Let's talk politics. Who do you want to win in 2012?

<p>My support is behind Ron Paul. </p>

<p>Who do you support and why?</p>

<p>Candidate: Ron Paul
Why: libertarian principles=smaller government=a more free market=more freedom.
(I'm actually largely influenced by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell so whichever candidate most closely adhere to the libertarian principles is the one I'd vote for)
But I think Mitt Romney might win the nomination so I would also vote for him. [basically anyone on the right, because if we stay on our current socialist path( just calling em how I see em) were gonna end up a bigger welfare state than Europe].</p>

<p>Hmm. I wonder how long this will last before it's taken down. Mods, please don't take it down please.</p>

<p>If Obama hadn't taken office yet and campaigned on progressive ideas like he did before the 2008 election, he would have my vote. But during his term, he has proven to be more like a Republican, buying into republican ideals, and caving to republican demands constantly. Instead of pushing for more reform and progressive ideals, he has continued Bush's policies and instead of passing real wall street or healthcare reform, for example, he has passed weak watered-down legislation. I know if he was voted in again, nothing will happen except, if anything, caving to Republicans. </p>

<p>That's why I'd support a candidate like Ron Paul who, though he has some ridiculous ideas, has some reasonable ones like ending corporate welfare, cutting back defense, ending the drug war etc. While his propositions such as eliminating the IRS or EPA, etc. are ridiculous, they wouldn't pass at all. So he's net going to lead to more progress than harm. </p>

<p>Mitt Romney on the other hand is corporate guy and will ensure that corporations and the top income bracket continues to increase profit on the backs of poor/middle class. In the most likely case that he gets the nomination, Obama wouldn't do as much harm.</p>

<p>@Craig haha, I'm not sure if you're serious or mocking the tea party which makes outrageous claims like that Obama is a socialist. Please, he's to the right of Republican Eisenhower.</p>

<p>Terms of Service: "Politics, Religion, etc. Politics, religion, and similar controversial topics should be discussed only as directly applicable to college matters. College Confidential is not a debating society. Hence, "Would a Catholic be comfortable at BYU?" or "What is the political environment at Grinnell?" are fine. "Democrats (or Republicans) are evil!" and other opinions unrelated to the college process are not allowed."</p>

<p>Oh, oops. My bad. Take it down then, mods.</p>

<p>Ron Paul is a raging anti-semite on the verge of death who's successfully created a guise of being a sane, informed individual. Gingrich has too many problems with his personal life simply making him unfit to become president. Bachmann is just, bleakly put, bat**** insane. Rick Perry doesn't have the mental capacity to properly run for president, let alone become a president. Rick Santorum is too much of an idealist, who would probably make America a Christian theocracy if he could. Mitt Romney used to be a lovely moderate who shaped his home state into a thriving region, but in the name of power, has withdrew all of his sane viewpoints. I would say Huntsman 2012, but it'll be the day when his campaign realistically gains traction.</p>

<p>Obama saved the American auto industry, lessened the blow of the sub-prime lending crisis through varied incremental bailouts, championed military strategies that led to the death of Bin Laden, directed one of the most smooth annulments of a despot (Gaddafi), eliminated Don't Ask Don't Tell, reformed credit card policy in the consumer's interest, and created more private sector jobs in 2010 than Bush did during his whole presidency.</p>

<p>If there's anyone to blame for hindrances in the government at the moment, it's the savage standoffs in congress. </p>

<p>So, to end my long-winded rant of sorts: Obama 2012</p>

<p>Russ Feingold. But he's not running, so I'll settle for Obama.
Honestly, if I had a time machine, I'd do one of two things. Go back and stop Spitzer from having the stupid sex scandal (he'd probably still be in office, setting himself up for a run in 2016), or have Russ Feingold run in 2008. He would be the perfect candidate, and he would have made a great President.
Obama's done a great job as President. No President has been attacked the way he has, on a personal level. That's not playing the race card, that's fact. When was the last time the incumbent first lady was called out for their behind by an ELECTED OFFICIAL? He's still managed to do a lot of things, especially on foreign policy.
Yeah, take it down mods.</p>

<p>I would love to see Russ Feingold as a president. But if you're a true progressive, you'd realize how weak Obama has been in his term. I mean, it's pretty disheartening.</p>

<p>Threads like this always devolve...can we all just step away before it becomes a fight?</p>

<p>Have you seen any fighting here? It's a simple question, the Mods will take it down soon anyway, so let's politely discuss while we have the chance.</p>

<p>It violates the site rules to have political discussions here. I mean, I like a little debate as much as anyone else and I understand why you'd like a discussion like this, but there's plenty of other sites where politics are an acceptable subject. And I can already see a little hostility forming--I don't see why we should make a mess of things for the mods.</p>

<p>It's all in good taste. There really aren't any other forums that I'd find suitable to discuss politics anyways so that's why I like to take advantage. We'll be polite.</p>

<p>None of the candidates are good</p>

<p>Obama because:
during his administration, Bin laden AND gaddafi died. He must have been doing something right (I hope).</p>

<p>^^ Yeah, they all suck. There was actually article on cracked about it. They were basically saying that since the incumbent wins the vast majority of the time and since when you lose a bid for president you probably aren't ever going to run again, candidates that seriously want to win the presidency would rather run in 2016 where they have a better chance of winning.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>..........</p>

<p>Ron Paul are you f-ing kidding me? He's a psycho! He may be libertarian and ergo supportive of some nice liberal things, but his stances on a lot of things are...scary. Obama has my vote, disappointed though I am in the way he hasn't gotten Congress on his side. But at least he has improved some parts of health care, which will directly affect us!</p>

<p>Political Protege:</p>

<p>You say that:</p>

<p>"No President has been attacked the way he has, on a personal level"</p>

<p>With all due respect, I think you have a pretty short memory. I would say that Bush was attacked in just that way. He was called a "Hitler". He was constantly ridiculed for supposedly being stupid, and called a "dummy" (even though by most accounts he was a pretty good Governor of Texas, and even though he had the intelligence to fly a fighter plane, and even though he got a 640 on his Math SAT, which was probably a higher score than some of the persons calling him a dummy). </p>

<p>By the way, if you know your history, the vitriole today compares nothing with what went on between Jefferson and Adams, or Lincoln (who was called a dumb ape), and in plenty of other elections. </p>

<p>As for shutting down this post because someone posted a political message, I personally see no harm in hearing other people's political views, be they left or right, as long as everyone remains civil. </p>

<p>As my father used to tell me, a plane needs both a left wing and a right wing, to fly straight.</p>

<p>ETFs</a> To Invest Like Ron Paul | ETF Database</p>

<p>lulz Ron Paul bets against growth (and State Street)</p>

<p>
[quote]
As my father used to tell me, a plane needs both a left wing and a right wing, to fly straight.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The maintenance of the two main parties (left, democrat; right, republican..) mostly functions to suppress large-scale, threatening expression of disapproval towards the government. Because instead what people can do with their frustrations is blame them all to one party, while hailing the other as having all the solutions. And each time the person from their party gets elected they can feel appeased with the appearance of significant change, when really not much changes behind the scenes</p>

<p>It's easier to side with a party than critique the system itself or do any other number of things, like be completely disinterested. This is especially true when one is brought up hearing one party disparaged and the other extolled. Luckily kids have the influence of the internet now, so that likely isn't happening as much as it used to.</p>