Welcome to Gaia! ::


PF Skr8Skooly
fjtftrhshr


get off my property

Liberal Voter

you pleb
666_grim reaper
Listen If your out there in these United states,your getting ready to cast your vote for our next president or even if you plan on throwing your vote away with a stupid candidate . I wana know who your going to vote for and why?

Barack obama: Obama walked into a debt created by our former president bush, but since he has been in office he has created even more debt and cost million of Americans to lose there jobs, while granded he did get rid of bin ladin, he did say the war was over but yet were still over there fighting for no reason. can anyone tell me what obama did before he became president(gold chance!!)obama is not our future if he continues with his presidency these United states will be destroyed with unimaginable things.


Mitt romney: Romney plans on helping the middle class and small business's and cut taxs from what they are and try his best to get us out of debt. but he has not really told anyone how he plan's on doing it. I know he has a five point plan, but he does not go into his five point plan...I'd be very careful with him we can't keep going down this road and this leader might continue with it.

Gary Johnson: Johnson has to be my favorite candidate for our president because of what he has been able to accomplish in New Mexico, Gary Johnson toke New Mexico from a 1billion dollar deficit to a 1billion dollar surplus in 8years. cut tax's 14times , never raised them, balanced the budget. while Johnson was governor jobs grew at a rate of 11.6% ALL IN 8 YEARS..he left new mexico better then he did when he first toke office... NOW PLEASE TELL ME ...WHY OBAMA OR ROMENY???


If you really wana throw away your vote why not too Gary Johnson..if he could leave new mexico balanced and in the surplus why can't he do it for AMERICA??? stop being brainwashed people we all one thing in this world and its the right to vote..lets stop with the bullshit and get America back to when it was a powerhouse.not the pushovers we are today with celebrity and terrorism leading the way. WAKE UP AMERICA..

******** with it?


because the economy and well-being of a state is much less of a delicate matter than the economy and future of one of the planet's world powers.
besides, who the hell is gary johnson?


Gary Johnson is a Libertarian running for president. A poll somewhere showed that only 5% of all voters know a lot of information about Gary Johnson. A lot of people approve of his ideals, but won't vote for him because it would be a wasted vote. Some of his popular issues regard eradicating income taxes and providing a "Fair Tax," repealing Obamacare, legalizing marijuana, outlawing the death sentence penalty, refraining from military action as much as possible and returning all our troops while ending all involvement.
ChemicalDistress
you pleb
666_grim reaper
Listen If your out there in these United states,your getting ready to cast your vote for our next president or even if you plan on throwing your vote away with a stupid candidate . I wana know who your going to vote for and why?

Barack obama: Obama walked into a debt created by our former president bush, but since he has been in office he has created even more debt and cost million of Americans to lose there jobs, while granded he did get rid of bin ladin, he did say the war was over but yet were still over there fighting for no reason. can anyone tell me what obama did before he became president(gold chance!!)obama is not our future if he continues with his presidency these United states will be destroyed with unimaginable things.


Mitt romney: Romney plans on helping the middle class and small business's and cut taxs from what they are and try his best to get us out of debt. but he has not really told anyone how he plan's on doing it. I know he has a five point plan, but he does not go into his five point plan...I'd be very careful with him we can't keep going down this road and this leader might continue with it.

Gary Johnson: Johnson has to be my favorite candidate for our president because of what he has been able to accomplish in New Mexico, Gary Johnson toke New Mexico from a 1billion dollar deficit to a 1billion dollar surplus in 8years. cut tax's 14times , never raised them, balanced the budget. while Johnson was governor jobs grew at a rate of 11.6% ALL IN 8 YEARS..he left new mexico better then he did when he first toke office... NOW PLEASE TELL ME ...WHY OBAMA OR ROMENY???


If you really wana throw away your vote why not too Gary Johnson..if he could leave new mexico balanced and in the surplus why can't he do it for AMERICA??? stop being brainwashed people we all one thing in this world and its the right to vote..lets stop with the bullshit and get America back to when it was a powerhouse.not the pushovers we are today with celebrity and terrorism leading the way. WAKE UP AMERICA..

******** with it?


because the economy and well-being of a state is much less of a delicate matter than the economy and future of one of the planet's world powers.
besides, who the hell is gary johnson?


Gary Johnson is a Libertarian running for president. A poll somewhere showed that only 5% of all voters know a lot of information about Gary Johnson. A lot of people approve of his ideals, but won't vote for him because it would be a wasted vote. Some of his popular issues regard eradicating income taxes and providing a "Fair Tax," repealing Obamacare, legalizing marijuana, outlawing the death sentence penalty, refraining from military action as much as possible and returning all our troops while ending all involvement.


well damn.
it seems kind of a shame there's no chance for him, then.

Lord Elwrind's Queen

Dangerous Fairy

55,065 Points
  • Waffles! 25
  • Team Poison Master 250
  • Winged 100
I see a lot of talk about the Libertarian third party, but little on the others. I would be more geared towards my own Independent party and the Green party (sorry Libbs. I just don't agree with everything you guys gotta offer)

Green Party may be radical in many ways. But they got some good points too.

Of these third parties, even if we cannot get them into the Oval Office - and I keep saying this, we can still work to change the system by voting third party candidates for Senate and Congress if we are not gonna vote for Dems and Reps that are NOT extreme. that and work the system on the "outside". meaning keep working at it during the rest of time not just during when elections are getting close.

It really is too bad that we who are Independents and members of other 'third parties" are not allowed to even vote in the Primaries. This, too needs to be changed. All the more reason to work the system at all times! From the bottom up, inside and out.


Power to the People!! emotion_yatta

Romantic Prophet

12,100 Points
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Partygoer 500
  • Millionaire 200
Romney should be the winner...do you know since obama took office woman cant find a job, gas prices have sky rocketed, college grads cant find a job but they still have there student loans to pay, are national debt well lets not even go into how many trillion he has it to now. his obama plan will start penalizing any person who cant afford health care...yes thats right so if you think its hard now reelect him and see how much worse things get.
Divine_Malevolence
Gedral
you pleb
was so great at the debate. neutral
he really wasn't.
at all.

obama didn't do so well either, but he was still better than romney.
all mitt did the whole time was backtrack on himself like a doofus and deny saying nearly everything that obama brought up.
you know like, all the stuff he totally did say and then blatantly denied even though it was on public tv? that kind of stuff.

he literally makes no sense. absolutely no sense.
so, i'd like to know. why do you Romney supporters support him? i mean, seriously?

discuss.
don't bring up the whole 'obama had four years and he didn't do nuffin' thing, because you guys need to understand that four years is a very short time to fix something that has been at the very least a decade in the making.

Check out Politifact for a rough guide. It points out two blatant falsehoods by Obama and the one "False" earned by Romney is actually observed not to be false (seriously, read Politifact).

Obama tried to cloud the issue on Medicare, saying Romney was ending Medicare. Romney denied it, because in truth, Romney would leave it completely alone for current and soon-to-be seniors and then continue to give EVERYONE the option to stay on Medicare.

Obama tried to cloud the issue on taxes (debunked on CNN among others) saying that Romney was cutting $5 trillion in taxes, claiming that Romney would be increasing the debt accordingly. In truth, Romney would simplify the code, cutting marginal rates by a total of $5 trillion BUT reducing/eliminating exemptions and deductions (which disproportionately favor the rich).

Romney denied Obama's misleading claims for good reason. The issues are somewhat complicated but too many will believe Obama...because why would such a wonderful calm man ever lie to us?
Politifacts, right?


"The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan, but he did describe what the plan was missing and that Romney would not fill in the gaps. We rated the claim Half True."

AKA Romney was full of s**t and Obama's attempts at proving it were met by the fact that, on top of being full of s**t, Romney also didn't have any idea what the hell he was planning, and thus anything used against those plans is against something that doesn't really exist.


Politifact.com, yeah

So...the PRESIDENT made a MISLEADING statement...and Romney is full of it? That's not how it works.

You want to criticize Romney for not fully explaining his plans, then go for it, I support that. We need to do that for both candidates. Obama certainly didn't explain how he plans to do things in a second term. He just makes promises.

Romney's point is this: his plan is to cut marginal rates (which would total $5 trillion) and to make up for the difference with (1) the elimination of tax breaks (2) a more vibrant economy spurred by the new tax policy. Some analysts say the elimination of tax breaks are not enough or that Romney hasn't specified them. That's fair. Predicting when the economy will finally rebound to increase tax revenue is also difficult. But don't pretend you don't know what Romney's plan is.

Politicians typically don't say what tax breaks they will eliminate because it riles up opposition. That's maddening for those of us who just want to know, but it's a truth of our political system. Romney emphasized the backstop of his plan as being it will not increase the deficit. Obama MISLED by saying it necessarily would. Romney's backstop means that ultimately that if he can "only" offset $4 trillion, then that is what his plan will do. That is the message between the lines Obama was ignoring. And certainly it's dumb for a candidate to announce up front he will settle for less than his goal.

A candidate can only set goals. Just as Obama set a goal of giving everyone health insurance without forcing them to buy it...and both promises were broken. The question is whether Obama substantially fulfilled his promise on healthcare. I wager you'd say yes, not say that he was full of it (though he totally was and continues to be).

Lord Elwrind's Queen

Dangerous Fairy

55,065 Points
  • Waffles! 25
  • Team Poison Master 250
  • Winged 100
Angeni1
Romney should be the winner...do you know since obama took office woman cant find a job, gas prices have sky rocketed, college grads cant find a job but they still have there student loans to pay, are national debt well lets not even go into how many trillion he has it to now. his obama plan will start penalizing any person who cant afford health care...yes thats right so if you think its hard now reelect him and see how much worse things get.


Most of that came before Obama took office (gas, college... the National debt no one seems to agree on). You have not been paying attention.

And it's not just women not being able to find a job, it's men. Try not to take things out of context like that.

As for the idea of "taxing" (as the Federal Superior Court ruled) people to pay for the National Health Care insurance, even Romney does not call that a tax. I do not know if he agrees with the idea (because the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere) or not. He has said he will repeal 'Obamacare' - rather he now says most of it. A lot of people disagree with it for so many reasons including the "tax". But the idea was for people who don't have health insurance to pay for it. The idea, too, is for the cost of health care to come down by way of helping people get preventative care in order to cut down expensive major care. There's a whole lot of other stuff there too including making insurance companies to stop denying affordable insurance to people with pre-existing conditions (because it's a hella lot more expensive otherwise) and not allow insurance companies to suddenly deny insurance when you suddenly get sick with say, cancer.

To put it simply, the National Health care, if it stays put, needs a major overhaul.
Angeni1
Romney should be the winner...do you know since obama took office woman cant find a job, gas prices have sky rocketed, college grads cant find a job but they still have there student loans to pay, are national debt well lets not even go into how many trillion he has it to now. his obama plan will start penalizing any person who cant afford health care...yes thats right so if you think its hard now reelect him and see how much worse things get.


what you listed are things that don't really directly have to do with the presidency.
if you're talking about wage equality, that is more of a social issue, one that has been going on since women were even allowed to got jobs. it's gotten a bit better over time, but it still exists. it's not related to obama.

gas prices are skyrocketing because, if you've noticed, we are not exactly best friends with the regions who provide up with oil. that, combined with the civil unrest in those countries, makes oil quite a bit more expensive.

college grads can't find jobs because, you guessed it, the economy is effing terrible. they can't find jobs because there are precious few jobs that exist in most popular fields of study. so then they can't pay their loans. also has nothing to do with obama.

the national debt has also only increased from about 10 to 16 trillion while he's been in office. that's impressively less than it's been increased in past presidencies. *coughBUSHcough*

annnnd Nyadriel took care of the health plan part. sorry, but i'm just not well-informed enough about that to really debate it.

Blessed Tactician

11,250 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Gedral
Divine_Malevolence
Gedral
you pleb
was so great at the debate. neutral
he really wasn't.
at all.

obama didn't do so well either, but he was still better than romney.
all mitt did the whole time was backtrack on himself like a doofus and deny saying nearly everything that obama brought up.
you know like, all the stuff he totally did say and then blatantly denied even though it was on public tv? that kind of stuff.

he literally makes no sense. absolutely no sense.
so, i'd like to know. why do you Romney supporters support him? i mean, seriously?

discuss.
don't bring up the whole 'obama had four years and he didn't do nuffin' thing, because you guys need to understand that four years is a very short time to fix something that has been at the very least a decade in the making.

Check out Politifact for a rough guide. It points out two blatant falsehoods by Obama and the one "False" earned by Romney is actually observed not to be false (seriously, read Politifact).

Obama tried to cloud the issue on Medicare, saying Romney was ending Medicare. Romney denied it, because in truth, Romney would leave it completely alone for current and soon-to-be seniors and then continue to give EVERYONE the option to stay on Medicare.

Obama tried to cloud the issue on taxes (debunked on CNN among others) saying that Romney was cutting $5 trillion in taxes, claiming that Romney would be increasing the debt accordingly. In truth, Romney would simplify the code, cutting marginal rates by a total of $5 trillion BUT reducing/eliminating exemptions and deductions (which disproportionately favor the rich).

Romney denied Obama's misleading claims for good reason. The issues are somewhat complicated but too many will believe Obama...because why would such a wonderful calm man ever lie to us?
Politifacts, right?


"The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan, but he did describe what the plan was missing and that Romney would not fill in the gaps. We rated the claim Half True."

AKA Romney was full of s**t and Obama's attempts at proving it were met by the fact that, on top of being full of s**t, Romney also didn't have any idea what the hell he was planning, and thus anything used against those plans is against something that doesn't really exist.


Politifact.com, yeah

So...the PRESIDENT made a MISLEADING statement...and Romney is full of it? That's not how it works.

You want to criticize Romney for not fully explaining his plans, then go for it, I support that. We need to do that for both candidates. Obama certainly didn't explain how he plans to do things in a second term. He just makes promises.

Romney's point is this: his plan is to cut marginal rates (which would total $5 trillion) and to make up for the difference with (1) the elimination of tax breaks (2) a more vibrant economy spurred by the new tax policy. Some analysts say the elimination of tax breaks are not enough or that Romney hasn't specified them. That's fair. Predicting when the economy will finally rebound to increase tax revenue is also difficult. But don't pretend you don't know what Romney's plan is.

Politicians typically don't say what tax breaks they will eliminate because it riles up opposition. That's maddening for those of us who just want to know, but it's a truth of our political system. Romney emphasized the backstop of his plan as being it will not increase the deficit. Obama MISLED by saying it necessarily would. Romney's backstop means that ultimately that if he can "only" offset $4 trillion, then that is what his plan will do. That is the message between the lines Obama was ignoring. And certainly it's dumb for a candidate to announce up front he will settle for less than his goal.

A candidate can only set goals. Just as Obama set a goal of giving everyone health insurance without forcing them to buy it...and both promises were broken. The question is whether Obama substantially fulfilled his promise on healthcare. I wager you'd say yes, not say that he was full of it (though he totally was and continues to be).
Except the math pretty much clearly states that that's impossible
And one word versus the entirety of a statement. Everything in the damn thing was misleading. But he brought up the point that Romney's plan has as many plot holes as M Night Shama-llama.

As for the president's plan?
Get us out of the wars. Tax the rich appropriately. Use the money from this to fund energy expansions in both current and clean energy. Put laws in place that make it less profitable to send jobs overseas to encourage employment within our own borders.
Which is overall a far better plan than "Hurr durr we're gonna cut taxes and hopefully be able to pay for it". Cutting taxes and ignoring problems is the method Bush used to get us into this mess. And if he did have the ability to cut the taxes and not have any net loss, why not not cut the taxes and use that money to fix things?

Even if by some miracle Romney does manage to pull off his bullshit it doesn't make any sense why you'd go for it.

Lord Elwrind's Queen

Dangerous Fairy

55,065 Points
  • Waffles! 25
  • Team Poison Master 250
  • Winged 100
you pleb


gas prices are skyrocketing because, if you've noticed, we are not exactly best friends with the regions who provide up with oil. that, combined with the civil unrest in those countries, makes oil quite a bit more expensive.


Something to add to this is the refineries not refining enough oil right now. A refinery in California burned down a few weeks ago remember. And the fact that refineries that have burned down and have not been rebuilt, have not been replaced. Nor has any new refineries been built in the last 20 or so years according to news reports (no I am not looking that up)
Nyadriel
you pleb


gas prices are skyrocketing because, if you've noticed, we are not exactly best friends with the regions who provide up with oil. that, combined with the civil unrest in those countries, makes oil quite a bit more expensive.


Something to add to this is the refineries not refining enough oil right now. A refinery in California burned down a few weeks ago remember. And the fact that refineries that have burned down and have not been rebuilt, have not been replaced. Nor has any new refineries been built in the last 20 or so years according to news reports (no I am not looking that up)


ah, didn't know that. thank you. ^ ^

Liberal Voter

Nyadriel
you pleb


gas prices are skyrocketing because, if you've noticed, we are not exactly best friends with the regions who provide up with oil. that, combined with the civil unrest in those countries, makes oil quite a bit more expensive.


Something to add to this is the refineries not refining enough oil right now. A refinery in California burned down a few weeks ago remember. And the fact that refineries that have burned down and have not been rebuilt, have not been replaced. Nor has any new refineries been built in the last 20 or so years according to news reports (no I am not looking that up)


To tack on, foreign dispute is a relatively small factor when regarding oil prices. Oil prices have remained very stable in terms of pure gold, though in US dollars it has been increasing. The main reason is because of our inflation that the gas prices are exponentially raising. Until we are out of this recession and our inflation fixates, we'll count the tallies to oil prices.
Divine_Malevolence
Gedral
Divine_Malevolence
Gedral
you pleb
was so great at the debate. neutral
he really wasn't.
at all.

obama didn't do so well either, but he was still better than romney.
all mitt did the whole time was backtrack on himself like a doofus and deny saying nearly everything that obama brought up.
you know like, all the stuff he totally did say and then blatantly denied even though it was on public tv? that kind of stuff.

he literally makes no sense. absolutely no sense.
so, i'd like to know. why do you Romney supporters support him? i mean, seriously?

discuss.
don't bring up the whole 'obama had four years and he didn't do nuffin' thing, because you guys need to understand that four years is a very short time to fix something that has been at the very least a decade in the making.

Check out Politifact for a rough guide. It points out two blatant falsehoods by Obama and the one "False" earned by Romney is actually observed not to be false (seriously, read Politifact).

Obama tried to cloud the issue on Medicare, saying Romney was ending Medicare. Romney denied it, because in truth, Romney would leave it completely alone for current and soon-to-be seniors and then continue to give EVERYONE the option to stay on Medicare.

Obama tried to cloud the issue on taxes (debunked on CNN among others) saying that Romney was cutting $5 trillion in taxes, claiming that Romney would be increasing the debt accordingly. In truth, Romney would simplify the code, cutting marginal rates by a total of $5 trillion BUT reducing/eliminating exemptions and deductions (which disproportionately favor the rich).

Romney denied Obama's misleading claims for good reason. The issues are somewhat complicated but too many will believe Obama...because why would such a wonderful calm man ever lie to us?
Politifacts, right?


"The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan, but he did describe what the plan was missing and that Romney would not fill in the gaps. We rated the claim Half True."

AKA Romney was full of s**t and Obama's attempts at proving it were met by the fact that, on top of being full of s**t, Romney also didn't have any idea what the hell he was planning, and thus anything used against those plans is against something that doesn't really exist.


Politifact.com, yeah

So...the PRESIDENT made a MISLEADING statement...and Romney is full of it? That's not how it works.

You want to criticize Romney for not fully explaining his plans, then go for it, I support that. We need to do that for both candidates. Obama certainly didn't explain how he plans to do things in a second term. He just makes promises.

Romney's point is this: his plan is to cut marginal rates (which would total $5 trillion) and to make up for the difference with (1) the elimination of tax breaks (2) a more vibrant economy spurred by the new tax policy. Some analysts say the elimination of tax breaks are not enough or that Romney hasn't specified them. That's fair. Predicting when the economy will finally rebound to increase tax revenue is also difficult. But don't pretend you don't know what Romney's plan is.

Politicians typically don't say what tax breaks they will eliminate because it riles up opposition. That's maddening for those of us who just want to know, but it's a truth of our political system. Romney emphasized the backstop of his plan as being it will not increase the deficit. Obama MISLED by saying it necessarily would. Romney's backstop means that ultimately that if he can "only" offset $4 trillion, then that is what his plan will do. That is the message between the lines Obama was ignoring. And certainly it's dumb for a candidate to announce up front he will settle for less than his goal.

A candidate can only set goals. Just as Obama set a goal of giving everyone health insurance without forcing them to buy it...and both promises were broken. The question is whether Obama substantially fulfilled his promise on healthcare. I wager you'd say yes, not say that he was full of it (though he totally was and continues to be).
Except the math pretty much clearly states that that's impossible
And one word versus the entirety of a statement. Everything in the damn thing was misleading. But he brought up the point that Romney's plan has as many plot holes as M Night Shama-llama.

As for the president's plan?
Get us out of the wars. Tax the rich appropriately. Use the money from this to fund energy expansions in both current and clean energy. Put laws in place that make it less profitable to send jobs overseas to encourage employment within our own borders.
Which is overall a far better plan than "Hurr durr we're gonna cut taxes and hopefully be able to pay for it". Cutting taxes and ignoring problems is the method Bush used to get us into this mess. And if he did have the ability to cut the taxes and not have any net loss, why not not cut the taxes and use that money to fix things?

Even if by some miracle Romney does manage to pull off his bullshit it doesn't make any sense why you'd go for it.


The math does not at all say it is impossible. There certainly are $5 trillion of loopholes and deductions we can eliminate over 10 years. The criticism is that Romney hasn't identified which ones he is targeting. I explained the usual reasoning for this. It's simply not true that it would be impossible. Many fact checkers found Obama's statement about Romney's plan to be false and misleading.

My poor dear, you still believe Obama's promises? He merely followed Bush's timeline for withdrawal from Iraq (he wanted to keep more troops there but failed) and the Afghanistan war is chugging along with little apparent purpose.

In 2008, Obama said it is a bad idea to increase taxes on the wealthy in a bad economy. It is still a bad economy. Obama has heavily funded green energy and most of his endeavors have been busts.

At some point, one needs to recognize Obama's cascade of failures and dishonest attacks. Obama's claims about Romney's tax plan have been found false and misleading by many non-partisan sources.

Blessed Tactician

11,250 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Gedral


The math does not at all say it is impossible. There certainly are $5 trillion of loopholes and deductions we can eliminate over 10 years. The criticism is that Romney hasn't identified which ones he is targeting. I explained the usual reasoning for this. It's simply not true that it would be impossible. Many fact checkers found Obama's statement about Romney's plan to be false and misleading.

My poor dear, you still believe Obama's promises? He merely followed Bush's timeline for withdrawal from Iraq (he wanted to keep more troops there but failed) and the Afghanistan war is chugging along with little apparent purpose.

In 2008, Obama said it is a bad idea to increase taxes on the wealthy in a bad economy. It is still a bad economy. Obama has heavily funded green energy and most of his endeavors have been busts.

At some point, one needs to recognize Obama's cascade of failures and dishonest attacks. Obama's claims about Romney's tax plan have been found false and misleading by many non-partisan sources.
Right.
They didn't say it was impossible, they just said that they'd need to raise taxes elsewhere. But again, EVEN IF, why would you use that to cut taxes instead of actually fixing problems?

And, what failures, exactly? Did we fall into another depression while I wasn't looking? Did the economy never really stabilize? Are jobs not coming back?
Are you willing to give up all that progress in a complete, baseless reversal so that you can elect a dumbass who basically doesn't have a plan?

Beloved Sex Symbol

8,550 Points
  • Team Edward 100
  • Tipsy 100
  • Ultimate Player 200
cursedgnomes
The reason why Romney won the debate was because he didn't back down. And Obama did.

The shocking part of Obama during the debate is why he didn't say to Romney 'That's not true' when Romney called him out on things.

Thus, Obama lost the debate, because he didn't even try to win it.

actually in scored debates .you know egghead competitions , debaters are usually scored on how well they back up their argument after making it ...seeing as most of what romney said were just party line lies ...he failed in that respect ...its not obama's fault that the common american is effin retarded about what your actually supposed to do during a debate.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum