The 2012 Presidential Election: Who do you think will in?

[blazedaces]

This first post is simply going to be a list of each candidate and a short bit of information on them (courtesy of Wikipedia, which I'm going to assume is an unbiased source). I'm also including a screenshot from Wikipedia of the pictures of all of them. If I miss any candidates or if someone wants to add another simply mention it and I will add it to the OP.

I like debate, and I like politics, but I also realize this subject can get nasty. The debate hall, due to the system of PG -> prove yourself -> get voted in is a bit more civil when it comes to most subjects, and I hope people try to keep it that way.

So, the candidates of the 2012 Presidential Elections:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican Candidates:

Michele Bachmann:

Michele Marie Bachmann (née Amble; April 6, 1956)[3] is a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Minnesota's 6th congressional district, a post she has held since 2007. The district includes several of the northern suburbs of the Twin Cities, such as Woodbury, and Blaine as well as Stillwater and St. Cloud.

She is currently a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2012 U.S. presidential election.[4] She previously served in the Minnesota State Senate and is the first Republican woman to represent the state in Congress.[5] Bachmann is a supporter of the Tea Party movement[6] and a founder of the House Tea Party Caucus.[7]

Herman Cain:

Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American businessman, politician, columnist, and radio host from Georgia. He is the former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza and a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business and economics career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics for the United States Navy.[2][3] Cain's newspaper column is distributed by North Star Writers Group. He lives in the Atlanta suburbs, where he also serves as a minister at Antioch Baptist Church North.

In January 2011, Cain announced he had formed an exploratory committee for a potential presidential campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and on May 21, 2011, Cain officially announced his candidacy.[4]

Newt Gingrich:

Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich (play /ˈnuːt ˈɡɪŋɡrɪtʃ/; born Newton Leroy McPherson; June 17, 1943) is an American politician who served as the 58th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. He represented Georgia's 6th congressional district as a Republican member from 1979 to 1999.

Gingrich was born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, but raised in Hummelstown, a small nearby borough. A college professor, historian, and author, Gingrich twice ran unsuccessfully for the House before winning a seat in the election of November 1978. He was re-elected ten times, and his activism as a member of the House's Republican minority eventually enabled him to succeed **** Cheney as House Minority Whip in 1989.

As a co-author of the 1994 Contract with America, Gingrich was in the forefront of the Republican Party's dramatic success in that year's Congressional elections and subsequently was elected Speaker of the House. In 1995, Time magazine named him "Man of the Year" for his role in leading the Republican Revolution in the House, ending 40 years of the Democratic Party being in the majority. During his tenure as Speaker, he represented the public face of the Republican opposition to President Bill Clinton. Under his Speakership, Congress passed and Clinton signed the 1996 reform of welfare, a capital gains tax cut and the first balanced budget since 1969.

Following Republican losses in the 1998 mid-term elections, Gingrich resigned both his Speakership and his congressional seat. Since resigning his seat, Gingrich has maintained a career as a political analyst and consultant. He continues to write works related to government and other subjects, such as historical fiction, and is the author of twenty-three books. He is the founder and/or chair of several organizations and companies, including American Solutions for Winning the Future, Center for Health Transformation, Gingrich Productions and Renewing American Leadership. In May 2011, he announced he will seek the Republican nomination to run in the 2012 presidential election.

Jon Huntsman, Jr.:

Jon Meade Huntsman, Jr. (born March 26, 1960) is an American politician and diplomat who served as the 16th Governor of Utah. He also served in the administrations of four United States presidents and is a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.[1]

Huntsman worked as a White House staff assistant for Ronald Reagan, and he was appointed by George H.W. Bush as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and later as United States Ambassador to Singapore from 1992–1993. Huntsman served as Deputy United States Trade Representative under George W. Bush, launching global trade negotiations in Doha, Qatar in 2001 and guiding the accession of China and Taiwan into the World Trade Organization.

Huntsman has also served as CEO of his family's Huntsman Corporation and was elected Governor of Utah in April, 2004 and won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote. During his tenure, Huntsman cut taxes by more than $400 million—the largest tax cut in the state's history—while still maintaining a budget surplus and Utah was named the "Best Managed State in America" by Pew Research Center. While governor, he also served as chairman of the Western Governors Association and as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Governors Association. On August 11, 2009, he resigned as governor to accept an appointment as the United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.

Gary Johnson:

Gary Earl Johnson (born January 1, 1953) is an American businessman, former Governor of New Mexico, and candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 election.[2][3] He served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, and is known for his low-tax libertarian views and his regular participation in triathlons.

Founder of one of New Mexico's largest construction companies,[4] Johnson entered politics for the first time by running for Governor of New Mexico in 1994 on a conservative, low-tax, anti-crime platform.[5] He beat incumbent Democratic governor Bruce King by 50% to 40%. He cut the 10% annual growth in the budget by using his gubernatorial veto on half of bills in the first six months.[4] His use of the veto over his two terms gained him the nickname "Governor Veto".[6][7]

He sought re-election in 1998, winning by 55% to 45%. In his second term, he concentrated on the issue of school voucher reforms,[8] as well as campaigning for marijuana decriminalization. During his tenure as governor, he adhered strictly to an anti-tax, anti-bureaucracy program, and set state and national records for his use of veto powers:[4] more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together.[9][10] Term-limited, Johnson could not run for reelection at the end of his second term.

A fitness enthusiast,[11][12] Johnson has taken part in several Ironman Triathlons, and he climbed Mount Everest in May 2003.[13] He announced his candidacy for President of the United States in the 2012 election on April 21, 2011.[14]

Ron Paul:

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American medical doctor, author, Republican U.S. Congressman of the House of Representatives and candidate for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination. Paul is currently the U.S. Congressman for the 14th congressional district of Texas, which comprises the area south and southwest of the Greater Houston region, including Galveston. Paul serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Joint Economic Committee, and the House Committee on Financial Services, and is Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, where he has been an outspoken critic of current American foreign and monetary policy.

A native of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his medical degree. Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 until 1968, during the Vietnam War. He worked as an obstetrician and gynecologist during the 1960s and 1970s, delivering more than 4,000 babies, before entering politics during 1976.

Paul is the initiator of the advocacy group Campaign for Liberty and his ideas have been expressed in numerous published articles and books, including Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (2011), End The Fed (2009), The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), Pillars of Prosperity (2008), A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship (2007), and The Case for Gold (1982). According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937.[3] His son Rand Paul was elected to the United States Senate for Kentucky in 2010, making the elder Paul the first Representative in history to serve concurrently with a child of his in the Senate.[4]

Paul has been termed the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.[5][6] He has become well-known for his libertarian ideas for many political issues, often differing from both Republican and Democratic Party stances. Paul has campaigned for President of the United States twice before, first during 1988 as the nominee of the Libertarian Party and again during 2008 as a candidate for the Republican nomination. On May 13, 2011, he announced formally that he would campaign again during 2012 for the Republican presidential nomination. On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would not seek another term in Congress in order to concentrate on his presidential bid.[7]

Tim Pawlenty (Dropped Out)

Rick Perry:

James Richard "Rick" Perry (born March 4, 1950) is the 47th and current Governor of Texas. A Republican, Perry was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed the governorship in December 2000 when then-governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. Perry was elected to full gubernatorial terms in 2002, 2006 and 2010. With a tenure in office to date of 10 years, 273 days, Perry is the longest continuously serving current U.S. governor, and the second longest serving current U.S. governor after Terry Branstad of Iowa.

Perry served as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2008 (succeeding Sonny Perdue of Georgia) and again in 2011.[3] Perry is the longest serving governor in Texas state history. As a result, he is the only governor in modern Texas history to have appointed at least one person to every eligible state office, board, or commission position (as well as to several elected offices to which the governor can appoint someone to fill an unexpired term, such as six of the nine current members of the Texas Supreme Court).

Perry won the Texas 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary election, defeating U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and former Wharton County Republican Party Chairwoman and businesswoman Debra Medina.[4] In the 2010 Texas gubernatorial election, Perry won a third term by defeating former Houston mayor Bill White and Kathie Glass.[5] On August 13, 2011, Perry announced in South Carolina that he was running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 presidential election.[6]

Mitt Romney:

Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician. He was the 70th Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007 and is a candidate for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination.

Romney is the son of George W. Romney (the former Governor of Michigan) and Lenore Romney. He was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and then served as a Mormon missionary in France. He received his undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University, and thereafter earned Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration joint degrees from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. Romney entered the management consulting business which led to a position at Bain & Company, eventually serving as its CEO to lead it out of crisis. He was also co-founder and head of the spin-off company Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm which became highly profitable and one of the largest such firms in the nation, and the wealth Romney accumulated there would help fund all of his future political campaigns. He ran as the Republican candidate in the 1994 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts but lost to incumbent Ted Kennedy. Romney organized and steered the 2002 Winter Olympics as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, and helped turn the troubled Games into a financial success.

Romney won the election for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, but did not seek reelection in 2006. During his term, he presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated a projected $3 billion deficit. He also signed into law the Massachusetts health care reform legislation, which provided near-universal health insurance access via subsidies and state-level mandates and was the first of its kind in the nation. During the course of his political career, his positions or rhetorical emphasis have shifted more towards American conservatism in several areas.

Romney ran for the Republican nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, winning several caucus and primary contests, though he ultimately lost the nomination to John McCain. In the following years he published No Apology: The Case for American Greatness and gave speeches and raised campaign funds on behalf of fellow Republicans. On June 2, 2011, Romney announced that he would seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Political observers and public opinion polls place him as a front-runner in the race.

Rick Santorum:

Richard John "Rick" Santorum (born May 10, 1958) is a lawyer and a former United States Senator from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Santorum is a member of the Republican Party and was the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. Santorum is considered both a social and fiscal conservative.[2] He is known for his stances on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Social Security, intelligent design, homosexuality, and the Terri Schiavo case.[3]

In March 2007, Santorum joined the law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. He was to primarily practice law in the firm’s Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C., offices, where he was to provide business and strategic counseling services to the firm's clients. In addition to his work with the firm, Santorum also serves as a Senior Fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and was a contributor to Fox News Channel. Santorum is a candidate for president of the United States in the 2012 election. He formed a presidential exploratory committee on April 13, 2011, and formally announced his candidacy on June 6.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Candidate:

Barack Obama:

Barack Hussein Obama II (Listeni/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama previously served as a United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned following his victory in the 2008 presidential election.

Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.

Following an unsuccessful bid against the Democratic incumbent for a seat in the United States House of Representatives in 2000, Obama ran for United States Senate in 2004. Several events brought him to national attention during the campaign, including his victory in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary for the Senate election and his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He won election to the U.S. Senate in Illinois in November 2004. His presidential campaign began in February 2007, and after a close campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he won his party's nomination. In the 2008 presidential election, he defeated Republican nominee John McCain, and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009. In October 2009, Obama was named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

As president, Obama signed economic stimulus legislation in the form of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009 and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act in December 2010. Other domestic policy initiatives include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act and the Budget Control Act of 2011. In foreign policy, he gradually withdrew combat troops from Iraq, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, signed the New START arms control treaty with Russia, ordered enforcement of the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya, and issued a direct order to a small group of American military forces to kill al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. In April 2011, Obama declared his intention to seek re-election in the 2012 presidential election.[4]

So everyone, who do you think will win and why?

-blazed

Edit: Can a mod please change the title to say "will win" and not "will in"? I can't seem to edit that, thank you.
Edit2: Removed Tim Pawlenty from the list, indicating he dropped out.

 

[AltF4]

Here's my deal with Ron Paul:

He'll very quickly go from saying something I totally agree with and think no other politician would dare say, and then immediately say something completely bat**** insane.

One minute he'll be talking about how we need to stop our interventionist foreign policy and stop the war on drugs and I'll be right behind him. Then he'll say that there's no such thing as a separation of church and state, and that we should have christianity as the US official religion and ban atheists from office. WTF

Ron Paul will be arguing in favor of WikiLeaks and saying that they are doing America a service and that they should be protected, and I totally get behind him. Then he says that he wants to abolish the IRS. (!?)

He speaks firmly about free speech issues and how they need to apply to the Internet, and how attempts to regulate information on the Internet are condemnable. Then he'll say that he doesn't believe in evolution, despite him being a medical doctor!

I rather wish there was a Bizzaro Ron Paul that had most of his policies, but none of his crazy.

 

[Battlecow]

My view of Paul is that around 95% of the **** he thinks is crazy and the rest of it is a "broken clock" kind of situation. I find it kind of funny that you know he's crazy and still support like half of his stuff.

I'll probably vote for the O-man. I would have voted for Daniels if he had run, but he couldn't have gotten the nomination anyways. Perry doesn't seem too bad- and honestly, the only reason I can't stand the thought of Romney in office is that he's a ****ing mormon.

I would have a serious problem with Bachman or Palin.

As for who will win? I'm gonna say Obama. America hates mormons, and we haven't forgotten the last Texas governor we elected. I could easily be wrong, of course, but that's just the feeling I get.

 

[Crimson King]

Alt nailed my exact stance on Ron Paul.

Pawlenty dropped out I think too.

 

[Sucumbio]

Yeah, he did.

I think for right now I'll focus on who will win the Republican primary... it's definitely a race between Romney and Perry, and USA Today's Gallup Poll has Perry in the lead by 7% -source

It's interesting to see how quickly Perry has taken over the republicans. The crazies (tea party, libertarians) can easily be written off as wasted votes for Bachman or Paul so I'm not really worried about them, but Perry has 2 things going for him. He's got that same texas charm that got GW elected, and he's been able to paint Mitt as a wall street slimeball. But he has a way to go: south carolina is still in favor of Romney, though by close margin of about 3% -source

 

[Aesir]

Huntsman is the only sane choice, but he has no chance.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

My view of Paul is that around 95% of the **** he thinks is crazy and the rest of it is a "broken clock" kind of situation. I find it kind of funny that you know he's crazy and still support like half of his stuff.

I'll probably vote for the O-man. I would have voted for Daniels if he had run, but he couldn't have gotten the nomination anyways. Perry doesn't seem too bad- and honestly, the only reason I can't stand the thought of Romney in office is that he's a ****ing mormon.

I would have a serious problem with Bachman or Palin.

As for who will win? I'm gonna say Obama. America hates mormons, and we haven't forgotten the last Texas governor we elected. I could easily be wrong, of course, but that's just the feeling I get.

Nah. Perry is actually a bit of a fool. I'm pretty sure that he held a prayer meet to try and solve Texas' problems, instead of actually doing anything about it. He supports Intelligent Design, is a climate change skeptic and supports the Death Penalty.

Enough reasons not to like the guy. I'm worried that Perry will win, especially considering how unpopular Obama is at the moment.

What I'm hoping for is that Bachman will win the Republican Party nomination so that Obama's competition becomes a lot weaker.

And Hunstman seems halfway okay.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's interesting that about half the candidates are either complete scumbags or obviously nuts.

Bachmann is a nut, plain and simple. There's no nice way of putting this; she is completely insane. Not only is she a biblical literalist, but she also believes that women should be subservient to their husbands, making me wonder what role her husband would play in a Bachmann white house. She thinks that climate change is a hoax because "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas", thinks that gay marriage will automatically lead to polygamy and beastiality, and is convinced that evolution is a lie. Her understanding of economic principle is a joke, plain and simple ("We should've gone into default! Raising the debt ceiling was a bad idea!"), but I can hardly fault her for that because the degree of which this applies to the republican party really makes me wonder if they're all genuinely that stupid or just want to throw more money at their rich friends.

Santorum is ****ed. He's got a fairly solid opposition, but I honestly haven't really heard much about his real positions beyond gay marriage (and his explanation on that is so stupid it hurts; see also: "A napkin is not an argument" by ZinniaJones).

Perry is an absolutely amazing politician, and I mean this in the worst possible way. Recent wonderful gaffes include his "Response", where he basically got tens of thousands of people to waste time doing absolutely nothing helpful, and in response god basically told him to **** off with wildfires. The Amazing Atheist really covered how he considered this almost proof of god; god is saying that Rick Perry should go **** himself. Then there's how he blamed the federal government for not providing help to his state in the case of wildfires... after he himself slashed the state budget for the fire department... and after he was given literally all the help he asked FEMA for. There's stupid, and then there's lying. Guess which one this is. His plans to change the constitution are all awful. Yes, let's politicize judicial decisions and ensure that the majority can really **** the minority (how would Brown vs. Board of Education have turned out if congress could've overruled it with a 2/3rds majority?). Yes, let's ensure that Judges have tenure and therefore can be ousted if they don't stick to the party line. Yes, let's put the senate back in the hands of our governors, that's a great way to ensure democracy by cutting out another directly voted-in establishment in favor of an indirect one. Yeah, let's abolish income tax, which is IIRC about half of our government's revenue in a time where we are hugely in debt. Yes, let's make sure that the states absolutely cannot decide for themselves on abortion and gay marriage. Every single idea in his list is flat-out terrible. Added bonus: "Social Security is a ponzi scheme!"

Everything that needs to be said about Ron Paul has already been said; the guy is a nut. An earnest nut, but a nut nonetheless.

I don't really know much about the other candidates, tbh...

 

[Battlecow]

You guys seem to be really upset (like, to an entirely comical degree) about Perry's prayer thingy. Come on- who did it harm? At worst, it was a bit silly. He's religious. OK. This might surprise you, but a lot of presidents have been. The death penalty? You'd really base your choice for president on whether a couple hundred scumbags died or went to prison for life? Y'all aren't looking at the big picture. Climate change is a problem, but what has Barack done to stop GW recently?

And social security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. That's actually the one thing I like about Perry- he had the political courage to say that.

 

[Aesir]

You guys seem to be really upset (like, to an entirely comical degree) about Perry's prayer thingy. Come on- who did it harm? At worst, it was a bit silly. He's religious. OK. This might surprise you, but a lot of presidents have been. The death penalty? You'd really base your choice for president on whether a couple hundred scumbags died or went to prison for life? Y'all aren't looking at the big picture. Climate change is a problem, but what has Barack done to stop GW recently?

Not sure if you noticed but the really religious presidents usually try to shape policy around those beliefs no matter how silly they are. The very fact that he's looking to prayer to solve a fiscal crisis just shows he lacks the leadership capabilities to be president, we don't need another George Bush.

Also you do realize how many innocent people have been put to death because of faulty evidence? hell there's a man in Georgia about to be executed even though almost all the eye-witness's have recanted their statements. if you look at the innocence project you'll see how often innocent people are put to death because of some error or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And lastly what can the president do? you do realize any real change he can make to combat climate change is going to be met with heavy resistance especially now, because in america apparently it's believed your ignorance is just as good as my knowledge.

And social security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. That's actually the one thing I like about Perry- he had the political courage to say that.

It's actually not, it only shows just how little Perry knows about the social security program.
if you're going to take that position you're going to have explain why it's a ponzi scheme, and please don't be like most and just back out because you were called out.


Edit: I also like how no one even mentions John Huntsman in the news, it's kinda sad, that and no one even knows who Buddy Roemer is, both of them represent a completely different wing of the Republican party, which unfortunately will probably die soon anyway, thus polarizing the two parties even more.

 

[Battlecow]

Not sure if you noticed but the really religious presidents usually try to shape policy around those beliefs no matter how silly they are. The very fact that he's looking to prayer to solve a fiscal crisis just shows he lacks the leadership capabilities to be president, we don't need another George Bush.

Also you do realize how many innocent people have been put to death because of faulty evidence? hell there's a man in Georgia about to be executed even though almost all the eye-witness's have recanted their statements. if you look at the innocence project you'll see how often innocent people are put to death because of some error or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And lastly what can the president do? you do realize any real change he can make to combat climate change is going to be met with heavy resistance especially now, because in america apparently it's believed your ignorance is just as good as my knowledge.

1. Barack Obama is religious as well. He ends every speech with "God bless you, and God bless the United States of America." Perry has given no indication of any plan to allow his religious principles to cause him to make completely crazy decisions- he's just praying.

2. I'm aware. I don't support the death penalty. I'm simply saying that it's not a deal-breaker, president-wise. He'll have no power to institute the death penalty at a federal level.

3. My ignorance? What the ****? Come on, dude. I specifically said that climate change was a problem. How the **** am I ignorant? *steams*

OK, look. Barack is unable to do anything about it? The same applies to Perry. I doubt that any serious difference in policy will result from his election. If it does, that's bad- but bearable.

It's actually not, it only shows just how little Perry knows about the social security program.
if you're going to take that position you're going to have explain why it's a ponzi scheme, and please don't be like most and just back out because you were called out.

Social security is broken. The people who got in early get out much more than they ever put in, and it's unsustainable long-term. I will never see a dime of the social security money I'm paying. There are elements of Ponzi scheme there.

 

[Aesir]

1. Barack Obama is religious as well. He ends every speech with "God bless you, and God bless the United States of America." Perry has given no indication of any plan to allow his religious principles to cause him to make completely crazy decisions- he's just praying.

Yes he has, and if you really think Obama is a religious man that's kinda cute. Because he clearly didn't realize after college you can't get far in American politics without an imaginary friend.

2. I'm aware. I don't support the death penalty. I'm simply saying that it's not a deal-breaker, president-wise. He'll have no power to institute the death penalty at a federal level.

I like how you say that cause with a Republican congress he easily could, that's what a lot of people don't realize, if you have both parties in control of the executive and legislative you tend to see what the party really thinks.

3. My ignorance? What the ****? Come on, dude. I specifically said that climate change was a problem. How the **** am I ignorant? *steams*

It's a quote by a famous american writer, not aimed at you.

OK, look. Barack is unable to do anything about it? The same applies to Perry. I doubt that any serious difference in policy will result from his election. If it does, that's bad- but bearable.

Perry won't do anything about it because he's one of those nut jobs that thinks it's nothing to worry about. And that's not to say Obama hasn't done anything he's tried to do something most of those things were over looked because he did them very early in his presidency.

Social security is broken. The people who got in early get out much more than they ever put in, and it's unsustainable long-term. I will never see a dime of the social security money I'm paying. There are elements of Ponzi scheme there.

That's a problem with the system, note that a problem with the system does not mean a ponzi scheme, there are ways to keep social security going longer, there's a real simple answer, you remove the revenue cap on social security bam instant fix.

I don't think you meant to call it a ponzi scheme if that's your dispute with it, a ponzi scheme would be something Bernie madoff came up with, not a social service program meant for retirement (which is what it's used for.)

 

[Battlecow]

Yes he has, and if you really think Obama is a religious man that's kinda cute. Because he clearly didn't realize after college you can't get far in American politics without an imaginary friend.

Do you have any evidence of his being an atheist?

I like how you say that cause with a Republican congress he easily could, that's what a lot of people don't realize, if you have both parties in control of the executive and legislative you tend to see what the party really thinks.

How can both parties be in control of both of those branches? Please proofread your posts; you're confusing me and I don't want to try to guess at what you mean.

It's a quote by a famous american writer, not aimed at you.

My bad. Still, you could have used it in a context where it made a little more sense...

Perry won't do anything about it because he's one of those nut jobs that thinks it's nothing to worry about. And that's not to say Obama hasn't done anything he's tried to do something most of those things were over looked because he did them very early in his presidency.

OK. Perry won't do anything, and Obama can't do anything. I fail to see the difference.

That's a problem with the system, note that a problem with the system does not mean a ponzi scheme, there are ways to keep social security going longer, there's a real simple answer, you remove the revenue cap on social security bam instant fix.

I don't think you meant to call it a ponzi scheme if that's your dispute with it, a ponzi scheme would be something Bernie madoff came up with, not a social service program meant for retirement (which is what it's used for.)

If your only gripe with Perry's statement is that "Ponzi scheme" was extreme language, then OK. I don't think Perry wants to abolish SS; he wants to modify it, and it needs to be modified. Of course it's not actually a literal Ponzi scheme, but he was making a point- he was saying that serious change is required to make SS feasible, and that if we stay on this track, many young people will put money in and never get it out (in a way that resembles the workings of a Ponzi scheme). Many other candidates aren't willing to consider the changes that need to be made, which is why I consider this a point in Perry's favor.

 

[blazedaces]

And social security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. That's actually the one thing I like about Perry- he had the political courage to say that.

Here's a bit of an explanation about what exactly is a "ponzi scheme":

The Logic of Ponzi Schemes, Chain Letters & Pyramid Schemes

The essence of the Ponzi scheme was that Ponzi used the money he received from later investors to pay extravagant rates of return to early investors, thereby inducing more investors to place their money with him in the false hope of realizing this same extravagant rate of return themselves. This works only so long as there is an ever-increasing number of new investors coming into the scheme.

To pay a 100% profit to the first 1,000 investors you need the money from 1,000 new investors. Now there are 2000 "investors" in the scheme, and in the second round of payouts to pay the same return to these 2,000 investors in the next round, you need the money from 2,000 new investors--bringing the number of participants to 4,000. And to pay these 4,000, you will end up with 8,000 "investors," then 16,000--and so on.

If all the investors stay in the scheme, the number of participanats would double after every round of payouts. Even starting with only 1,000 "investors," by the 20th round of payouts you would need more new investors than the entire population of the U.S. Eventually, the number of new investors that would have to be found would exceed the population of the earth. Typically, however, Ponzi schemes collapse long before they reach their theoretical limit as an ever-increasing number of new participants cannot be found.
Ponzi Progression Starting with 1,000 "Investors"
Payout Rounds Number of Participants

In the classic chain-letter scheme 1 person gets, say, 10 people to make an investment and each in turn get 10 additional people to invest, who then in their turn must each get 10, and so on. The money for the first 10 "investors" comes from the 10 they enroll, and the money for the second group of 10 comes from the 10 investors that each of them enrolls, and so on. Diagrammatically, such a scheme looks like a pyramid--hence its alternative name

The reason that this is a scheme and not an investment strategy, is that the geometric progression it depends on is unsustainable. You must continually get more and more new people into the system to pay-off the promises to the earlier members. After a few rounds of this kind of increase, the number of new participants in the next round would be larger than the number of persons on the earth. That's why all pyramid schemes must inevitably come crashing down

And here's an explanation of a "pay-as-you-go" system (Social Security in essence) and why it's NOT a ponzi scheme:

In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.

There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends.

So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary, or a geometric increase in the number of participants. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a fairly stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

In this context, it would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retire, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments. So you could say that Social Security is a transfer payment, but it is not a pyramid scheme. There is a huge difference between the two, and only a superficial similarity.

If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. During periods when more new participants are entering the system than are receiving benefits there tends to be a surplus in funding (as in the early years of Social Security). During periods when beneficiaries are growing faster than new entrants (as will happen when the baby boomers retire), there tends to be a deficit. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes, or any other fraudulent form of financing, it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.

Finally, from a very obvious comparison of the two:

Ponzi vs. Social Security

Social Security is and always has been either a "pay-as-you-go" system or one that was partially advance-funded. Its structure, logic, and mode of operation have nothing in common with Ponzi schemes or chain letters or pyramid schemes.

The first modern social insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days.

You're giving Perry a point in his favor for being both uneducated and unable to do a lick of research before opening his mouth while running for president...?

(1): http://jhvonline.com/what-was-our-g...ndment-scholar-addresses-perrys-p11566-96.htm
(All the SSA.GOV quotes): http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm

 

[Aesir]

Do you have any evidence of his being an atheist?

You need to pay attention to his language when he speaks especially if you watch him during the first campaign, it's quite obvious he either doesn't take his beliefs seriously or has doubts about. Plus he was raised without any religious background, usually when those types go into politics they just pretend they're religious.

How can both parties be in control of both of those branches? Please proofread your posts; you're confusing me and I don't want to try to guess at what you mean.

Yeah it happens, though I'm sure you can understand what I mean, when one party has both branches of government.

OK. Perry won't do anything, and Obama can't do anything. I fail to see the difference.

Perry would strip whatever progress we have on climate change, obama would maintain or improve on it. I mean c'mon Perry is the kinda guy who would strip away the EPA to being effectively useless.

If your only gripe with Perry's statement is that "Ponzi scheme" was extreme language, then OK. I don't think Perry wants to abolish SS; he wants to modify it, and it needs to be modified. Of course it's not actually a literal Ponzi scheme, but he was making a point- he was saying that serious change is required to make SS feasible, and that if we stay on this track, many young people will put money in and never get it out (in a way that resembles the workings of a Ponzi scheme). Many other candidates aren't willing to consider the changes that need to be made, which is why I consider this a point in Perry's favor.

You may not think it, but he's part of the radical wing of the republican party who thinks going back to the 1920's is a good idea, you really think it would stop at his pseudo-reforms? it's always been about abolishing SS and Medicare, nothing else. I can guarantee that he would either privatize it effectively killing the program right there, or handing it over to the states which opens it up many more problems, the states are suffering right now last thing we need to do is give them another unfunded mandate.

 

[Battlecow]

You need to pay attention to his language when he speaks especially if you watch him during the first campaign, it's quite obvious he either doesn't take his beliefs seriously or has doubts about. Plus he was raised without any religious background, usually when those types go into politics they just pretend they're religious.

Possible, but I'm unconvinced. Have you ever read Dreams from my Father? He strikes me as a religious man, all right.

Perry would strip whatever progress we have on climate change, obama would maintain or improve on it. I mean c'mon Perry is the kinda guy who would strip away the EPA to being effectively useless.

There might be some movements along those lines. One of the reasons why I'm gonna vote for Obama. But I could live with minor changes to the EPA or whatever, and I don't think that the populace is going to let him do anything too drastic- that's just not the feel I get about the popular mindset right now. Indifferent to the environment, maybe to some degree, but not outright hostile towards it.

You may not think it, but he's part of the radical wing of the republican party who thinks going back to the 1920's is a good idea, you really think it would stop at his pseudo-reforms? it's always been about abolishing SS and Medicare, nothing else. I can guarantee that he would either privatize it effectively killing the program right there, or handing it over to the states which opens it up many more problems, the states are suffering right now last thing we need to do is give them another unfunded mandate.

He'd be booted from office in a minute if he tried to abolish the program entirely. He's going to make sharp cuts, which is exactly what's needed.

 

[Aesir]

Possible, but I'm unconvinced. Have you ever read Dreams from my Father? He strikes me as a religious man, all right.

Funny how that book was written just before his political career. Plus I'm sure the stories told by his mother and grandparents about his father didn't shape the outcome of that book at all.

There might be some movements along those lines. One of the reasons why I'm gonna vote for Obama. But I could live with minor changes to the EPA or whatever, and I don't think that the populace is going to let him do anything too drastic- that's just not the feel I get about the popular mindset right now. Indifferent to the environment, maybe to some degree, but not outright hostile towards it.

It's naive to think he won't be hostile as he favors business over the environment.

He'd be booted from office in a minute if he tried to abolish the program entirely. He's going to make sharp cuts, which is exactly what's needed.

Really? so lets back track here: one of the main arguments here is, it's going to be bankrupted soon, so the solution is to cut it? no. You don't cut social security you remove the revenue cap on it, so people who no longer pay into it keep paying into keeping the revenue flow going. If you want to go further you make it more means tested rather than a social security program. IE CEO's cash in at a older age than a construction worker. Basically jobs that require minimal physical stress get to cash in sooner if they wish ect.. doing both of these would go a long way in fixing the problem.

 

[AltF4]

I've heard others say the same thing, Aesir, about Obama and religion. Personally, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see him write a memoir in about 25 years where he says that he was actually non-religious the entire time in office but couldn't admit to it because of the political ramifications.

No matter what, he's all I ask in a politician in terms of religion: keep it out of the political process. If you want to be a christian, that's totally fine. I'll vote for you. But not if you're going to be making presidential decisions on the basis of divine revelation. As far as anyone can tell, Obama's political decision making has been purely secular.

I may disagree with his decisions in one instance or another, but it's because we both considered the facts, thought about it a lot, and came to different conclusions. I can respect that kind of disagreement.

Unfortunately I can't say the same about much of the republican candidacy. Particularly with the likes of Michelle Bachman. The candidates openly say (dare I say admit) to choosing their political positions entirely on religious grounds, and seek religious guidance on political issues.

Even if I agree with the particular political positions they're espousing, I couldn't possibly support someone like that for office. No thanks.

 

[Crimson King]

Part of me wants Bachmann to not only win the GOP but win the whole thing because of this:

[yt]d8spCOEePSo[/yt]

Other than saying "feelings we experience" and such, there is no doubt in my mind that her husband is a closet homosexual. It will be SO amazing once that inevitable scandal comes out.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah I think I'll pass on that notion.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You guys seem to be really upset (like, to an entirely comical degree) about Perry's prayer thingy. Come on- who did it harm? At worst, it was a bit silly. He's religious. OK. This might surprise you, but a lot of presidents have been.

Yes, but not "get a lot of people to ask an invisible friend for help" religious. I'm not 100% sure of the legal logistics of it (I'm fairly sure that somewhere, there'll be something about the 1st amendment and whatnot), but I can say that my personal opinion on the subject is shared by, say, AronRa and The Amazing Atheist. Not only is fasting and praying possibly the worst thing they could do for the economy (i.e. not spending or investing or anything but rather doing absolutely nothing of any material value), but he's basically saying, "This one is too big for me to handle. You guys are on your own". He's ceding his leadership to some other entity, and whether or not god is real, this simply states that Rick Perry is incapable of solving Texas's problems.

Climate change is a problem, but what has Barack done to stop GW recently?

What has anyone? Still in a recession, blah blah blah.

And social security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. That's actually the one thing I like about Perry- he had the political courage to say that.

As others have mentioned, he's on the same ridiculous, faulty track as Reagan, and apparently he has more balls than brains. >.>

 

[Battlecow]

Meh. Perry can't solve Texas's problems, no, but who the hell can? It's not like he's trying less hard because god's going to help or anything- he's just throwing prayer out there along with all of the secular policies he thinks are best.

The Amazing Atheist is so incredibly obnoxious that I start seeing stars every time he's mentioned. But that's not the point here.

What has anyone? Still in a recession, blah blah blah.

OK. So how's Perry going to hurt things? He's not.

RE Aesir- means testing is a favorite solution of mine. When I said "cut," I should have said "modify." But means-testing is kind of a cut anyways, so maybe I was right... semantics semantics semantics.

Bottom line: something needs to be done, Perry's willing to do something.

 

[Dre89]

The Amazing Atheist

Dude......come on.....

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Dude......come on.....

When he has a point, he has a point. I'm subscribed to AronRa, not him.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Huntsman is the only sane choice, but he has no chance.

Agreed.

In terms of who actually has a chance, I think it's safe to say that it's basically down to Romney and Perry. Huntsman, Paul, Gingrich, Johnson, and Santorum have never received enough support to be considered front-runners, and support for Cain and Bachman has sharply declined with the entrance of Perry.

Perry has led in most polls so far, but more extreme-right people tend to come out in the polls and I think Romney will draw more moderate votes when the primary starts.

Honestly though, despite declining approval of Obama, I don't think Perry or Romney will beat him. Perry's policies are effected too much by his religion (the dude wants to bring prayer back to public schools) and does other stupid things like comparing gay marriage to alcoholism as a lifestyle choice. He's just not that likable. And Romney is too connected with the business world rather than his people, may lose some support from Republicans due to Massachusetts' health care policy, and is a Mormon. Overall, I don't think either will sway more moderates than Obama will. I'd guess Obama will win, but I'm not completely sure, simply because his approval ratings have taken such a nose dive over the last 4 years.

 

[Aesir]

He's still high enough to win re-election.

 

[Battlecow]

I hear that the republican who gets nominated will skyrocket in the polls vs Obama directly after they're nominated.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Meh. Perry can't solve Texas's problems, no, but who the hell can? It's not like he's trying less hard because god's going to help or anything- he's just throwing prayer out there along with all of the secular policies he thinks are best.

There is this thing called the separation of church and state. A governor should not rely upon prayer to fix problems. By asking people to pray, with the expectation that something will come of it, he has a raised false hope in the populace of Texas; that something will actually change for the better because of the giant prayer meet. He is effectively misleading Texas.

And seriously, even if it is harmless, I don't believe that it is a good idea to install people in office who turn to God whenever the chips are down.

 

[Battlecow]

He's not breaching the separation of church and state. He's allowed to have and share religious views, even if he's a governor. "False hope"? Oh, come on. He prayed with some religious people. "Instilling false hope" is really stretching it.

We can't all have candidates that share all of our views. If you get this hung-up on someone who "turned to god when the chips were down"- i.e. prayed in a time of crisis while still maintaining all secular efforts, like EVERY PRESIDENT EVER has always done- you are never going to find a president who's acceptable to you.

 

[KrazyGlue]

But what DOES breach separation of church and state is his idea of bringing prayer back to public schools.

 

[AltF4]

But what DOES breach separation of church and state is his idea of bringing prayer back to public schools.

The prayer in public schools part.

There's really two unrelated issues with Rick Perry here.

1) His declaration of a statewide 3-day period of prayer for rain. (Texas was having a drought) While possibly unconstitutional, that isn't the issue I have with it. The problem I have is more of an educational issue with Rick Perry himself. That Rick Perry thinks a 3 day period of prayer will actually bring rain.

Because god wouldn't have listened to just one prayer. No. The whole state had to pray, in case god was too busy at the time. And there's no way god would listen to a measly 2 day prayer. No sir. 3 days it is.

But this wouldn't be the first time a republican candidate got their science lessons from a priest.

2) Calling a ban on officially sponsored prayer at a High School graduation "reprehensible".

Note that this did not ban prayer at the school. (Kids can pray all they want by themselves, or even together) Just from the school calling the crowd to pray, or otherwise leading the school in prayer. IE: The school itself (a governmental organization) cannot endorse religion. It must stay out of religion and remain completely secular.

I have to imagine Rick Perry would have thought very differently of the school prayer if a muslim teacher lead the graduation into giving praises to allah. He is not in favor of allowing public workers freedom to practice their religion. He is in favor of establishing christianity as the defacto (if not official) religion of america. No thanks.

 

[Crimson King]

[yt]h8pcJ6Hh4Y0[/yt]
Silly gay Soldier, the GOP only uses you when you are in line with their beliefs.

 

[blazedaces]

[yt]h8pcJ6Hh4Y0[/yt]
Silly gay Soldier, the GOP only uses you when you are in line with their beliefs.

This, as well as the "yay, let's kill the guy with no health insurance", just makes me ashamed to be in the same species with these people...

-blazed

 

[Amide]

Ughh. And the candidates cater to them so much, too.

You know, though it's probably an elitist thing to say, I don't really have faith in the American people to pick good people for office. It's bizarre: no voter comes up with a good answer when asked what they'd cut from the federal budget. But they want lower taxes. And less regulation. But don't know what kind of regulation. . . Except when they do, in which case it's really horrifying.

Anyways, I've grown weary of poking fun at Bachmann. It's too easy, and even most Republicans don't like her. What bothers me is how the real candidates support policies reminiscient of the one's that got the country into the economic mess, and are celebrated for it too. Obviously Obama is not perfect, or arguably good at what he does, but it's fairly disturbing that his opponents seem pretty electable against him. 2012 Congress elections don't look any more promising.

 

[blazedaces]

Obviously Obama is not perfect or even good at what he does

I'm not really an obama fan, but can you elaborate on this? Why?

-blazed

 

[Amide]

Ooops I meant that as in, obviously he's not perfect or even necessarily good at what he does. I personally am in the middle for opinion on him, but think he's better than most people in Washington has good intentions, which I believe counts for something.

 

[Crimson King]

I think by 2016, the US will be in such a state of disarray, that is if the global economy exists still, that we may hopefully be past parties.

The economy is not a republican or democrat issue; it's an American issue. We have to tax high for a bit and spend less. Both parties must suffer.

 

[Battlecow]

I think by 2016, the US will be in such a state of disarray, that is if the global economy exists still, that we may hopefully be past parties.

Declinism much?

The economy is not a republican or democrat issue; it's an American issue. We have to tax high for a bit and spend less. Both parties must suffer.

Truth.

 

[Crimson King]

Assuming what "declinism" means, we aren't in a good position, globally.

Greece is on the verge of collapse, if it goes, a lot of other EU countries go which hurt the Euro, which will send ripples.

Building our global economy on debt was a bad idea, and it isn't sustainable.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

We can't all have candidates that share all of our views. If you get this hung-up on someone who "turned to god when the chips were down"- i.e. prayed in a time of crisis while still maintaining all secular efforts, like EVERY PRESIDENT EVER has always done- you are never going to find a president who's acceptable to you.

I'm actually getting hung-up on someone who thinks that everyone should turn to god when the chips are down and will use his office as governor to do promote religion and spread misinformation.