Who should be america's president

[Vortex_Master]

I am not Mormon, I don't care about religon. I just see him as the better canadate, expecially over Obama. He did nothing. I don't care for politics,it is boring, I just vote for the one I feel will make the best Pres. (Do the right things.)

[Lopdo]

I don't care for politics,it is boring, I just vote for....

no offence, but people like you should not vote

[ace199212]

agree

+
because i am not american, i shouldn't reply to this topic about america's president

[Vortex_Master]

I don't care for politics,it is boring, I just vote for....

no offence, but people like you should not vote

I mean I hate how they always are negative about each other, it's always the same in ads, I just want to get to the point and hear what they are going to do, so I can choose.

[techgump]

An uneducated vote is far worse than no vote IMO. How can you do what you feel is right if you are unaware of the detailed facts, history, constitution, and candidates policies/voting record?

I would ask, what exactly do you find Romney would do right? What about his record provides you with a perception of confidence in leading America in a direction that is not only beneficial to individuals but also as an example to the world?

A comment from the vid below:

Facts about Ron Paul.He has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget
He has NEVER voted to raise taxes
He has NEVER voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership
He has NEVER voted to raise congressional pay
He has NEVER taken a government-paid junket.
He has NEVER voted to increase the power of the executive branch
He voted AGAINST the Patriot Act
He voted AGAINST regulating the Internet
He voted AGAINST the Iraq war
He DOES NOT participate in the lucrative congressional pensions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDJSAyI53_M

[techgump]

His Beliefs are well balanced when it come to political issues such as marriage and abortions.

You know, a truly good candidate would not base anything he does off of anything he believes; he should base it off of the constituents.

I am disturbed by both of these comments. As for yours Drone, imo Rat is right that a personal belief is not what should be dictating policy. In most cases, this is extremely dangerous, and will be the downfall to our greatest achievement as America: Individual Freedoms.

If you believe that the enforcement of majority and/or elite thought upon all individuals via law and persecution is ethical and "Right", then you are indeed supporting the replacement of:
tolerance with intolerance;
choice with law (a feeble attempt at choicelessness);
individualism with collectivism / conformity;
diversity with uniformity / identicality;
capitalism with communism;

Not only is your thinking attributarily communistic (at minimum, it applies the rule of Marxism, as a capitalistic system will incorporate aspects of communism (socialism, what America truly is today), and by such introductions, inevitably arrive at full blown communism), it is mostly unnatural and will lead to extinction (in the case of nation empires, a downfall). As in nature, you will find basic laws (law of physics) that are applied to the whole, and beyond that an extremely diverse array of solutions (limitless beyond the basic laws) to a given need (mobility for example, as we see and incredible amount of natural solutions to the need to move from one location to another, not a one size fits all law). The lack of uniformity and conformity beyond the basic laws is largely what is attributed to the survival of life (this is very important to recognize and internalize). The process by which we venture today, in applying more and more law/limitations (communistic rule) to man based on majority and/or elite thought, and hence limiting the potential outcomes for individuals and communities based on such, is indeed a direct contradiction to that which we observe in nature in the survival of life.

Beyond what is natural, we can also examine the "rightness" of our law. We are applying law based on our understandings of existence today, and imo, our understanding must still be very, very, I mean VERY, limited and naive. How naive? Well, ask yourself, if we survived another million years, or a billion, "How many 'realities' today will we view then as 'real' and correct." My guess is very little, likely not a single thing. Let's take deep reflection on how many aspects of our ancestors "realities" before us were "right" compared to our views today. Hmmmm.
Greek Gods?
A flat world?
Center of the universe?
Magic medicine men?
Ritual killings?
And countless, countless others...

Man has been, based on our current science, around for 250K years, 200K of which there appears we were not much more special that that of our previous ancestors, with a lack of language and writing skills. Now just because I believe this to be the case, it would be wise of me NOT to place a LAW in effect that states, "All men must accept that we have been in existence as a species for 250K years, and if not, then the penalty is X (typically a fine, lack of recognition or reward where otherwise given, jail, physical punishment, social ostracization, or death)", as one should recognize my current opinion in regards to righteousness is subject to scientific change, social acceptance, and to personal belief. It's a silly example, but it exacerbates my point:

You (and if not you on a given issue, another) want to apply, per my example, this method to:
guns, marriage, abortion, smoking, healthcare, foods, drugs, housing, resources, money... on and on and on. In fact, there appears by today's standards an ever increasing rule of law, with no end to which issues in life are not subject to majority or elite thought. How SCARY. (Google "3 Felonies a Day". Give it another 100 years of this, we'll be on the magnitude of 100 or 1000.)
You feel you are righteous enough in your beliefs that your beliefs should take precedence to others, by rule of LAW and PERSECUTION, to those that believe and may chose otherwise. Yet, the basic knowledge that man has on any one of these issues and it's respective side, is undoubtedly small and likely at best very inaccurate, if not complete false to that of reality or morality. How foolish and/or fearful must one be to understand that one's knowledge on any given subject is quantitatively small, yet still decide that one is morally or scientifically righteous beyond a doubt, to the point that one should/will via law and persecution upon others enforce one's will? My opinion, for most cases, is this is complete insanity. Not only should we be recognizing that what we "understand" as "right" today will in many cases be wrong tomorrow, but more-so that application of these current "understandings" upon all men via law and persecution is then hence not only wrong, but in fact a detriment to the advancement and survival of our species, or to that which we may evolve, let alone the detriment to a system of governance of men which remains to supports man's individuality and freedom of choice, rather than a rigid system of intolerance and conformity. IMO, in almost all cases, you and I should be celebrating those that chose different than you or I, even if you or I view it to be wrong. We should not creating law to remove that difference and persecute, ostracize, or devalue others that do different. It is easy to fear that which one does not chose, or that which one does not understand, or one which is different from another. However, this fear, lack of understanding, or difference should not be an excuse to enforce one's, or one's group, will and "righteous" desires upon all others. This, imo, is the greatest limitation that man can make to himself in regards to achieving peace, prosperity, diversity, advancement, and ultimately survival. How can you study an outcome that does not exist because you have limited such to not exist? You can't. How will you re-enforce in society the acceptance of difference among men, when instead you support the men who want the removal and limitation of difference? You won't.

This wasn't all about politics, although it is in part why I support Ron Paul and his view of limited government and constitutional values. I believe our fore-fathers were much, much smarter than most of us give them credit for or understand them to be. Throughout history, we see what nations do to it's own people with the power it holds. Government is not to be trusted, and imo should be, if anything, used to EXPAND upon the protections of it's people's rights, diversity, and freedoms... not to the limitations of such, as we have perverted it to be today. In general, basing from our constitution, there is little more that can be given to man, but MUCH to be limited to him and his choice, and should be used very, very, VERY sparingly. Notice our constitution was based around the Individual, not the Government. Notice the Rights were for the Individual, not the Government. And Rat, this is where I will state that even your comment was a little worrisome to me in the fact that it is not always the constituents that know best, as our current acceptance of the process has allowed majority constituent thought or elite money thought to rule above the constitution. IMO, it is the constitution, to which amazingly wise and brave men spent a considerable part of their lives fighting for and dedicated thought in drafting a strong bedrock for freedom and diversity, which should be considered first and foremost above that of the constituents. To find the men, despite their beliefs or that of their constituents, willing to first and foremost protect individualism, freedom, diversity, and the constitution which bore existence to such in this land, those are the men which I believe are best suited for the guidance of our country, the world, and our species.

Lastly, I am by no means trying to preach from a moral high ground. Truth be told, despite my beliefs, I am easily swayed too by my ideology on one subject or another, and would rather see others do as I do, or do as I preach. This is my folly too, as I am man, and is why our constitution is so vital and to be respected. We as men are susceptible to corruption, power, greed, are swayed easily by fear, grouping ourselves by similarities (birds of a feather...), and ostracize those that are different. I accept I am not any better than most in being judgmental. Hence in this recognition, I think it is important to appreciate that which allows one to be a master of his domain based on his beliefs, but not be the master of that of another's.

[Vortex_Master]

Wow, nice speach. As for this:

An uneducated vote is far worse than no vote IMO. How can you do what you feel is right if you are unaware of the detailed facts, history, constitution, and candidates policies/voting record?

I would ask, what exactly do you find Romney would do right? What about his record provides you with a perception of confidence in leading America in a direction that is not only beneficial to individuals but also as an example to the world?

I have done my researh. (Plus I have a copy of the constitution!)

-Ron Paul has no alarm clock, but instead wakes every morning to the call of freedom.

- Ron Paul doesn't go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.

- Ron Paul delivers babies without his hands. He simply reads them the Bill of Rights and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom.

- Ron Paul wasn't born. He liberated himself from the womb.

- Ron Paul doesn't pee. He liberates urine

- Studies by the World Health Organization show that Ron Paul is the leading cause of freedom among men.

- Ron Paul can fly, but doesn't because its unconstitutional.

- Ron Paul could lead a horse to water AND convince it to drink, but he doesn't believe the government has the right to so he refuses.

- Ron Paul doesn't cut taxes. He kills them with his bare hands.

Ok, he is the new Chuck Norris... Plus I read REAL facts on BOTH sides, and well... techgump, this is the first time I've been swayed from a National opinion. Have you considered going into politics? (Damn, I never knew Romney laid of 3,000 people...)

[leviathan]

Wow, nice speach. As for this:

An uneducated vote is far worse than no vote IMO. How can you do what you feel is right if you are unaware of the detailed facts, history, constitution, and candidates policies/voting record?

I would ask, what exactly do you find Romney would do right? What about his record provides you with a perception of confidence in leading America in a direction that is not only beneficial to individuals but also as an example to the world?

I have done my researh. (Plus I have a copy of the constitution!)

-Ron Paul has no alarm clock, but instead wakes every morning to the call of freedom.

- Ron Paul doesn't go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.

- Ron Paul delivers babies without his hands. He simply reads them the Bill of Rights and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom.

- Ron Paul wasn't born. He liberated himself from the womb.

- Ron Paul doesn't pee. He liberates urine

- Studies by the World Health Organization show that Ron Paul is the leading cause of freedom among men.

- Ron Paul can fly, but doesn't because its unconstitutional.

- Ron Paul could lead a horse to water AND convince it to drink, but he doesn't believe the government has the right to so he refuses.

- Ron Paul doesn't cut taxes. He kills them with his bare hands.

Ok, he is the new Chuck Norris... Plus I read REAL facts on BOTH sides, and well... techgump, this is the first time I've been swayed from a National opinion. Have you considered going into politics? (Damn, I never knew Romney laid of 3,000 people...)

WTF? Guys Rat is right about it. But personally I think Ron Paul is an idiot and I lived in MA for awhile under Romney. He's not a very good candidate. I am also not rebulican. I'm hoping 4 Hillary to run or 4 Obama to win. LOL but did any1 here think Rick Perry was good choice lol

[techgump]

lol, I love the Chuck Norrisisms.

his is the first time I've been swayed from a National opinion.

And I hope it will not be your last. Mostly, public opinion is not that at all. It is what MSM (Main Stream Media) wants you to believe is public opinion, or has literally created as such by only providing the public with the information that would lead the public to believe in what they wish the public to believe. This is often evident in only supplying one side of the story, little factual history to the issue, and promoting their opinions over factual information. This inherently makes the pubic naive to the real issues or facts, as they are bombarded with opinion-ladened sound bytes from what most assume to be trusted news sources.

As for politics, I have thought about it. My speaking skills would need major improvement. I type better, and I don't type that well
But, yes, I am making excuses rather than over-coming. Perhaps one of these days I will kick my own ass into taking the risks associated with public scrutiny. My history is colorful, and would be a field day for one of my opponents. I may, however, be already serving best in swaying other's opinions via blogging and forums as I do now.

[techgump]

P.S. Why is compromise a swear word in politics? Compromises are supposed to be good.

Would you compromise in Mathematics, Thermos, or Sciences? Would it be good if we did? Well, the world is 1/2 flat, and 1/2 round. We're not the center of our solar system but the center of our universe. This is compromise, but is that necessarily good? I don't think so. Besides, there is no need for compromise if the Gov stays out of your business and choices in the first place. Why should the Gov be compromising your and my life's decisions? Should that woman have an abortion or not? Let her decide that, and let God be the judge of it (if one exists). Should a man and a man be able to marry? Let them decide that, and let God be the judge of it (if one exists). Once Gov intervenes, such as recognizing what marriage is in the first place, then it opens itself to further intervention into our lives. Tax breaks for married couples, well, now the gov must decide if gays can marry. Let the communism roll! I'd rather me and my chosen partner (should I even chose one, or just one) define what our marriage or relationship means, not that of the mass media, the mass mob, the elite, or the gov. What a joke. We've duped ourselves into thinking intolerance is acceptable on a broad spectrum of issues, and that one side or the other must win, or come to compromise to set a standard. Of course, if it creates a fight, that's great for the media, so don't plan on them shedding light on our idiocracy.