PDA

View Full Version : What republican candidate are you pulling for.



boba
02-18-2012, 02:55 PM
Who are you going for? After you vote tell why you voted for that particular candidate

andrewhoya
02-18-2012, 02:55 PM
Ron Paul, lesser of all of the evils.

boba
02-18-2012, 03:06 PM
Ron Paul, lesser of all of the evils.

For me its between Paul and Santorum.

I love Paul's stance on the constitution. The only problem with it is the next democrat to take the office won't go by the same standards. I fear Paul won't get anything done and wash his hands of it all because it's the " States Right ".

I also fear he will run even if he doesn't get the nomination, which would split the vote.

AUTaxMan
02-18-2012, 03:51 PM
Santorum. He understands the liberties at stake in this election and can provide the best contrast to Obama. I also feel that I can trust what he says. Can't say that about anyone else but Paul. I just think Paul is very bad on foreign policy.

habsheaven
02-18-2012, 08:18 PM
Anyone but Romney because he is the only one with more than a snowball's chance in .... at beating Obama.

AUTaxMan
02-19-2012, 04:50 PM
I am republican but switching parties and yes I am starting to believe Obama is actually doing a pretty decent job!

why do you believe that?

NyFanCam01
02-19-2012, 04:53 PM
Obama will not be challenged by anybody.. but I voted for the clear winner of this poll...

NORRIS!

tsjct
02-19-2012, 05:33 PM
Santorum as he seems to be the best conservative we have running.

Wickabee
02-19-2012, 06:34 PM
I voted "I'm a democrat" because there's no "I'm a Canadian but really want to vote in this"

Anyway, I see this election going exactly like the Bush vs Kerry election with the parties reversed. There isn't anyone there who I believe even can beat Obama in this election. I do like Obama and, from here, it looks like he's doing a good job (besides the fact he seems to have a veiled hatred for Canada), but that's not why I'm saying Obama will take the election.

In '04 the Democrats had nothing but people with ZERO personality and lost.
Now, the Republicans have nothing but people with ZERO personality.

Make no mistake, the reason Bush beat Gore and Kerry was because he has personality. Unfortunately it doesn't matter where you are, more folks vote based on perception than platform. Bush has personality. Obama has personality. I can't stand Bush, but I can't deny his ability to win an election. He is a man many people can relate to. Obama is a man the other half can relate to.
Whenever you have one candidate with personality going against one with no personality, the former will win every time unless his platform is WAAAAAAY out there.

tsjct
02-19-2012, 07:37 PM
I voted "I'm a democrat" because there's no "I'm a Canadian but really want to vote in this"

Anyway, I see this election going exactly like the Bush vs Kerry election with the parties reversed. There isn't anyone there who I believe even can beat Obama in this election. I do like Obama and, from here, it looks like he's doing a good job (besides the fact he seems to have a veiled hatred for Canada), but that's not why I'm saying Obama will take the election.

In '04 the Democrats had nothing but people with ZERO personality and lost.
Now, the Republicans have nothing but people with ZERO personality.

Make no mistake, the reason Bush beat Gore and Kerry was because he has personality. Unfortunately it doesn't matter where you are, more folks vote based on perception than platform. Bush has personality. Obama has personality. I can't stand Bush, but I can't deny his ability to win an election. He is a man many people can relate to. Obama is a man the other half can relate to.
Whenever you have one candidate with personality going against one with no personality, the former will win every time unless his platform is WAAAAAAY out there.

If Obama wins the USA will become GREECE very very Fast. Our economy will Fail like no one has ever seen. He is a Socialist and his policy will KILL the USA as we now know it. Thanks GOD i made some really good money in the early 2000's and SAVED it. I just feel sorry for the younger ones trying to make a living in the future.

AUTaxMan
02-19-2012, 07:59 PM
If Obama wins the USA will become GREECE very very Fast. Our economy will Fail like no one has ever seen. He is a Socialist and his policy will KILL the USA as we now know it. Thanks GOD i made some really good money in the early 2000's and SAVED it. I just feel sorry for the younger ones trying to make a living in the future.

The sad thing is that many people are ignoring this very important issue, something each of the republicans seem determined to make the #1 priority, while obama is not even paying it lip service, which i guess is difficult to do when he is making the problem exponentially worse.

mrveggieman
02-20-2012, 09:35 AM
I am republican but switching parties and yes I am starting to believe Obama is actually doing a pretty decent job!


CHURCH!! :love0030:

Also people for the record I people am neither registered a republican nor democrat. That being said if the election were today I would be voting for President Obama. However if my only choices were the forementioned republican canidates I would vote for Ron Paul.

pghin08
02-20-2012, 10:27 AM
If Obama wins the USA will become GREECE very very Fast. Our economy will Fail like no one has ever seen. He is a Socialist and his policy will KILL the USA as we now know it. Thanks GOD i made some really good money in the early 2000's and SAVED it. I just feel sorry for the younger ones trying to make a living in the future.

My generation isn't blaming Obama for our soon-to-be financial troubles. It's been the whole system that's been in place for the past century. Our problem really hasn't been with overspending (yet), but with over-promising. For decades now, we've promised retirees the world, at the expense of the younger generation. Now my generation has to pay for the unreal amount of baby boomers who will retire at 65 and live 30-40 more years while collecting a SS check and having Medicare foot the bill for their hip replacements when they're 80 and knee replacements when they're ninety.

If/when we have a debt to GDP ratio akin to Greece (or worse, Japan), it won't be because "Obama is a Socialist", it will be because for the past 100 years, we've been promising stuff that we won't have the financial ability to supply.

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 10:42 AM
My generation isn't blaming Obama for our soon-to-be financial troubles. It's been the whole system that's been in place for the past century. Our problem really hasn't been with overspending (yet), but with over-promising. For decades now, we've promised retirees the world, at the expense of the younger generation. Now my generation has to pay for the unreal amount of baby boomers who will retire at 65 and live 30-40 more years while collecting a SS check and having Medicare foot the bill for their hip replacements when they're 80 and knee replacements when they're ninety.

If/when we have a debt to GDP ratio akin to Greece (or worse, Japan), it won't be because "Obama is a Socialist", it will be because for the past 100 years, we've been promising stuff that we won't have the financial ability to supply.

The debt under Obama has gone from 10 trillion to 15 trillion, and he has taken absolutely no steps to get serious about entitlement spending. How can you say that he has nothing to do with the problem. He is doubling down on the problem with his Obamacare spending and his failure to address social security and medicare.

pghin08
02-20-2012, 10:52 AM
The debt under Obama has gone from 10 trillion to 15 trillion, and he has taken absolutely no steps to get serious about entitlement spending. How can you say that he has nothing to do with the problem. He is doubling down on the problem with his Obamacare spending and his failure to address social security and medicare.

Given the depth and breadth of the financial crisis that he took office into, I don't blame him. If John McCain would've won that election, I highly doubt we'd be in a different place.

I agree with you, Social Security and Medicare need to be addressed, in a big way at some point in the near future. However, how can we get our lawmakers to address a long-term problem when addressing issues that pop up 10, 20 or 100 years down the road simply doesn't matter to them?

Like I said, if we end up in a financial situation like Greece (plausible), it won't be because we elected Barack Obama, and he screwed everything up. It will be because we've spent the past 100 years developing a totally unsustainable system.

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 11:17 AM
Given the depth and breadth of the financial crisis that he took office into, I don't blame him. If John McCain would've won that election, I highly doubt we'd be in a different place.

I agree with you, Social Security and Medicare need to be addressed, in a big way at some point in the near future. However, how can we get our lawmakers to address a long-term problem when addressing issues that pop up 10, 20 or 100 years down the road simply doesn't matter to them?

Like I said, if we end up in a financial situation like Greece (plausible), it won't be because we elected Barack Obama, and he screwed everything up. It will be because we've spent the past 100 years developing a totally unsustainable system.

Yes, but you have to admit that Obama is at best sitting on his hands, and at worst making the problem worse. We need someone who is proactive on the issue, and Obama CLEARLY is not the man for the job.

andrewhoya
02-20-2012, 11:17 AM
I find it scary that I hate Obama a ton, yet I feel like everyone but Paul would do a worse job than him.

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 12:03 PM
I find it scary that I hate Obama a ton, yet I feel like everyone but Paul would do a worse job than him.

WHY do you believe that? I hear a lot of this, but nobody seems to be able to articulate the reason for this belief.

pghin08
02-20-2012, 12:13 PM
WHY do you believe that? I hear a lot of this, but nobody seems to be able to articulate the reason for this belief.

Probably because outside of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, no Republican candidate has uttered anything of significance on economic policy. Nothing but a bunch of washed-up old applause lines. They've spent their time either attacking Obama, or each other. Fairly commonplace for this point in an election cycle.

mrveggieman
02-20-2012, 12:23 PM
Kind of ironic that good ole newt isn't getting any love on here.

andrewhoya
02-20-2012, 12:27 PM
WHY do you believe that? I hear a lot of this, but nobody seems to be able to articulate the reason for this belief.

Romney, Gingrich and Santorum's views don't click with me.

I don't like how he opposes same sex marriage and civil unions, as well as DADT. He flipped flopped on stem cell research. He wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt. He was against Obama meeting with leaders of Cuba, North Korea, etc. He wants to increase our army by 100,000 people. He doesn't think it should be up to Congress to determine whether or not to declare war. He wants to blockade Iran to make sure they do not use nuclear weapons. He supported both wars. He wants to have a military front in places like Pakistan.

I don't like how Gingrich authored a book trying to get God back into public places throughout the country (I am Christian). He wants public school prayer (seriously?). I don't like how he wants the death penalty for drug smugglers (I am strongly against all drugs). He opposes same sex marriage (his sister is a Lesbian.... I bet family outings are nice and peaceful). He flip flops a lot (AKA on stem cell research). He supports the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He wants to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.

Santorum flip flopped on many economic issues. He opposes same-sex marriage. He also wants to block Iran on creating nuclear weapons. He is also trying to remove Libertarian influence on political parties.

I didn't put as much on Santorum as I feel like he is the candidate least likely to win.

andrewhoya
02-20-2012, 12:29 PM
Kind of ironic that good ole newt isn't getting any love on here.

http://www.sportscardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1464582

He never has.

mrveggieman
02-20-2012, 12:54 PM
http://www.sportscardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1464582

He never has.


Wow even everyone's buddy herman cain got more love than newt. :confused0054:

andrewhoya
02-20-2012, 01:03 PM
Wow even everyone's buddy herman cain got more love than newt. :confused0054:

And Bachmann got double Herman :twitch:

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 01:06 PM
Probably because outside of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, no Republican candidate has uttered anything of significance on economic policy. Nothing but a bunch of washed-up old applause lines. They've spent their time either attacking Obama, or each other. Fairly commonplace for this point in an election cycle.

When is the last time one of the candidates was actually asked about their plan?

Here is Santorum's, by the way. It actually includes specifics. Took about 2 seconds to find.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/spending-cuts-and-entitlements-reform

http://www.ricksantorum.com/defender-taxpayer

boba
02-20-2012, 01:17 PM
Anyone but Romney because he is the only one with more than a snowball's chance in .... at beating Obama.

We voted for the most electable the last race with McCain. That doesn't work, if I were you I would want Romney. We need someone that is on the other side of Obama on everything and someone common citizens can relate to.

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 01:17 PM
Romney, Gingrich and Santorum's views don't click with me.

Santorum flip flopped on many economic issues. He opposes same-sex marriage. He also wants to block Iran on creating nuclear weapons. He is also trying to remove Libertarian influence on political parties.

I didn't put as much on Santorum as I feel like he is the candidate least likely to win.

Do you not see the importance of preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Also, how is he trying to get libertarian influence removed? What economic issues has he flip-flopped on?

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 01:19 PM
We voted for the most electable the last race with McCain. That doesn't work, if I were you I would want Romney. We need someone that is on the other side of Obama on everything and someone common citizens can relate to.

Agreed.

andrewhoya
02-20-2012, 01:28 PM
Do you not see the importance of preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Also, how is he trying to get libertarian influence removed? What economic issues has he flip-flopped on?

Iran is total opinion. I have no problem with them having nuclear weapons. We do, don't we? What makes them incapable of having nuclear weapons?
--------

In June 2011, Santorum said he would continue to "fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican party and the conservative movement." In an NPR interview in the summer of 2005, Santorum discussed what he called the "libertarianish right," saying "they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905 wrong link
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2012/01/05/rick_santorums_real_concerns_about_the_tea_party
--------

Though he once defended earmarks as a way to get federal money for needed state projects, he now opposes earmarks, entitlements and big government programs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/santorums-record-on-fiscal-policy-fact-checker-biography/2012/01/08/gIQAlC5DmP_blog.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/01/05/rick-santorum-has-blemishes-on-conservative-record

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 01:37 PM
They are incapable of having nuclear weapons because they will use them to attack Israel or to amass more power on the world stage. Do you not have a problem with this?

Also, what was the context of his libertarian remarks?

pghin08
02-20-2012, 01:37 PM
When is the last time one of the candidates was actually asked about their plan?

Here is Santorum's, by the way. It actually includes specifics. Took about 2 seconds to find.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/spending-cuts-and-entitlements-reform

http://www.ricksantorum.com/defender-taxpayer


Nobody ever asks HOW they can do all this stuff though. If I were a politician, I could say, "I want to bring unemployment down to 4-5% by the end of my first term." And people never really ask, "Well, how do you plan to do that?".

The only thing that I saw in the Santorum site that I really like was the mention of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. I thought their report and recommendations were very good, and they were duly dismissed by the Obama administration and much of Congress. The work they did was really important, and a lot of it was just common sense stuff. Reduce US troops overseas in Europe and Asia by 1/3? Easy. Done. Obama would have been well off not to totally ignore them.

pghin08
02-20-2012, 01:38 PM
They are incapable of having nuclear weapons because they will use them to attack Israel or to amass more power on the world stage. Do you not have a problem with this?

I think Israel is more likely to use THEIR nukes on Iran, than Iran would be on Israel (if they had any).

andrewhoya
02-20-2012, 01:41 PM
They are incapable of having nuclear weapons because they will use them to attack Israel or to amass more power on the world stage. Do you not have a problem with this?

Also, what was the context of his libertarian remarks?

I don't have a problem with that. As long as they are an independent country, they are allowed to do what they want to do. Other world powers have more nuclear activity than Iran does and could wipe then out in minutes if need be. How do you know that Israeli-ans are not saying the same thing about the US?

A link I posted has the video of his remarks.

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 01:44 PM
I think Israel is more likely to use THEIR nukes on Iran, than Iran would be on Israel (if they had any).

Have you studied the history of Israel in the 20th century? Israel has constantly had to hold off attack after attack on all fronts from the Muslim nations in the middle east. A nuclear Iran would make this much more difficult. You do understand that the religious and political leaders of those countries would like to wipe Israel off of the map, right?

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 01:45 PM
I don't have a problem with that. As long as they are an independent country, they are allowed to do what they want to do. Other world powers have more nuclear activity than Iran does and could wipe then out in minutes if need be. How do you know that Israeli-ans are not saying the same thing about the US?

A link I posted has the video of his remarks.

I think you should do some more independent research on Israel, because I don't think you understand the magnitude of the meaning of a nuclear Iran and why the existence of the Israeli state is so important in the middle east.

I was also asking about the context of the video. It's just a 90 second clip.

andrewhoya
02-20-2012, 02:00 PM
I think you should do some more independent research on Israel, because I don't think you understand the magnitude of the meaning of a nuclear Iran and why the existence of the Israeli state is so important in the middle east.

I was also asking about the context of the video. It's just a 90 second clip.

Im actually not sure of the context of the video. That's all I could find.

As for Israel, it shouldn't be important in the ME. Countries need to learn how to operate by themselves without the help of other countries. There will always be the threat of invasion of any country for millenniums to come. Iran could already be in the works of a secret weapon that we don't know about. There is no use trying to protect/get in the middle of things that do not relate to our own country. All we are doing is diminishing the already weak relationship that we have with Iran.

GoingForMaxImpact
02-20-2012, 02:02 PM
why do you believe that?

Because if you look at history and you look at the past 10 years he has done more to try and fix our economy and help keep jobs in the US, now I don't agree with his Health Care plan nor do I believe in stopping the Pipeline from Canada to Texas I am all fore drilling and using our natural resources! Plus whatever I or anyone else says good about Obama there will be people there to disect it apart just as the Democrats do to Republicans! Like George Washington stated Once you create more then one government party you will have Chaos! And that's what our Government is today, its way to big and they have way to much control over each state! They need to allow states to govern themselves and just handle the stuff that they were always set fourth to do "We the People, By the People, For the People"

pghin08
02-20-2012, 02:10 PM
Have you studied the history of Israel in the 20th century? Israel has constantly had to hold off attack after attack on all fronts from the Muslim nations in the middle east. A nuclear Iran would make this much more difficult. You do understand that the religious and political leaders of those countries would like to wipe Israel off of the map, right?

I understand that some people in the Arab nations want to see Israel gone. It's a bit extreme to throw all political and religious leaders under that umbrella.

And sorry, but I totally disagree on a lot of Israeli history. The Suez Crisis in the 1950s began with the Israelis invading Egypt with the support of the Brits, after Egypt refused to open the canal to Israeli shipping, which was not in direct violation of any agreement.

The six-day war was a shared responsibility. Egypt massed along the Israeli border, but never invaded. Israel responded by bombing the crap out of them, and taking over Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights.

I'm tired of the whole "Israel is always the victim" schtick. They're an aggressive nation too. For example, who has the most intrinsic spy network in the US? Not our "enemy" nations. It's Israel. The U.S. defense of Israel is the main cause of strife between the Middle East and the west.

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 02:16 PM
Because if you look at history and you look at the past 10 years he has done more to try and fix our economy and help keep jobs in the US, now I don't agree with his Health Care plan nor do I believe in stopping the Pipeline from Canada to Texas I am all fore drilling and using our natural resources! Plus whatever I or anyone else says good about Obama there will be people there to disect it apart just as the Democrats do to Republicans! Like George Washington stated Once you create more then one government party you will have Chaos! And that's what our Government is today, its way to big and they have way to much control over each state! They need to allow states to govern themselves and just handle the stuff that they were always set fourth to do "We the People, By the People, For the People"

What he has done has proven not to work, and you disagree with many of his fundamental policies, but you want to reelect him?

GoingForMaxImpact
02-20-2012, 02:23 PM
What he has done has proven not to work, and you disagree with many of his fundamental policies, but you want to reelect him?

That's why its a Free America, we are free to choose who we elect and who we think will do the best job! You have your vote and I have mine we all live in the same country but doesn't mean we have to agree!

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 02:38 PM
The Suez Crisis in the 1950s began with the Israelis invading Egypt with the support of the Brits, after Egypt refused to open the canal to Israeli shipping, which was not in direct violation of any agreement.

This is not true. Egypt and Britain had an agreement that the Suez Canal Company would be under British rule through 1968. Nasser broke the treaty, nationalized the company and cut off Israel in 1956 (I think) when the U.S. told them it would no longer fund the building of the Aswan dam.


The six-day war was a shared responsibility. Egypt massed along the Israeli border, but never invaded. Israel responded by bombing the crap out of them, and taking over Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights.

A justified response. Nasser had kicked the UN out of Sinai and was ready to launch an attack on Israel with 100,000 troops. He had closed the Straits of Teran and then stated, "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." Israel's strike may have been preemptive, but there is no way that they could have avoided that conflict.

tsjct
02-20-2012, 03:03 PM
We will not have to worry about a Nuclear Iran as Israel will take action when they have to. Our Coward president will not have to give permission as Israel does not need our approval to take action. For those of you that think a Nuclear Iran is Ok, i say you have no idea on the issues at hand. We have nukes to deter anyone from attacking us! Iran wants a Nuke to USE the day they get it done.

Wickabee
02-20-2012, 07:22 PM
If Obama wins the USA will become GREECE very very Fast. Our economy will Fail like no one has ever seen. He is a Socialist and his policy will KILL the USA as we now know it. Thanks GOD i made some really good money in the early 2000's and SAVED it. I just feel sorry for the younger ones trying to make a living in the future.
I know I'm way late on this, but I have a question.
If Socialism brings nations to their knees, why is the US economy in the toilet while Canada's (while it's not great) is currently one of the world leaders?

boba
02-20-2012, 08:04 PM
I know I'm way late on this, but I have a question.
If Socialism brings nations to their knees, why is the US economy in the toilet while Canada's (while it's not great) is currently one of the world leaders?

Because the USA is now socialist. Socialism is government regulation of businesses.

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 08:49 PM
I know I'm way late on this, but I have a question.
If Socialism brings nations to their knees, why is the US economy in the toilet while Canada's (while it's not great) is currently one of the world leaders?

Because Canada took austerity measures in the 90s when they were going through their recession.

NY Sports Teams
02-20-2012, 09:00 PM
This may be the first election I vote for an independent as President. A vote for Romney is not much better than voting for a Democrat. I guess it really doesn't matter, since 1930 Democrats have taken NY State 70% of the time during the General Election...Rick

pspstatus
02-21-2012, 01:03 AM
Because the USA is now socialist. Socialism is government regulation of businesses.

I think it's actually the reverse and business regulates government which is probaby a lot worse.

Wickabee
02-21-2012, 12:19 PM
Because the USA is now socialist. Socialism is government regulation of businesses.
As a citizen of a Socialist country, you have a long way to go before you reach Socialism in the US. A long, long way.


Because Canada took austerity measures in the 90s when they were going through their recession.
Okay, so if Socialism is so evil and will ruin a nation, why hasn't it ruined us up here? Canada took austerity measures, sure, but it's still Socialist and it still has a good economy right now, so obviously Socialism itself isn'te the problem at all.

I'd like to know why so many Americans think Socialism is the devil and will ruin your country.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not starting a fight or saying, "my coutry's better than yours" or "you're all stupid, Socialism is the way to go", this is a question I've had for years and no one has ever been able to answer it.

pghin08
02-21-2012, 12:52 PM
As a citizen of a Socialist country, you have a long way to go before you reach Socialism in the US. A long, long way.


Okay, so if Socialism is so evil and will ruin a nation, why hasn't it ruined us up here? Canada took austerity measures, sure, but it's still Socialist and it still has a good economy right now, so obviously Socialism itself isn'te the problem at all.

I'd like to know why so many Americans think Socialism is the devil and will ruin your country.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not starting a fight or saying, "my coutry's better than yours" or "you're all stupid, Socialism is the way to go", this is a question I've had for years and no one has ever been able to answer it.

I'm an American, and I have no idea why so many of my brethren feel this way.

habsheaven
02-21-2012, 02:09 PM
For the record, Canada is NOT a socialist country. We have a lot of structure in our government that looks similar to socialism, more so than the US, and less so than France.

duwal
02-21-2012, 06:56 PM
as of right now Newt is the only one that might get my vote. Even that is wavering right now though as it really is a sad, sad group of candidates to choose from and this time around I might actually have my vote go towards Obama instead of against him like last time

duwal
02-21-2012, 06:58 PM
I'm an American, and I have no idea why so many of my brethren feel this way.


same, I think a lot of them are playing the part of chicken little saying the sky is falling. It really is quite sad for some people to think that way, worried about so many things that don't even effect them or think worst case scenarios that won't come into fruition

pspstatus
02-22-2012, 12:27 AM
I'm an American, and I have no idea why so many of my brethren feel this way.

I think it's because the Capitalist greed machine has convinced them that anything that hurts profit but benefits the serfs is a no-no.

AUTaxMan
02-22-2012, 11:14 AM
That's why its a Free America, we are free to choose who we elect and who we think will do the best job! You have your vote and I have mine we all live in the same country but doesn't mean we have to agree!

I understand that your vote doesn't have to make any sense and you have the right to vote for Elmer Fudd if you want to. However, my question was what is the logic of your choosing to vote for Obama is you disagree with pretty much everything he has done.

AUTaxMan
02-22-2012, 11:17 AM
Okay, so if Socialism is so evil and will ruin a nation, why hasn't it ruined us up here? Canada took austerity measures, sure, but it's still Socialist and it still has a good economy right now, so obviously Socialism itself isn'te the problem at all.

I'd like to know why so many Americans think Socialism is the devil and will ruin your country.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not starting a fight or saying, "my coutry's better than yours" or "you're all stupid, Socialism is the way to go", this is a question I've had for years and no one has ever been able to answer it.

Are you saying that Canada is a socialist country? I generally have thought of Canada as a capitalist country with socialized medicine, slightly higher taxes, Rush, beer, and ice.

Wickabee
02-22-2012, 12:12 PM
Haha, you forgot poutine, maple syrup, beaver-pelt hats, the Guess Who and ketchup chips.

Okay, maybe outright "socialist" is wrong. How about 'Capitalist with strong socialist leanings'? Though you have to have a certain amount of capitalism in a socialist society, or you're just communist.

Personally, I do consider Canada to be Socialist. At least, in general attitude. I think socialist leanings tend to come with our politeness, heh.