Who do you guys think will win the 2012 presidential election? It has been a pretty exciting race so far…
I'm a bit impartial against both of the parties, but I'm hoping for Obama. While I'm sure someone could spend an hour telling me how great a politician Gingrich is, I could refute with an hour about the mechatronic capabilities, research, and resources that we do not have that would be required for something such as a lunar base. So far the economy is starting to go back up, which makes a very stable position for Obama to keep is spot.
Obama's methods are destroying our military. Just saying. I don't want to get caught up in a heated political debate, that sort of thing just doesnt appeal, so it might not have been wise for me to post this at all, but I felt a need to put it out there. I respect others' opinions but our military is suffering greatly because of Obama, & our nuclear arsenal, which is the most powerful threat and protective strategy in existence (simply based on the potential that our country COULD use one; the protection lies not in practice, but in theory, we don't use our nukes, but we COULD) has been more than cut in half.
Much as I do detest the continuing state of the human race that we still require armies to enforce our beliefs upon others, I do concede that the military is a powerful chess piece for the American imposition around the world. Still, the military is one of the best in existence (I am speaking about the technological advantages) and I don't think we have too much to worry about.
Personally, I don't think you'll find too many people on a calculator programming community site that would actively put forth their political views to make such a heated debate as you expect.
I generally like Obama and for the big things, I think he is doing a pretty good job. Plus, I think people feel better about such things as the economy and whatnot (though that still needs a lot of time). There are a few things that I am against, though. They aren't enough to make me vote otherwise, but gun control I think needs to be better defined. Obviously, people that are not responsible should not handle a gun, but there are reasons for the right to bear arms. Literally, it is to keep our government in check XD Plus, self defense is something I strongly encourage. I am glad that some folks feel our military doesn't need as much attention (it kind of says that people are more peaceful), but strategically I feel like that is not a wise move. In the end, though, I think Obama should go another term and hopefully this upward feeling trend continues :]
Also, as a note, most of that is pulled from stuff I only vaguely remember overhearing. I do not claim that certain procedures were taken by any leader, my claims are solely toward what I believe is morally correct and wise XD
47%? Take a look and try to imagine how cool 100% will be. This has won zContest 2011 and made news on TICalc. This compromise between Assembly and BASIC parses like BASIC and is fast like assembly. Grammer 2
Gun control is an interesting topic. There are still technically laws in many counties that require each household to own a gun. There are definitely people who are proven to be a danger to society with such weaponry, and they are outlawed from the right to bear arms; however, in a society where the majority is kept from having guns, such people are just as dangerous with kitchen knives.
Strategically, no disbanding the military is a disastrous move. I just wish it wasn't.
All good points, but Obama also encourages concepts of increased government control; the government should have as little say as possible in our lives. They should only have enough say so as to protect and serve the PEOPLE. Because it is about the PEOPLE, not the government.
Ah, Progressivism I like. I'm torn between it an Communism, but Utopian societies never quite work out. I agree with lax government control, but the problem occurs when there are, to use the political term, 'unfriendly negotiations' with other totalitarian and minority run governments (The very same problems that prompt the necessity of an army.)
Um…i hope you mean that you like the ideas of equality in communism right? Because while that's all very well and good, communism HAS NEVER worked, because people get involved, there's corruption, & suddenly the govt governs how you should be brushing your teeth.
Anyway, the people should have the strongest influence on their government possible and obviously in critical negotiations which require speed the president gets to flex some power, but that should be the only such circumstance of direct government-specific control.
Of course that is what I meant, though you are confusing communism with the dictatorship that often resulted from it in the 19th to 20th centuries.
The trouble with fully-people based governments is that it only worked in more simplistic societies such as Ancient Athens (which as far as I know was the only true democracy ever in existence). Yes, the people should have more control than the government, but you also have to take into account that the people are not going to want what doesn't help them, even if it is necessary for society. Taxation, for instance, is for the benefit of the people (when the goverment deigns to use it the right way) even though the don't often see it that way.
The government wastes billions of dollars. They waste pretty much everything.
That's a good point, but how do you fix that?
Sadly, we can't simply limit the government's control over spending. Who would enforce laws against the people who enforce laws? Themselves? That just opens the doors for more widespread corruption.
The problem that I've noticed with us Americans is that rather than actually going out and doing something about our problems, we generally sit around telling ourselves "Oh, someone else will do it." If we can rally people together for a common cause (similar to what happened with SOPA and everyone calling their legislators), then things we want done in the government will actually get done. Right now the general populous knows what we want, but politicians are too busy quarreling over the little things to get anything meaningful done. The ruling of pizza as a vegetable is a prime example.
To answer the main question here, though, I'm "rooting" for Ron Paul. I can vote this year, and I fully intend to vote for him. Although I somewhat disagree with his view on global warming, all-in-all I agree with his views.
Projects: BexIDE (hold), Hadean.NET, Legend of Zelda: Link to the Future
What if Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination?
EDIT: I agree that we Americans are lazy, but it also is related to the fact that there is no real consensus on anything; to quote Abraham Lincoln, "A house divided against itself cannot stand".
If he doesn't get the nomination then I'll have a tough time deciding who I'm going to vote for ;) And your quote of Lincoln is true, but Congress needs to listen to their constituents more than just acting on whims.
Projects: BexIDE (hold), Hadean.NET, Legend of Zelda: Link to the Future
if it is not obama, i will be happy.
i feel he is heading in the wrong direction, wanting to spend to much, cutting NASA's space shuttle program and leaving future flights and discoveries to the Russians. Also cutting down our military/nukes isnt a very good choice either.
all in all, i think we should get someone how is independent of most of the political alliances and also have experience.