• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do you think about the 2016 US presidential race?

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I put all my support behind this guy who just announced he's running. He may not have ironed out all the wrinkles, but his idea that I might live much longer is highly desirable and he is very competent. For every vote he gets it will show humanity supports immortality, so I can't see any reason not to support him!

Check out the awesome site:

Vote For Zoltan If You Want To Live Forever | Popular Science
 
Last edited:
I think it will be just like all the others.Fixed and the same agenda,but different people.Politics are so corrupted,yet people still believe in the illusion of choice.It matters not in the long run.It is a circus show and people are just entertained by the whole chase.Bought television stations, who are bias,spew their ideas and sabotage others, not in favor of their agenda.Just look at what happened with
George Stephanopoulos.Look at Fox News.It is crazy talk! Politicians say what people want to hear,then when elected,they take it back and lie.They do what the agenda requires.Once in office it is make as much money as possible,then get out with the riches.War is the name of the game and politics is the show.Many are in denial of this, but what happens 20 30 years after the fact? You see all these documentaries and HBO movies showing what really went on,and its always corrupt.Look at Nixon.Geez....
 

Sultan Of Swing

Well-Known Member
Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul.

I basically want Rand Paul because it would be like an experiment to see how a libertarian government would work and if it would work out well. (I don't live in the US, from the UK, so it's okay if it goes badly... mwahaha.)

And I know some libertarians don't consider him a real libertarian and just a 'conservative', but from a British perspective Rand Paul is as radically libertarian you could go: big tax reductions to a flat tax, huge government cut-down, end NSA spying, etc. totally unelectable in my country.

He could breathe life into the Republican party as well and appeal to younger hippies who object to Obama's interventionist foreign policy and are against illegal spying on citizens.
 
Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul.

I basically want Rand Paul because it would be like an experiment to see how a libertarian government would work and if it would work out well. (I don't live in the US, from the UK, so it's okay if it goes badly... mwahaha.)

And I know some libertarians don't consider him a real libertarian and just a 'conservative', but from a British perspective Rand Paul is as radically libertarian you could go: big tax reductions to a flat tax, huge government cut-down, end NSA spying, etc. totally unelectable in my country.

He could breathe life into the Republican party as well and appeal to younger hippies who object to Obama's interventionist foreign policy and are against illegal spying on citizens.

I do not agree with the politics of the U.S.,but if I really had to vote,I would have voted Ron Paul.He had the best answers and logical explanations about how he would do it.Everyone else had bad track records and Dr.Ron Paul had nothing but good stuff to say.It is no surprise he was done the way he was last time running.Sabotage to the fullest.It was horrible.On CNN they had the latest polls in and they literally skipped right over RonPaul,and did not even mention his name.And he was in second or third place.:eek:
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Any political candidate that has an agenda to gut the safety net here is certainly not operating from any kind of religious morality. Which religion teaches us to ignore the plight of the poor and others who may need help? If charity alone would do that job, I certainly could go along with that, but history shows us that it can't and doesn't.

As far as Rand Paul is concerned, see: The 5 Worst Things About Rand Paul's Budget Proposal | ThinkProgress
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sigh!
It’s time I get my face out of the kool-aid and admit the truth. I can vote for Zultan since I am not in a swing state, but this Rand Paul is causing serious problems.
If we have terrible poverty under a Democrat, how much worse under a Republican/Libertarian? Like Metis said, those companies don’t already donate. We need to help the poor the most and our economy is great. Government should be able to run efficiently with technology by now.
Making our economy even greater at the expense of more poor is ridiculous! Those 5 things about Rand Paul on metis' list are an eye opener. A Democrat is supposed to help the poor. Lower taxes automatically helps the richer half and not the poorer who don’t pay tax.
I think its time I embraced Hillary as the better candidate and the one with better character.
 

Sultan Of Swing

Well-Known Member
Any political candidate that has an agenda to gut the safety net here is certainly not operating from any kind of religious morality. Which religion teaches us to ignore the plight of the poor and others who may need help? If charity alone would do that job, I certainly could go along with that, but history shows us that it can't and doesn't.

As far as Rand Paul is concerned, see: The 5 Worst Things About Rand Paul's Budget Proposal | ThinkProgress
It is not about religious morality but comes from a fundamental view about the role of government and what a government is supposed to do. Rand isn't your average conservative, he opposes most interventionist foreign policy and would end NSA spying. Tax cuts should in theory help the economy and create more jobs, perhaps helping the poor more than one thinks.

Perhaps these changes will indeed be very negative, which is why I support him as a UK citizen who wants to see how it turns out before having it in my own country. :D
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It is not about religious morality but comes from a fundamental view about the role of government and what a government is supposed to do. Rand isn't your average conservative, he opposes most interventionist foreign policy and would end NSA spying. Tax cuts should in theory help the economy and create more jobs, perhaps helping the poor more than one thinks.

Perhaps these changes will indeed be very negative, which is why I support him as a UK citizen who wants to see how it turns out before having it in my own country. :D
When the previous finance minister in Sweden was asked how they manged to recover from taking a financial noser in the early 1990's, his answer was short and sweet: "Higher taxes".

One method they used was to increase the use of the VAT. Another was to spend more money on infrastructure.

A problem some (not you, at least as far as I know) have is that they don't realize that tax revenues don't disappear into thin air. Matter of fact, tax revenues well spent typically has a better job of creating growth than tax cuts do, especially if those cuts hurt lower and middle-income families. .

And I do have to disagree with you in that morality, including religious morality, needs to be taken very seriously. As Gandhi stated, anyone who believes in a complete separation of church and state doesn't know religion; but let me also add they don't understand politics either. Laws reflect morality one way or another, whether it be religious or secular morality, or the lack thereof.

BTW, I do agree with Rand in terms of being opposed to our constant meddling in wars that really should probably best be avoided.

Also, why should us Americans be the financial guinea pigs under Rand??? You're mean! :(
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hillary Clinton stands for mercy, and I'm glad I noticed that. I'm ready for Hillary, and when you know enough about her join the conversation. Mercy.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Are you guys taking stupid pills? I realized something idiots don't. Hillary Clinton stands for mercy, something people seem to gloss over. I'm ready for Hillary, and when you know enough about her join the conversation. Mercy.
Even though I'm with you in terms of being willing to support Hillary, I have a major problem with your tone at the beginning, and since I feel that's too over the top for me, I'm gonna add to my ignore list.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm sorry I have asperger's disorder. Will someone please tell that to metis, and if he still wants me ignored that's fine. Either way, I take responsibility for my mistake and my actions. I have edited the post.

A reminder of Rand Paul's list:

1. Privatizes Social Security and Medicare.
2. Institutes a flat tax.
3. Eliminates investment taxes.
4. Abolishes the Dept. of Education.
5. Cuts Medicaid and the safety net.
 
Last edited:

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
I'm sorry I have asperger's disorder. Will someone please tell that to metis, and if he still wants me ignored that's fine. Either way, I take responsibility for my mistake.

A reminder of Rand Paul's list:

1. Privatizes Social Security and Medicare.
2. Institutes a flat tax.
3. Eliminates investment taxes.
4. Abolishes the Dept. of Education.
5. Cuts Medicaid and the safety net.

:eek: I fear for poor people if he wins.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I think we should borrow a few things from Australia. Especially their very short election seasons. 2016 won't even be here and done yet but I'm sure well already be onto 2020.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm sorry if I sound like/am a bully. Thank you Shadow Wolf. Another thing I don't like besides expensive election seasons is polls. They "coerce" people into mobilizing around one issue at the current time. If we didn't have polls, people could gradually make decisions and not base everything on the same events. It would be more exciting too.
 

muichimotsu

Holding All and None
It's going to be 1 Republican candidate after another dropping out: how much you want to bet on whether Huckabee or Santorum drops out first? 14 candidates and there can only be 2 at the end. At least the competition of the DNC is just Sanders and Hillary, at least in terms of especially promising candidates. Honestly, I'd need to look carefully, but if it's anything like the last 2 elections, I'm going with the Libertarian candidate, which probably won't be Rand Paul, thankfully.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
:eek: I fear for poor people if he wins.
Which is worse for the poor.....
1) A weaker safety net, but a stronger economy under Paul, or....
2) A strong safety net, but at war with Iran under Hillary

Of course, the above aren't inevitabilities.
But I'm always amazed at how Democrats (claiming to be progressives) so often
vote for war mongers, & don't consider the consequent economic damage.

Note: Such criticism is why I'm on ignore lists too.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Hillary Clinton stands for mercy, and I'm glad I noticed that. I'm ready for Hillary, and when you know enough about her join the conversation. Mercy.
Hilary is really no different from the other D-bags and R-tards who are bought-and-paid for by the ultra rich who use their money to run the government.
1. Privatizes Social Security and Medicare.
2. Institutes a flat tax.
3. Eliminates investment taxes.
4. Abolishes the Dept. of Education.
5. Cuts Medicaid and the safety net.
1. It probably wouldn't work. Indiana tried privatizing welfare, and it was such a failure that the state had to take it back. Privatization would also reduce accountability for things that are public funds, which is not good (think of how well mismanaged those "too big to fail" banks were - do we really need that risk with social security and medicare?)
2. Why should they wealthiest of Americans pay the same as the poorest? Why should middle class America pay the same as those who make more by lunch-time than they do in an entire year?
3. This is a horrible idea. Making millions because you have millions is exploiting the system, and those making the most off of investments should be paying the most in taxes because they aren't earning that money by working for it.
4. Why? So some states can butcher the education standards and lower them even lower, and so they can side step the debate and teach YEC as a scientific fact?
5. Corporate welfare should be cut, but almost always when a politician says they want to cut those they are falsely assuming that the majority of recipients are abusing the system, not working, and are just lazy.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
The best comment I've seen is that the ideal Republican combination would be Trump and Palin. He makes her look moderate and she makes him look intelligent.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I wish I could have more faith in the USA voters. Not one name in the GOP seems respectable. Hillary Clinton is acceptable at best.
 
Top