ForumGarden

I want to do a poll, but I'm not sure which categories to put on it, so I'd like to do a quick check on the 3 or 4 most popular.

What is the Number 1 most important issue in the 2012 US presidential campaign? I know that almost everyone has several issues they consider important - single-issue voters aren't very wise - but whittle it down the most important issue that will sway your opinion and your vote.

For me, it is military policy.

Several of the repub candidates have voiced approval of pre-emptive strikes and even promised to do so themselves if given the chance. That's a deal breaker for me.

Accountable;1380208 wrote: I want to do a poll, but I'm not sure which categories to put on it, so I'd like to do a quick check on the 3 or 4 most popular.

What is the Number 1 most important issue in the 2012 US presidential campaign? I know that almost everyone has several issues they consider important - single-issue voters aren't very wise - but whittle it down the most important issue that will sway your opinion and your vote.

For me, it is military policy.

Several of the repub candidates have voiced approval of pre-emptive strikes and even promised to do so themselves if given the chance. That's a deal breaker for me.


Same with me & I add Foreign Policy.

A month or so I would have said US foreign policy. Now I am more concerned about the USA's relationship with its own citizens. All this getting "disappeared" if you behave in a way the bureaucrats decide is potentially terrorist? Stalin and Pol Pot are singing Hallelujahs! Pinochet is offering the use of experienced air crew!

How long before the USA is a theocracy? Honestly, you worry they'll be burning witches in twenty years...

Clodhopper;1380214 wrote: A month or so I would have said US foreign policy. Now I am more concerned about the USA's relationship with its own citizens. All this getting "disappeared" if you behave in a way the bureaucrats decide is potentially terrorist? Stalin and Pol Pot are singing Hallelujahs! Pinochet is offering the use of experienced air crew!

How long before the USA is a theocracy? Honestly, you worry they'll be burning witches in twenty years...
Okay, help me narrow that down to a category a politician might mention in a speech or debate. Civil Rights? Domestic security?

I think it's Civil Liberties...

US citizen: "I hate this goddamn government."

US response: WHAM! SWAT team abduction of suspected terrorist. Evidence: Contents of food cupboard and freezer = more than 7 days food stored. Conviction secured, Guantanamo here we come. We'll teach YOU to stock your larder in such an aggressive, un-American way.:-1

As they used to say around the Clinton campaign,

"It's the economy, stupid."

Clodhopper;1380223 wrote: I think it's Civil Liberties...

US citizen: "I hate this goddamn government."

US response: WHAM! SWAT team abduction of suspected terrorist. Evidence: Contents of food cupboard and freezer = more than 7 days food stored. Conviction secured, Guantanamo here we come. We'll teach YOU to stock your larder in such an aggressive, un-American way.:-1HA! So undeducated. Conviction means trial means notifying the criminal of his rights. That would waste time & resources.

HA! So undeducated. Conviction means trial means notifying the criminal of his rights. That would waste time & resources.


"Ja! Unt zer USA didn't get to zer moon vithout efficient use of time unt resources," if I may paraphrase that great American, Herr Werner von Braun. One wonders if rocket plans and scientists were the only things taken from the Nazis. (I'm exaggerating for effect, but the way the USA is going at the moment is a bit scary)

I guess my top issue is: May the President not be a moron, act like a moron or seem like a moron. Don't be so phoney that I cringe to hear & see you every day on the news. I don't want to despise my President or feel embarrassed by him. Don't be a total hypocritical jerk, that's all I'm asking, I've given up on the rest.

Clodhopper;1380214 wrote: A month or so I would have said US foreign policy. Now I am more concerned about the USA's relationship with its own citizens. All this getting "disappeared" if you behave in a way the bureaucrats decide is potentially terrorist? Stalin and Pol Pot are singing Hallelujahs! Pinochet is offering the use of experienced air crew!

How long before the USA is a theocracy? Honestly, you worry they'll be burning witches in twenty years...


America's relationship with its own people is America's business - US Foreign Policy is the world's business and the words I hear frighten me.

Score one for foreign policy.

America's relationship with its own people is America's business - US Foreign Policy is the world's business and the words I hear frighten me.



Score one for foreign policy.


Yes indeedy!

BUT...

...if the USA's Civil Liberties go down the tubes then their foreign policy will follow fast and MUCH worse than anything we've seen so far. Unless they go internally theocratic (a la Robert Heinlein stories from the 1960's (I think)). At that point I don't know what happens. Might be a good thing. But I expect a lot of people will die.

Foreign policy,economy

My top issue is to keep Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum out of higher office.

Here are just two examples. I could spend hours collecting stupid remarks Perry's made. And I just don't like Gingrich.

During an TV interview this morning, Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann bristled when asked to provide insight into what, exactly, she meant when she said in a speech that gays were "sad" sufferers of "sexual dysfunction" and "a part of Satan," calling the question irrelevant gotcha journalism.


Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy

SnoozeAgain;1380307 wrote: My top issue is to keep Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum out of higher office.

Here are just two examples. I could spend hours collecting stupid remarks Perry's made. And I just don't like Gingrich.



Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy
Just to put it into a pithy category, would that be that they must appear presidential as your top issue?

Accountable;1380311 wrote: Just to put it into a pithy category, would that be that they must appear presidential as your top issue?


If some of the last few Presidents are our examples of "appearing to be presidential" then we're in trouble.

Accountable;1380311 wrote: Just to put it into a pithy category, would that be that they must appear presidential as your top issue?


I'm not much for pithy but I'd put it more as "realistic and viable candidates instead of nutjobs and/or religious fundamentalists."

YZGI;1380314 wrote: If some of the last few Presidents are our examples of "appearing to be presidential" then we're in trouble.They didn't appear to be presidential, which I'm pretty sure is her point. The last president to appear presidential was Reagan. That's certainly not to say that he preserved, protected or defended the Constitution.

I don't want to see another invasion of a country ever again unless any number above 50% of other countries not only approve but encourage(I believe that's called foreign policy)...

All of this "terrorist" talk is garbage and only exists as a means to gain the sentiment of the people.

All the republicans have done in this campaign is lie about why the economy is the way it is and then everyone believes them without question simply because this country is far too ignorant. It's honestly brainwash material and everything to do with money. This country makes more money than any other country can dream of yet our children are ranked below at least 15 other countries in education and no one sees an immense problem with this?

$15 trillion in debt and that's Obama's problem??????

And now the leading candidate Mitt Romney?????? A greedy capitalist who simply wants fame now after he's already as wealthy as anyone can imagine?????? What else is left for him to do work for the general good of the people??????? Yeah right! What a joke

K.Snyder;1380905 wrote: I don't want to see another invasion of a country ever again unless any number above 50% of other countries not only approve but encourage(I believe that's called foreign policy)...

All of this "terrorist" talk is garbage and only exists as a means to gain the sentiment of the people.

All the republicans have done in this campaign is lie about why the economy is the way it is and then everyone believes them without question simply because this country is far too ignorant. It's honestly brainwash material and everything to do with money. This country makes more money than any other country can dream of yet our children are ranked below at least 15 other countries in education and no one sees an immense problem with this?

$15 trillion in debt and that's Obama's problem??????

And now the leading candidate Mitt Romney?????? A greedy capitalist who simply wants fame now after he's already as wealthy as anyone can imagine?????? What else is left for him to do work for the general good of the people??????? Yeah right! What a joke


Are you implying that if we only had democrats in office, everything would be hunky dory with no debt and all our children would be scholars?

YZGI;1380908 wrote: Are you implying that if we only had democrats in office, everything would be hunky dory with no debt and all our children would be scholars?Are you implying that I'm a democrat?

K.Snyder;1380910 wrote: Are you implying that I'm a democrat?


Nope.

YZGI;1380924 wrote: Nope.


It just so happens that the republican party are light years away from my ideal society

K.Snyder;1380926 wrote: It just so happens that the republican party are light years away from my ideal society


There is no ideal society. Not when you factor in human nature.

YZGI;1380931 wrote: There is no ideal society. Not when you factor in human nature.


And that's precisely why a two party system sees an election being won by the candidate with the least votes against as opposed to the most votes for.

Interesting article about Romney "saving" the Olympics:

The Conservative Pundit.net

I can't find my phone recharger......hey that's my top issue at the moment .

My top issue is legalizing drugs. What it would take to get that done would involve enough change in other areas that a lot of change would occur.

Ahso!;1381069 wrote: My top issue is legalizing drugs. What it would take to get that done would involve enough change in other areas that a lot of change would occur.


If we're to look at this issue in practical terms then I can only see your use of the word "drugs" as being specifically indicative of marijuana and nothing else...

Do you feel no drug should be illegal or perhaps a select few you've determined as being less harmful to society than they've proved to be while illegal?

Apparently you have to be a paying member to start a poll now, so screw it.

YZGI;1380908 wrote: Are you implying that if we only had democrats in office, everything would be hunky dory with no debt and all our children would be scholars?


Are you arguing that, had the Democrats been in power instead of Bush, the debt would be as large as it is now?

Accountable;1381142 wrote: Apparently you have to be a paying member to start a poll now, so screw it.


I see no reason why it should be so and I'll change it when I work out how.

Bryn Mawr;1381199 wrote: Are you arguing that, had the Democrats been in power instead of Bush, the debt would be as large as it is now?Larger. No doubt about it.



Bryn Mawr;1381200 wrote: I see no reason why it should be so and I'll change it when I work out how.Thanks.

Accountable;1381226 wrote: Larger. No doubt about it.



Thanks.


I doubt anyone besides George W Bush would have sent us over to Iraq. That right there was a huge drain.

SnoozeAgain;1381233 wrote: I doubt anyone besides George W Bush would have sent us over to Iraq. That right there was a huge drain.


The money would've been spent differently, but it definitely would have been spent.

I don't see how.

Professor Stiglitz calculates in a new book, written with Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, that the total costs, including the long-term bills we’re incurring, amount to about $25 billion a month. That’s $330 a month for a family of four. Source

Bryn Mawr;1381199 wrote: Are you arguing that, had the Democrats been in power instead of Bush, the debt would be as large as it is now?


Actually I don't see much difference between the Dem and Reps anymore, which is one of our bigger problems at the moment. But, yes as Acc said, The money would have been spent because that is what they do now. They spend without thought of how its going get to paid back.

My problem with K. Snyder was that it seemed (to me)that he thought all the evil was just with the republicans.

Accountable;1381226 wrote: Larger. No doubt about it.



Thanks.


How come? The largest component of the debt increase is the cost of the wars Bush started - what would the Dems have done to match that cost?

Bryn Mawr;1381282 wrote: How come? The largest component of the debt increase is the cost of the wars Bush started - what would the Dems have done to match that cost?
You've seen the spending since Bush has been gone, and that's with a divided congress. If a dem was in office instead of Bush there would have been no check on spending at all. Bush ran against Gore. The spending would have gone toward destroying the petroleum industry, dealing with the economic collapse that would have created, and all the green energy & social programs he could dream of.

A corporate oligarchy has a stranglehold on Washington. The money would have been spent.

You've seen the spending since Bush has been gone, and that's with a divided congress. If a dem was in office instead of Bush there would have been no check on spending at all. Bush ran against Gore. The spending would have gone toward destroying the petroleum industry, dealing with the economic collapse that would have created, and all the green energy & social programs he could dream of.


This is true because? You said so? Speculation is not fact.

AnneBoleyn;1381286 wrote: This is true because? You said so? Speculation is not fact.
Yup. I'm pretty sure everybody knew that, though. What's your speculation?

Accountable;1381285 wrote: You've seen the spending since Bush has been gone, and that's with a divided congress. If a dem was in office instead of Bush there would have been no check on spending at all. Bush ran against Gore. The spending would have gone toward destroying the petroleum industry, dealing with the economic collapse that would have created, and all the green energy & social programs he could dream of.

A corporate oligarchy has a stranglehold on Washington. The money would have been spent.Why is it then there was a surplus when Bush took office?

I never speculated on how life would have been if Gore took the presidency. I didn't like Gore, it was because he was so cowardly running from Clinton, so cowardly regarding Elian Gonzales. The Elian Gonzales spectacle pointed out to me that we learned nothing, absolutely nothing, in the years since Vietnam. Very disheartening to see ones' own nation always wanting to be right, no matter how wrong they were. I do not think we would have been involved with Iraq though, as Gore did not have the same Freudian problems as little Georgie did. I was sorry I didn't vote for Nader, as I lived in Massachusetts, so Gore got the electoral with or without my vote. Guess I was being a bit cowardly too, not voting for Nader, not voting principle.

Why is it then there was a surplus when Bush took office?


I was thinking the same, Ahso, but we don't know how Gore would have done. We can't know.

YZGI;1381241 wrote: My problem with K. Snyder was that it seemed (to me)that he thought all the evil was just with the republicans.Not all, just most of it.

YZGI;1381241 wrote: Actually I don't see much difference between the Dem and Reps anymore... Really? I think they've never been further apart...

Ahso!;1381288 wrote: Why is it then there was a surplus when Bush took office?I'm sure you know, but okay.

Dot com et al bubbles & opposing parties in executive & legislative branches.

K.Snyder;1381303 wrote: Really? I think they've never been further apart...

Accountable;1381320 wrote: I'm sure you know, but okay.

Dot com et al bubbles & opposing parties in executive & legislative branches.But isn't it your position that dems and repubs are alike and neither have any control over spending? Are you saying because of the tech bubble the money was coming in too fast for them to spend it?

Ahso!;1381327 wrote: But isn't it your position that dems and repubs are alike and neither have any control over spending? Are you saying because of the tech bubble the money was coming in too fast for them to spend it?Times have changed some. Corporations are people and money is speech now. Daddy Bush and Clinton both at least made gestures toward reducing the military empire. Today the Washington elite can barely hide their contempt for the people who keep returning them to office. Some don't even try.



Apologies for not having a repub vid. I couldn't find a short one.

I speculate, based upon his behavior since the election, that Gore would have spent at very near the same rate that Bush did, enriching his corporate sponsors just like Bush did.

My top issue is education for all. Not just a high school diploma, which gets you a job washing dishes if you're lucky. Not only do I want higher education for all, I want the institutions to return to fostering independent thinking instead of training people to fit inside the current soggy box.

Accountable;1381328 wrote: Times have changed some. Corporations are people and money is speech now. Daddy Bush and Clinton both at least made gestures toward reducing the military empire. Today the Washington elite can barely hide their contempt for the people who keep returning them to office. Some don't even try.



Apologies for not having a repub vid. I couldn't find a short one.

I speculate, based upon his behavior since the election, that Gore would have spent at very near the same rate that Bush did, enriching his corporate sponsors just like Bush did.You'd read every bill?

We had a discussion on the Pelosi speech a while back and I was amazed how confused a couple of members here were on it, as you also appear to be. If reading transcripts of relatively short speeches are too much of a chore, how could I or anyone else believe people who complain about representatives reading bills thousands of pages long would fare any better?

To be fair:

Transcript of interview on Conyers' remarks > Just Read It Transcript - On The Media

Transcript of Nancy Pelosi's short speech on passing the health care bill > Coalition To Protect Patients' Rights Lies About Health Care Law, Pushes For IPAB Repeal | Political Correction