executive order to pass race-based school discipline policies, but you won't hear it from the Mainstream Media.

TheLastLink wrote:Of course he didn't say that. That would be an idiotic move.

He signed an executive order to pass race-based school discipline policies, but you won't hear it from the Mainstream Media.

I honestly wish that their was more unbiased people in this world, however I guess that is asking for a lot. Our (humans) prejudices are extremely disheartening..

Master Chief wrote:This doesn't really say anything specific other than that you don't like his wife's "lunch program." Do you think you could talk about what Obama could have been doing? I'd be interested to hear, since I think he's done quite a bit considering Health care reform, the stimulus package, Dodd-Frank, and turning around the auto industry.

Thing is, I am not a Republican, but I typically lean toward the Republican side of things, and am not really a big fan of any Health care reform, stimulus packages, or industry regulation.

I am a radical Darwinist....Sink or swim. The government should only have the power to regulate trusts and fight monopolies. And not much more. The federal government had their turn. And it didn't really work. Militarily, educationally, socially, and on the economic food chain, we are among the top countries in the world, but clearly something we are doing is wrong when our debt is so high. The system failed. The day people stopped listening to the Constitution, the system fail. I was fine with Theodore Roosevelt's, Taft's, and Wilson's regulations during the Progressive era. That magnitude of regulation was acceptable. But somewhere after that, something skewed. The fact that their are federal laws prohibiting drugs is the perfect example, because it clearly outlines in the Constitution that such powers belong to the state governments.

Before you give me some crap about "the Constitution being outdated", you need to understand that such a concept is impossible. Foremost, the founding fathers designed it as a document that would apply timelessly. The laws included are broad enough that they are actually debatable. Why else would they found the Supreme Court? Additionally, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT SECTION. Due to this section, the Constitution is still alive. It is a living, breathing document. And we are not permitted to simply ignore it. I am not saying it is flawless, but that is why we have the option to secede from the document or amend it.

However, I find it doubtful that Obama or Romney could even tell you what the first Amendment says.

One last point that people tend to forget. You are ALLOWED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT that a president only runs for four years. If we were voting for a permanent leader to this country, I would have a drastically different opinion. We need to look at THESE next four years, and no further.

[media=youtube]dX_1B0w7Hzc[/media]

MasterJBW wrote:[media=youtube]dX_1B0w7Hzc[/media]

To be honest, I have been kind of disappointed with the quality of the Epic Rap Battles lately- Maybe it is just my taste going sour...

Lemon wrote:Thing is, I am not a Republican, but I typically lean toward the Republican side of things, and am not really a big fan of any Health care reform, stimulus packages, or industry regulation.

I am a radical Darwinist....Sink or swim. The government should only have the power to regulate trusts and fight monopolies. And not much more. The federal government had their turn. And it didn't really work.

The purpose of the government is to protect the values stated in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Not to "protect the people".
The government should have no power whatsoever in the economy.