BF2S Forums 2012 U.S. election presidential, Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama

Don't you have democracy or something to fix that?

Jay wrote:

Obama is up by 30 points in my state Never has my vote counted less. Oh well.

As if voting for Gary Johnson was ever meaningful.

If he gets at least 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian party officially becomes defined as a "Minor Party" which gives it access to significantly more Federal funding(they say anywhere from 9 to $12 million depending on how much percentage above 5% he gets; much more than the hair over $1 million he's raised in donations up to this point according to his website) for future campaigns and guarantees it to be on the ballot in all 50 states without having to fight the courts in each state like it currently happens every time.  We probably won't see a Libertarian president for at least another couple of elections but this would be the foot in the door on the way to eventually being a serious contender with the other two parties if it starts to appeal to people as a legitimate third party.

Gary Johnson has said himself that he doesn't expect to become president in 2012, this is all about reaching 5% for the Libertarian party

25% of the popular vote will land them the Major Party status like the other two parties, which guarantees them a spot in the debates(15% minimum I think but not sure) as well as WAY more access to federal funding(About $90 to 100 million I've read) but that's definitely not in the cards for this election.

Same goes for the Green Party, Constitutional Party and any other party who can get enough people to take them seriously in an election

In the many predominantly Democrat or Republican states where any other kind of vote already means shit in the electoral college, it actually makes a lot more sense to vote for a third party candidate if you're interested in one because it's a wasted electoral vote anyway unless you vote the way of the state and you can at least get them the popular votes they need to be taken seriously in the future.  My dad actually regrets not registering this year and doing it when I brought that to his attention

Last edited by _j5689_ (2012-11-03 22:22:25)

That's a bit average from your usual trolling attempts.

Upwards of 90%? Is there a survey or some reference that backs up that claim?

No, I doubt it. Which then makes the 100% claim also a fallacy.

DrunkFace wrote:

How does legalised abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, gambling, prostitution and reduced legal age of consent and alcohol cost the government money?

That's the other trolling part of his post.

You could actually argue these things all help the economy.

Last edited by Jaekus (2012-11-03 23:26:51)

DrunkFace wrote:

How does legalised abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, gambling, prostitution and reduced legal age of consent and alcohol cost the government money?

Throw a tax on them and the government suddenly has more revenue.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

69% of statistics are made up on the spot.

I would like to hear how socially liberal (as opposed to progressive) and fiscally conservative ideologies are not mutually exclusive.

If the govt isn't paying for it people can do what they like.

Unless you're using the American definition of liberal which translates as socialist everywhere else.

How are socialist and fiscally conservative ideologies not mutually exclusive?
Simple, by putting limits on taxation, the size of govt, and handouts.

I'm using the classical definition of liberal, which is why I said "as opposed to progressive."

And I wasn't looking for a comparison between "socialist" and fiscally conservative. Socialism and social liberalism are not the same thing--in fact, they're pretty much the opposite of one another.

Explain how fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are somehow tied together, as Mac asserts.

I'm not saying they can't coexist--quite the opposite. But you can also have social liberalism with a fiscally liberal approach and you can have social conservatism with a fiscally conservative approach...plus any other permutation of the combination. They are not inherently related ideologies. One is economic, one is social.

DrunkFace wrote:

How does legalised abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, gambling, prostitution and reduced legal age of consent and alcohol cost the government money?

There is more to fiscal conservatism than collecting taxes.
There is more to social liberalism than pot and prostitute.


If that is your measure of both then you have a pretty slim understanding of what does things entail.

FEOS wrote:

I would like to hear how socially liberal (as opposed to progressive)

We are discussing American politics so of course we are using the commonly used reference terms in America.


Please spare us the "clever" pointing out that political scientist use terms differently than mainstream Americans. Frankly it is more predictable and boring as shit.

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-11-04 03:58:48)

you*re straying into mini-mod territory.

let them go at each other, it's entertaining . . .

Jaekus wrote:

That's the other trolling part of his post.

thats all you and some other foreigners have been doing in this thread.  lemme help you.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p2904574

Frank Reynolds wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

That's the other trolling part of his post.

thats all you and some other foreigners have been doing in this thread.  lemme help you.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p2904574

Your tears are delicious.