Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What is your biggest criticism of the candidate you plan on voting for?


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#51 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 386
HUDDLER

Posted 16 October 2012 - 08:53 AM

time to pass out tin foil hats

#52 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
  • LocationPleiades
HUDDLER

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:10 PM

I wouldnt have either a few years ago... I voted Republican my whole life because of brainwashing by my parents, and also because the baby boomers today cant understand the the Republican Party has changed. It used to be about morals and economic principles... but morals have turned into 'who can hate the other side the most'... and economic principles have become a hypocracy of giving too much money to the monopolies and lobbies, and ramping up Pentagon spending. (More bullshit wars)

The Left-Right paradigm is becoming a joke, and when the rhetoric from the right is starting to sound like Goebbels era divide and conquer propaganda of misplaced fears, It makes me question their true motives.



I already know that Obama can run the country because he has already done so. He is not responsible for this economic crisis that the world is experiencing right now, even though his opponents try to sell that to the American people. The problems we are seeing today are due to a deregulated banking system that GWB unleashed that allowed the global banking elite to take horrible risks (and lose... and get bailed out...) with our economy that was already damaged by the housing collapse.

I think he went into the WhiteHouse with bought-off intentions for the elite (like all presidents do), but I think that after doing in Ghadaffi for his banker puppet-masters, I think he is having a change of heart, and is trying to fight off a very powerful lobby of people that want America to team up with Netenyahu and start WW3.

We already know that is what Mitt Romney and his surrounding cast wants, but I think that he (along with a lot of everyday Americans) are waking up to what America's foreign policy is doing to the world, and how we are alienating ourselves when we need to be setting the example of a peaceful and prosperous new millennium.


I'm not gonna try to convince you to change your vote...but you know that what you just said literally goes for both "parties," right? This is politics 101, haha. We know both sides are controlled by the same powers, and that the charade is presented to further propogate the illusion of choice, right? With that being said, we know that a vote for Obama = a vote for Romney, and a vote for Romney = a vote for Obama, right? They're the same candidate with different color neckties. So with that being said...it surprises me that you'd intentionally vote for the status-quo (that you so fervently complain about on here) who has their sights set on the domination of humankind, versus voting for a liberty candidate who actually cares the well-being and freedom of humanity.

#53 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 16,818
  • Reputation: 4,796
HUDDLER

Posted 16 October 2012 - 01:39 PM

I'm not gonna try to convince you to change your vote...but you know that what you just said literally goes for both "parties," right? This is politics 101, haha. We know both sides are controlled by the same powers, and that the charade is presented to further propogate the illusion of choice, right? With that being said, we know that a vote for Obama = a vote for Romney, and a vote for Romney = a vote for Obama, right? They're the same candidate with different color neckties. So with that being said...it surprises me that you'd intentionally vote for the status-quo (that you so fervently complain about on here) who has their sights set on the domination of humankind, versus voting for a liberty candidate who actually cares the well-being and freedom of humanity.

The whole "they're the same candidate" thing is an argument for the intellectually lazy. They very distinctly are not.

#54 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,012
  • Reputation: 440
HUDDLER

Posted 16 October 2012 - 01:51 PM

i'm neither a fan of johnson's "fair tax," nor a fan of the fact that he can't win.

#55 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
  • LocationPleiades
HUDDLER

Posted 16 October 2012 - 03:08 PM

The whole "they're the same candidate" thing is an argument for the intellectually lazy. They very distinctly are not.


Argument for the intellectually lazy? I am interested in how that is so. Sure, the two disagree on issues that in the grand scheme of things are trivial and/or fabricated, thus the illusion of inherent difference...however, when it comes to issues that matter - which are those responsible for the dire state we're in - the two candidates are lockstep with eachother. As we know, this is because they're both controlled by the same corporate, banking, and geopolitical interests that make up the American establishment. This can be easily acknowledged when you look back at the last 12 years and see that Bush Jr. and Obama have literally been the same president, despite their supposed congenital differences. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts...he extended the banker bailouts...he extended the widespread murder and wars in Middle Eastern nations, not to mention the corporate exploitation of the area's resources...he's extended the infringements of human liberties with NDAA, riding off the coattails of the Patriot Act...he failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised...he supports the Federal Reserve crime syndicate whom essentially hold the global economy in the palms of their hands (at the expense of all humanity).

At this point we know the president has no real authority...that should be a no-brainer by now. The left vs. right paradigm is a farce, and is designed to propogate the illusion of choice and difference. This is why nothing ever changes and the status-quo continuously marches forwards. What better way is there to ensure this when both potential representatives are mere puppets for the same hierarchical entity? C'mon Rodeo, this shouldnt be anything new to you...this is politics 101...you know this.

#56 NavyPF4L

NavyPF4L

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 25-August 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 386
  • Reputation: 155
  • LocationVirginia Beach, VA
HUDDLER

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:04 PM

That's literally the only reason why they are voting for Romney. You could have a fuging Mr. Potato head as the republican candidate, and they would still vote for him. He's a pretty shitty candidate and will be a bad president, and will probably pave the way for a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2016.

Anyway, I'm not voting. NC is already going to be a Romney win. I'd vote for Obama solely because we have less of a chance to go into Iran. Both are going to suck corporate cock and our economy will decline further, but at least Obama doesn't want a literal trillion dollar war machine and another war because we have to suck AIPAC's cock.



Just going to say this and I can't say how I know but less chance of a war in Iran statement is a big fat wrooooong.

#57 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • Joined: 20-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,765
  • Reputation: 49
HUDDLER

Posted 17 October 2012 - 01:01 PM

ron paul is a racist. that's obvious to anyone with any basis in reality. for reference, check out his newsletters and associates. gary johnson derived his political ideology from a bad science fiction writer's fever dream. jill stein supports "bro totally bro legalizing bro it bro", not fighting goddamned ignorant wars, repealing the patriot act, and yet for some reason her name never gets brought up alongside racist ron and randian gary. i wonder why that is


It's probably because she's a socialist, cantrell.

also lol @ a libertarian whining because his preferred candidate isn't "hawkish" enough

yes your liberties are way more important than the liberties of those people caught in the way of the american imperialism steamroller


Let's get 'im, boys!

Posted Image

#58 Awesomeness!!

Awesomeness!!

    BangBang

  • Joined: 01-April 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,399
  • Reputation: 1,253
  • LocationArizona
HUDDLER

Posted 17 October 2012 - 02:37 PM

Watching supports propagate lies from their candidates is almost as hilarious as the candidates lying.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson, and I have no problem with Gary Johnson, other than the fact that he will not win.

#59 CCS

CCS

    Glutton for heart break and punishment

  • Joined: 13-February 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,439
  • Reputation: 362
HUDDLER

Posted 17 October 2012 - 04:40 PM

He isn't "electable" and the mainstream media dislike him.


I'm writing in Ron Paul.

#60 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,529
  • Reputation: 1,266
HUDDLER

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:22 PM

It's probably because she's a socialist, cantrell.



Let's get 'im, boys!

Posted Image


you literally whined about gary johnson not being "hawkish" enough

gary johnson would still fund the military at a higher level than any other nation in the world so you can get the fug out of here with your neocon bullshit. you can't pretend that individual liberties matter to you and still clamor for hawks (well unless individual liberties only count if you're american and/or white). you can't cry and cry and cry about MAH TAX DOLLARS going to feed poor minorities (taken by gunpoint of course) and still criticize the guy for not being "hawkish enough" when he would admittedly continue military spending at a level higher than that of any other nation in the world

as for stein's socialist leanings, i feel you. i mean, a guy spends years of his life writing about "fleet-footed negroes" and the "imminent race war" and well, i'm ok with that; but when someone suggests that we tax the rich and provide healthcare and education for all then i say "no more!"


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users