Who should be President and why?

Homepage Forums Epiphanies & Ideas Who should be President and why?

0
Avatar of conglistedsoldier
conglistedsoldier (@mumbojumbo63)    2 years, 7 months ago

@Alex "People use planned parenthood as an excuse to not act responsibly" That is not true. Planned parenthood allows underprivileged women the opportunity and resources to act responsibly. I have been going there for sexual health services for 7 years, since I was 18. They have provided me and thousands of other women with free cancer screening, STD testing, and free birth control. It is because of them that I have been able to do the responsible thing and NOT get pregnant to begin with. They offer MANY MANY much needed women’s health services other than abortions. Please don’t criticize and organization you are not familiar with.

@Chris YES

0 votes, posted 12.26.2011 at 8:41 pm
+

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Avatar of conglistedsoldier
conglistedsoldier (@mumbojumbo63)2 years, 7 months ago ago

This is a question I’ve been thinking about lately. I’m not real big into politics and don’t watch tv hardly at all, but can’t wait to vote for the first time this year. Two people that have caught my interest are Gary Johnson and Matt Snyder. They both seem like they actually want change, but then again they all basically seem like that.

Who do you think should be considered for President in 2012 and why?

I would love to hear everyones responses even if they don’t have a lot of background info… This is an exciting time approaching and could be for the best or for the worst. What is your opinion?

+
Avatar of Athens
Athens (@giraffe)2 years, 7 months ago ago

Ron Paul 2012.

+
Avatar of Alec
Alec (@alec7)2 years, 7 months ago ago

Ron Paul

- Believes and ACTS on the constitution
- States rights
- Less federal regulation / spending (cuttings unnecessary programs)
- Ending foreign aid (there are poor people and massive debt here)
- Personal liberty and choice
- Consistent policies, voting record
- Not a ‘bought out’ politician
- Answers questions directly without concern of ‘image’
- ENDING WARS (illegal wars are ineffective, expensive, and have little moral justification)
- Proponent of sound currency
- For free markets vs gov. controlling market (bailouts)

edit: sorry Idk why it’s all double spaced

+
Avatar of Peter
Peter (@searchingforthetruth)2 years, 7 months ago ago

Ron Paul

+
Avatar of Nicholas Marshall
Nicholas Marshall (@coloko)2 years, 7 months ago ago

Ron Paul. No other viable choice.

+
Avatar of grass
grass (@wombat86)2 years, 7 months ago ago

I have a hard time supporting Ron Paul because of his anti-choice views.

“Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.” from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

I 100% support Planned Parenthood and it’s “family planning” programs which provide free healthcare and birth control to women of lower income levels to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies by providing women the means to do the responsible thing and use birth control. It’s all about preventing unplanned/unwanted pregnancies rather than promoting abortion.

Abolishing these programs will only lead to more unwanted pregnancies among the most disadvantaged women in our population. Women who do not have the economic means to raise a child.

Why should birth control only be available to women who can afford it??? This is not ok.

I know very little about politics, but this part of his viewpoints seems very anti-women to me. I am also interested to learn about his views on environmental issues which I can’t seem to find on his website…

+
Avatar of TheSkaFish
TheSkaFish (@theskafish)2 years, 7 months ago ago

I’m not sure. But definitely a third-party candidate. I like what I hear from Senator Bernie Sanders and would vote for him, but I don’t think he is running, unfortunately.

The thing that worries me about Ron Paul, and Libertarians, is the less regulation though. Doesn’t this mean that big businesses will essentially be free to run amok, and consumers/environment be damned?

We need someone to protect us from unethical businesses and megalomaniacal individuals. If you ask me, that’s pretty much everything.

+
Avatar of TheSkaFish
TheSkaFish (@theskafish)2 years, 7 months ago ago

I’m not sure. But definitely a third-party candidate. I like what I hear from Senator Bernie Sanders and would vote for him, but I don’t think he is running, unfortunately.

The thing that worries me about Ron Paul, and Libertarians, is the less regulation though. Doesn’t this mean that big businesses will essentially be free to run amok, and consumers/environment be damned?

We need someone to protect us from unethical businesses and megalomaniacal individuals. If you ask me, that’s pretty much everything.

+
Avatar of RJ
RJ (@fatality131)2 years, 7 months ago ago

fuck ron paul. he couldn’t even be bothered to show up to vote against NDAA which completely goes against the constitution and the bill of rights.

+
Avatar of RJ
RJ (@fatality131)2 years, 7 months ago ago

he has also stated that he would have opposed the civil rights act if he were a member of congress at the time.

+
Avatar of Alec
Alec (@alec7)2 years, 6 months ago ago

RJ, according to govtrack.us Ron Paul did vote against NDAA (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-375) and is one of the few candidates outspoken against it. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201335-rep-paul-says-defense-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianism)

In regards to the civil rights act, he voted against it because it let the federal government regulate private property laws. While this had moral justification that he supported, it would go against his strict policy of personal freedoms and allow ‘special circumstances’ which he views as intolerable. Similar to the ‘special circumstances’ described in SOPA and NDAA. source: (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/)

+
Avatar of RJ
RJ (@fatality131)2 years, 6 months ago ago

Your link is from earlier this year. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-932 that is a more recent one and shows that he was absent for the vote.

+
Avatar of Alec
Alec (@alec7)2 years, 6 months ago ago

Thanks for the updated link. He should be called out for this, however I can only assume he had campaign obligations and decided based on previous votes that his would not be a factor.

+
Avatar of Alex
Alex (@hollowinfinity)2 years, 6 months ago ago

I’m never going to completely trust or like any candidate that runs for president. I’ll go with the guy I have less problems with, which is Ron Paul. (There are others, but none with any chance, sadly) I completely understand his stance on abortion, and agree 100%. People use planned parenthood as an excuse to not act responsibly. If people need help, there will be help. Everyone is going to have mandatory health insurance anyways, so who won’t be able to afford it? Another thought is people could just have sex responsibly to begin with. Sure, certain situations pop up, but that’s only a small fraction, and can be dealt with if addressed properly. Ron Paul isn’t anti-choice, but he is pro-responsibility. As far as I, and probably he sees it, the choice was already practiced when you had sex. If anything, it extends the choice to the unborn child. Do you really think you could be a doctor for as long as he was, delivered that many babies, and hold a ‘pro-choice/pro-abortion’ stance?
Also, It’s very easy to hate or disagree with the president. His job is impossible. Try to get billions of people to all agree with you. You can barely find people to agree with you in your own neighborhood. Imagine trying to convince a country about one thing. Not only are you pressured by the public, I’m sure you are pressured by the people ‘behind the curtain’ too. The president is a puppet, and is hated by the entire world. That must be shitty.

+
Avatar of Jesusbob
Jesusbob (@jesusbob)2 years, 6 months ago ago

Does anyone on this site actually believe for one second that there is even the remote possibility for actual change depending on who gets into office?

Someone please tell me how voting for either a douche or a turd sandwich (thank you South Park) makes a lick of difference when it comes to making the changes that truly need to be made in this world. Whomever gets into office will be there because the established order allows them to be there, and they will tow the line they are expected to, or they get JFK-ed. Simple as that.

+
Avatar of Chris
Chris (@comicsanmc)2 years, 6 months ago ago

Ok, seeing how most people on this thread insist on spouting neo-con demagoguery from December 2010, Ill go ahead and let you know that only 3% of planned parenthoods budget is spent on abortion, and the law prevents federal funds from being used for it.

So whats the point of defunding an organization that provides a wide variety of health services from Cancer Screening and STD testing, which is vital for alot of poorer areas of this country.

+
Avatar of Peter
Peter (@searchingforthetruth)2 years, 6 months ago ago

@Grass

Anti Choice Views?

Ron Paul is the biggest advocate of personal freedoms compared to the rest of the candidates. He wants to get the Federal Government out of making choices that affect people’s personal freedoms. Instead he wants to allow the states to make the choices like it should be. 50 states would have 50 different opinions..and the laws would better reflect the wants and needs of the people. Its much easier to change a state law than a federal law.

+
Avatar of grass
grass (@wombat86)2 years, 6 months ago ago

@Peter I meant anti-choice in the abortion debate

+
Avatar of Quincy
Quincy (@lionhare)2 years, 6 months ago ago

I’ll just say that because we don’t have better and stricter regulations when it comes to campaign contributions big business is going to throw its money behind whoever they please. Unfortunately, now a days the guy with the most money typically lasts the longest in the race and that’s sad seeing as how it doesn’t permit the best candidate to come out on top. With that being said I believe that we wont see ron paul do as well as we would all like but our choices will be limited to Obama and some other candidate from the circus going on in the GOP

+
Avatar of Alex
Alex (@hollowinfinity)2 years, 6 months ago ago

@Grass. Using birth control to have sex when you please doesn’t sound as responsible as just having sex responsibly to begin with. The whole term “Birth Control” even sounds horrible. I’m not saying I’m against it. I’m just saying people use it as a way to act not responsibly. IMO a unborn child shouldn’t die because someone couldn’t have sex responsibly. I completely agree with Ron Paul’s stance on this. Especially considering everyone is ‘supposedly’ going to have health insurance anyways.

+
Avatar of Alex
Alex (@hollowinfinity)2 years, 6 months ago ago

“”A January 2011 fact sheet by the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute listed all the reasons that women who have had an abortion give for their unexpected pregnancy, and not one of them is lack of access to contraception. In fact, 54 percent of women who had abortions had used a contraceptive method, if incorrectly, in the month they got pregnant. For the 46 percent who had not used contraception, 33 percent had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy; 32 percent had had concerns about contraceptive methods; 26 percent had had unexpected sex, and 1 percent had been forced to have sex. Not one fraction of 1 percent said they got pregnant because they lacked access to contraception. Some described having unexpected sex, but all that can be said about them is that they are irresponsible, not that they felt they lacked access to contraception. …
But what is truly astonishing about the Guttmacher statistics is that they are completely unchanged from a decade ago. …

Over this time period, the U.S. government has funneled billions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, in large part because the organization claims to provide services to avoid unplanned pregnancies – a laudable goal. Yet despite a robust budget—Planned Parenthood reported a total annual revenue of $1.1 billion in its last financial filing—the organization has done absolutely nothing to change the fundamental dynamics of the United States’ abortion rate. …

To preserve its federal subsidy, Planned Parenthood continues to claim that without its contraception services the abortion rate will go up. This deception smacks of a fleecing of taxpayers in an effort to promote an ideological agenda, rather than a sincere effort to help women plan families.””

+
Avatar of BirdFlyingHigh
BirdFlyingHigh (@birdflyinghigh)2 years, 6 months ago ago

“Birth control” refers to all methods of contraception except abortion. Commonly, people use it to refer to the birth control pill.

When taken properly (at the same time each day) the birth control pill reduces a woman’s chance of an unintended pregnancy to less than 1%.

Without insurance (and often even with insurance, because there are many insurance companies who do not cover family planning) birth control pills can be as high as $70 a month. Commonly it’s around $30.

I can guarantee you that I personally have had more sex and better sex because I was on the pill. So while maybe there are women who have gotten pregnant and aborted who did not think about contraception at all, I am an example (and all of my friends are examples) of women who HAVE used contraception and had sex responsibly.

Why does everyone try to make it so hard for women to have sex?? I do not understand. It should be our choice, not yours.

+
Avatar of Alex
Alex (@hollowinfinity)2 years, 6 months ago ago

@BirdFlyingHigh, fair enough, but if you have a child it should be their choice to live, and not yours. Do you really think all the funding that will be cut from planned parenthood would really go to contraceptives first? Doubtful. They have a lot of money. Contraceptives will be there, and always WILL be. Planned Parenthood losing funding will do nothing to change that.
You know what else probably cost 30 bucks a month? Condoms.

+
Avatar of Alex
Alex (@alexishungry)2 years, 6 months ago ago

I completely agree with Alex.
@grass – IMO funding of that organization and abortion is a waste of tax money. Why should I pay for you to kill an infant because you were irresponsible? Also, you can still get an abortion or do family-planning on your own without taxpayer funds. I think there are much more important issues right now than abortion and environmental topics anyway, not to offend anyone.

+
Avatar of Peter
Peter (@searchingforthetruth)2 years, 6 months ago ago

@ Grass

I don’t think Ron Paul actually states that he is against Planned Parenthood. He states that he will repeal Roe vs Wade and prevent judges from interfering with state laws. Hopefully I’m not mistaken…but I think Roe vs Wade is a federal ruling.

He will allow the individual states to create their own ruling instead of following a nationwide federal law. I honestly think thats the best solution. This pro life/pro choice issue is a defining characteristic of politics and I think that this issue gains more publicity than it should. I mean…our country is on the serious downfall and we have candidates focus on this issue than jobs and the economy. Thats ridiculous. Leave it up to the states. If you don’t like the the state’s ruling, move to another state…simple.

And as far as requiring tax payers to pay for abortions? There are too many opinions on this..leave up to the states so that the representatives closer to the people can make up their own minds that truly reflect the wants of the people residing in that state.

+