Which of the following presidential candidates supports policies that violate our civil liberties, unnecessary foreign intervention, and an oppressive war on drugs?

A: Mitt Romney
B: Rick Santorum
C: Newt Gingrich
D: Barack Obama
E: All of the above

NOTE: Just for clarification, I am not a Ron Paul supporter.

hurricanejbb:

NOTE: Just for clarification, I am not a Ron Paul supporter.

If you aren't, I officially declare you one now.

tstorm823:

hurricanejbb:

NOTE: Just for clarification, I am not a Ron Paul supporter.

If you aren't, I officially declare you one now.

Actually I'm backing Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate. He's much saner than Ron Paul.

E.

But, they do not all support all of those to the same extent. A lot of people apparently feel forced to vote Democrat, not because they think they will support their rights, but they will undermine them less than the Republicans.

The war on drugs part, if you believe if to be oppressive, would be part of civil liberties, surely?

That's the problem that needs to be fixed: people have to realize that there are other parties out there who have a stronger track record on upholding civil liberties than the democrats. It's the only way we can break out of this two-party stranglehold.

hurricanejbb:

Actually I'm backing Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate. He's much saner than Ron Paul.

Gary Johnson is booooooooring.

Honestly I think that Batak Obama would be the one.

Link55:
Honestly I think that Batak Obama would be the one.

When did he become a native of Indonesia?

Lilani:

Link55:
Honestly I think that Batak Obama would be the one.

When did he become a native of Indonesia?

Heh, that's-

Oh, fuck!

Don't write that out loud, the conspiracy theorists will hear you!

thaluikhain:

Lilani:

Link55:
Honestly I think that Batak Obama would be the one.

When did he become a native of Indonesia?

Heh, that's-

Oh, fuck!

Don't write that out loud, the conspiracy theorists will hear you!

Oh no here, we go again, let's play WHERE WAS OBAMA BORN! We're now on round 31,896!

Kvaedi:

thaluikhain:

Lilani:

When did he become a native of Indonesia?

Heh, that's-

Oh, fuck!

Don't write that out loud, the conspiracy theorists will hear you!

Oh no here, we go again, let's play WHERE WAS OBAMA BORN! We're now on round 31,896!

You know, that issue only applies to people born after a certain date. Shouldn't he pre-date the US, being the anti-Christ and all?

thaluikhain:

Kvaedi:

thaluikhain:

Heh, that's-

Oh, fuck!

Don't write that out loud, the conspiracy theorists will hear you!

Oh no here, we go again, let's play WHERE WAS OBAMA BORN! We're now on round 31,896!

You know, that issue only applies to people born after a certain date. Shouldn't he pre-date the US, being the anti-Christ and all?

Wait wait wait, he's the anti-Christ? I thought he was Satan himself and was going to give birth to the anti-Christ on Mars, who would then proceed to conquer the earth unless if America banned gay marriage and used Creationist textbooks in schools.

Anyway, on topic, my answer is E. This election...the candidates just don't seem all that different. I mean, the right can cry that Obama is a Communist Muslim who will destroy America, but his actions have demonstrated that he's not any kind of extremist at all; he seems downright Republican at times.

Kvaedi:
Anyway, on topic, my answer is E. This election...the candidates just don't seem all that different. I mean, the right can cry that Obama is a Communist Muslim who will destroy America, but his actions have demonstrated that he's not any kind of extremist at all; he seems downright Republican at times.

Heh...other people may view that last sentence differently.

Though, I don't tend to like "all politicians are the same". From a certain point of view, yeah, but from another, he might be destroying the US, just more slowly than the Republicans are.

"E" is the correct answer, I think. Although some are more extreme on those topics than others.

Did I get it right?

hurricanejbb:
A: Mitt Romney

We don't really know... because he's been two faced on everything apart from Iran... so... you may invade Iran? Everything else... flip a coin, role a dice :/
Drugs... it'd be political suicide if he ended the crsade on drugs.

hurricanejbb:
B: Rick Santorum

Hates Gays. Loves religion. This is the sort of Spanish Inqusition guy of America...
If you don't know what the Spanish inqusition did... look em up.
He is likely to violate Civil Liberties and continue the war on drugs. War... maybe... no more likely than Mitt though.

hurricanejbb:
C: Newt Gingrich

Corrupt businessman. He's bought by business people.
He likes the look of war with Iran. Civil Liberties. It looks like his back up support goes to Santorum if he isn't the man. I don't have too much confidence there. Drugs, continue with the crusade.

hurricanejbb:
D: Barack Obama

Wars. He's ending them at a steady rate. I don't think he's keen to start one with Iran but if pushed he would act. Civil Liberties, he's done his best not to step on them but Vetoing the National Defence Authorisation act would mean the Army doesn't get paid and he'd not be elected. Drugs... its at the bottom of his to do list and... I don't know what his position is.

hurricanejbb:
E: All of the above

To varying degrees of a tiny bit to a lot... yes... all will...

hurricanejbb:
Which of the following presidential candidates supports policies that violate our civil liberties, unnecessary foreign intervention, and an oppressive war on drugs?

A: Mitt Romney
B: Rick Santorum
C: Newt Gingrich
D: Barack Obama
E: All of the above

I'm not an American, but I've read a lot about them all. So I'l cast my vote to help clear things up.

Mitt Romney, the guy who agrees with everybody's views on everything, and gives the impression he's only in it to further his career. Bad politician appears to be incapable to make decisions.

Rick, the bible-bashing, gay-hating, closed-minded lunatic. If this guy gets in the USA will be set back about 100 years in education, standards of living and foreign policy.

Newt, likes being the underdog and plays it well, shame he's got money in his eyes too. HE also plays ball for the corporations more than the people, so at least he thinks about more than himself. His policies are a bit vague, too.

Obama. Last time I checked he ended Iraq, pulled together Healthcare, and if he's smart he could look at the NHS and make Obama-care better. He's good at dealing with the haters, he understands international relations are not something you just sideline in the 21st century and while everyone in the US government wants oil from anywhere, he's the most prepared to go green with energy and slow down your blood-thirst for it.

He's transforming your teenage country into a young-adult and while he may piss you off, he's doing it for the best. While he's failed to "change" like his last election promised, he's certainly set the wheel in motion and I'd put money on it that he could finish the job.

So, I'd vote for Obama as he's the strongest candidate. Lets be fair, he's better than Bush and he's certainly better than the current candidates.

Comando96:

Wars. He's ending them at a steady rate. I don't think he's keen to start one with Iran but if pushed he would act. Civil Liberties, he's done his best not to step on them but Vetoing the National Defence Authorisation act would mean the Army doesn't get paid and he'd not be elected. Drugs... its at the bottom of his to do list and... I don't know what his position is.

Senate passed the NDAA with 97-3 (or was it 93-7? I forget. One of the two.) which is an entirely veto-proof majority. His veto would have done nothing.

As for drugs, he doesn't seem to be (publicly) interested in legalisation/decriminalisation but he's made efforts to change how the problem is addressed.

Some may say "it's not enough", and that's a fair point. He's certainly not the worst of the bunch and the 'good' of Ron Paul* doesn't outweigh his bad.

_{*That 'good' being 'let the states decide' so if the states decide that they don't want to legalise it you're shit out of luck. I wonder how many}

hurricanejbb:
That's the problem that needs to be fixed: people have to realize that there are other parties out there who have a stronger track record on upholding civil liberties than the democrats. It's the only way we can break out of this two-party stranglehold.

The problem is, not voting democratic automatically means you're more or less voting republican, because every vote you transfer from the democrats to a less right wing party, is one that weakens their relative position, so the republicans will win regions, and the 'winner takes all' system does the rest and then denies everyone who's not republican any political representation.

Why do you think the republicans have everything from strong conservatives who are relatively moderate for their party, to libertarian fascists to rabbid evangelical loonies? Some of them may be miles apart, but the loonies know that backing even crazier parties like the (most deceivingly named) constitutionalists would only relatively strenghten normal politicians.

hurricanejbb:
Which of the following presidential candidates supports policies that violate our civil liberties, unnecessary foreign intervention, and an oppressive war on drugs?

A: Mitt Romney
B: Rick Santorum
C: Newt Gingrich
D: Barack Obama
E: All of the above

NOTE: Just for clarification, I am not a Ron Paul supporter.

It's like the two-party system is a spectacular failure in every way, since none of these characters sound legit to me.
Obama and Romney are the only half-decent ones, in my opinion.

The answer is F: None of the Above right? That's always the answer to this sorts of questions isn't it?

hurricanejbb:
That's the problem that needs to be fixed: people have to realize that there are other parties out there who have a stronger track record on upholding civil liberties than the democrats. It's the only way we can break out of this two-party stranglehold.

Or we could just start organizing together, voting in every election, making sure there's an actual progressive candidate in every election, and take over the Democratic Party. It worked quite well for the religious right, after all.

hurricanejbb:
Which of the following presidential candidates supports policies that violate our civil liberties, unnecessary foreign intervention, and an oppressive war on drugs?

A: Mitt Romney
B: Rick Santorum
C: Newt Gingrich
D: Barack Obama
E: All of the above

NOTE: Just for clarification, I am not a Ron Paul supporter.

Advice: Make the thread title more topical. Easier for our perusal.
Also, if you can, try to make clear the topic of discussion. With an open question that is.

I understand that the President is more powerful then a Prime Minister but i think you focus too much on the station. Most of what you're complaining about gets passed by congress, doesn't it? So then isn't your issue with the U.S Congress, who are voted in by U.S citizens. So then isn't your issue with the very conservative (comparatively) American people?
Or is this just a sneaky way of convincing us we should vote for a libertarian candidate?

Today, class, we are learning how not to write an opinion poll question.

Example one:

hurricanejbb:
Which of the following presidential candidates supports policies that violate our civil liberties, unnecessary foreign intervention, and an oppressive war on drugs?

Honestly, I have no idea how you define any of your parameters. How do you define what is a civil liberty? What makes foreign intervention unnecessary? In what ways is the war on drugs oppressive? In the fact that pot is illegal or that heroine is illegal? Or in the fact that there are people jailed for simply using these drugs and nothing else?

Two, the fact that you refuse to use Ron Paul in your poll despite the fact that he has not dropped out of the race yet further shows your bias. If you wanted to go on a rant about how every member of the two party system is evil, then you should have done that instead of posting this ridiculous question.