why vote for

[olylifter420]

i would like to know from the supporters of

1. sanatorium

2. romney schnomney

3. obummer

why are you voting for them or why are you supporting their campaign?


after watching new hampshire debate, it is clear that all candidates other then RP are a bunch douche bag puppets, feeding the american people what they want to hear...

what is also funny about the debate is how they would all interrupt RP when he would speak... talk about childish tactics...


RP had solid answers... the rest just tried to defunk RP's answers never addressing the question posed to them....

i wonder why? maybe cause they dont have a straight answer for the debate questions...

oh well,

i would just like to know the reasoning behind your support...

thanks to all...

anyone being a DICK will get reported!

 

[NLXSK1]

please stop spamming the forum with obviously slanted polls and such, it is beyond old already...

Cant wait for RP to get the fuck out of the race now so people will shut up.

 

[Illegal Smile]

The only reason you need to vote for any candidate is that he's NOT Obama.

 

[Rob Roy]

The only reason you need to vote for any candidate is that he's NOT Obama.

Hmm, I thought Romney was the mormon version of Obama ?

 

[UncleBuck]

no mention of huntsman? he has actual knowledge and is a "country first" type of politician.

hell, his uber-wealthy family will not donate to his campaign (nor does he want them to) because they do not consider a political race to be a humanitarian cause.

the more i hear about huntsman, the more i like.

 

[NLXSK1]

no mention of huntsman? he has actual knowledge and is a "country first" type of politician.

hell, his uber-wealthy family will not donate to his campaign (nor does he want them to) because they do not consider a political race to be a humanitarian cause.

the more i hear about huntsman, the more i like.

Plus I think Huntsman or Santorum have the hot daughters...

 

[UncleBuck]

Plus I think Huntsman or Santorum have the hot daughters...

huntsman's are not so hot. santorum has a hot one, but she is a douche from the interviews i have heard.

she called people mean for not liking her dad and doing the santorum thing, to which i would reply: "and his views on american citizens who do not share his persuasion is candy and unicorns?"

 

[olylifter420]

Cool, nl, i aint spamming shit dude! Chill the fuck out or get the fuck out!

All i wanted to hear are different views to get a better understanding of other peoples views on the race...

Some people just cant wait to be dicks though!


Im just saying, RP, answered far better then anyone else.

People dont like his foreign policy, why?

Who gives a fuck what some other country is doing, if we would not try to indoctrinate other countries with our gov bullshit, we would not have so many countries that hate us in the first place. We spend less, way less and we avoid confrontations with other countries.

At least it aint sanatoriums plans for foreign policy, keeping everyone overseas till the fight is over! perry and romney want the same shit too.

I just think its bullshit people have to hate each other cause they cant agree on whats best for country.

We all know whats best, less spending. The only dude i see for that is RP.

Maybe the people who disagree with his views are rich already.

 

[sync0s]

i would like to know from the supporters of

1. sanatorium

2. romney schnomney

3. obummer

why are you voting for them or why are you supporting their campaign?


after watching new hampshire debate, it is clear that all candidates other then RP are a bunch douche bag puppets, feeding the american people what they want to hear...

what is also funny about the debate is how they would all interrupt RP when he would speak... talk about childish tactics...


RP had solid answers... the rest just tried to defunk RP's answers never addressing the question posed to them....

i wonder why? maybe cause they dont have a straight answer for the debate questions...

oh well,

i would just like to know the reasoning behind your support...

thanks to all...

anyone being a DICK will get reported!

Why even ask a question when you so clearly demonstrate that you are to close minded to listen?

Unclebuck

I would like to talk to you about something
[email protected]

You forgot to give him your digits.

The only reason you need to vote for any candidate is that he's NOT Obama.

Yeah, that is a great attitude. Glad to see you've thought your position through.

 

[sync0s]

Cool, nl, i aint spamming shit dude! Chill the fuck out or get the fuck out!

All i wanted to hear are different views to get a better understanding of other peoples views on the race...

Some people just cant wait to be dicks though!


Im just saying, RP, answered far better then anyone else.

People dont like his foreign policy, why?

Who gives a fuck what some other country is doing, if we would not try to indoctrinate other countries with our gov bullshit, we would not have so many countries that hate us in the first place. We spend less, way less and we avoid confrontations with other countries.

At least it aint sanatoriums plans for foreign policy, keeping everyone overseas till the fight is over! perry and romney want the same shit too.

I just think its bullshit people have to hate each other cause they cant agree on whats best for country.

We all know whats best, less spending. The only dude i see for that is RP.

Maybe the people who disagree with his views are rich already.

People only hate his foreign policy for these reasons:

1) Fear
2) Self-Interest
3) War Profiteering (Kind of goes along with #2, but I was implying something else)

Also, there are many many many people who disagree with you that less spending is the best option, and some of that argument makes valid points.

I think that about sums it up.

 

[Dan Kone]

I'm supporting Obama because every other candidate is to the right on him when it comes to financial regulations. I think we need to regulate the financial services industry much more. Every other candidate thinks we need less regulations. Deregulation of the financial services industry is ruining the country for the benefit of a small handful of wealthy individuals. I do not see giving the ultra wealthy the freedom to steal trillions of dollars as an essential freedom. Every other candidate wants to make that problem worse. So it's an easy decision for me.

translation for Ron Paul cultists: I'm voting for Obama because I hate freedom.

 

[sync0s]

I'm supporting Obama because every other candidate is to the right on him when it comes to financial regulations. I think we need to regulate the financial services industry much more. Every other candidate thinks we need less regulations. Deregulation of the financial services industry is ruining the country for the benefit of a small handful of wealthy individuals. I do not see giving the ultra wealthy the freedom to steal trillions of dollars as an essential freedom. Every other candidate wants to make that problem worse. So it's an easy decision for me.

Here is my only question: If Obama is for more regulations against corporations/the wealthy, than why is it that his top donors include JP Morgan, Chase, Citi, GE, etc? Does it make you question at all whether or not regulations are really helping or harming these companies? I mean, because these are the companies that stand to lose the most under these philosophies that people think Obama has, right? I'll use a common liberal statement: isn't it kind of like their voting against their own self interest?

translation for Ron Paul cultists: I'm voting for Obama because I hate freedom.

Lol.

 

[Dan Kone]

Here is my only question: If Obama is for more regulations against corporations/the wealthy, than why is it that his top donors include JP Morgan, Chase, Citi, GE, etc?

Because those companies are the top donors to every serious contender. Goldman Sachs at the moment is Obama's 14th top contributor. They are #1 on Romney's contributor list. None of the companies you mentioned are in the top 10 of Obama's contributors btw. Look at Romney's contributors vs Obama's, then tell me who those companies want to win.

Romney

Goldman Sachs	$367,200
Credit Suisse Group	$203,750
Morgan Stanley	$199,800
HIG Capital	$186,500
Barclays	$157,750
Kirkland & Ellis	$132,100
Bank of America	$126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers	$118,250
EMC Corp	$117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$112,250

Obama

Microsoft Corp	$171,573
Comcast Corp	$113,800
University of California	$107,501
Harvard University	$99,975
Google Inc	$95,066
DLA Piper	$75,375
Skadden, Arps et al	$69,374
Chopper Trading	$64,815
Stanford University	$62,928
Time Warner	$62,600

Does it make you question at all whether or not regulations are really helping or harming these companies?

No, not at all. Obama hasn't really added any meaningful regulations, he just hasn't gotten rid of any either. That's not what I hope for out of a democrat, but it sure beats the hell out of what all of the republicans want to do, which is get rid of existing protections.

Our economy ran incredibly smoothly when it was well regulated for nearly half a century. Then we started getting rid of those regulations in the 1980s and it's been all down hill for everyone except for the wealthy elites. Financial regulations work just fine, it wasn't until we started throwing them out that we had big problems.

I mean, because these are the companies that stand to lose the most under these philosophies that people think Obama has, right? I'll use a common liberal statement: isn't it kind of like their voting against their own self interest?

Companies tend to hedge their bets. They'll donate to all candidates who they think have a real shot at winning. By looking at the top 10 lists of who donates to Obama and Romney it's pretty clear who the financial services industry wants as their president.

Lol.

lol back at ya.

 

[sync0s]

Because those companies are the top donors to every serious contender. Goldman Sachs at the moment is Obama's 14th top contributor. They are #1 on Romney's contributor list. None of the companies you mentioned are in the top 10 of Obama's contributors btw. Look at Romney's contributors vs Obama's, then tell me who those companies want to win.

Romney

Goldman Sachs	$367,200
Credit Suisse Group	$203,750
Morgan Stanley	$199,800
HIG Capital	$186,500
Barclays	$157,750
Kirkland & Ellis	$132,100
Bank of America	$126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers	$118,250
EMC Corp	$117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$112,250

Obama

Microsoft Corp	$171,573
Comcast Corp	$113,800
University of California	$107,501
Harvard University	$99,975
Google Inc	$95,066
DLA Piper	$75,375
Skadden, Arps et al	$69,374
Chopper Trading	$64,815
Stanford University	$62,928
Time Warner	$62,600

I don't know where you are getting your data from, but opensecrets.org Goldman Sachs at #2 with $1.013 million, JP with $800k, Citi $730k.

You don't need to show me anything about Romney or Gingrich, they both are letting rich CEO billionaires play pocket pool with them.

No, not at all. Obama hasn't really added any meaningful regulations, he just hasn't gotten rid of any either. That's not what I hope for out of a democrat, but it sure beats the hell out of what all of the republicans want to do, which is get rid of existing protections.

Our economy ran incredibly smoothly when it was well regulated for nearly half a century. Then we started getting rid of those regulations in the 1980s and it's been all down hill for everyone except for the wealthy elites. Financial regulations work just fine, it wasn't until we started throwing them out that we had big problems.

I'm not going to argue regulation/deregulation, that wasn't the point. Just want you to question it.

I questioned Ron Paul when I heard that the number one politician receiving donations from government employees was Ron Paul and that made me really wonder why. I eventually ended on the idea that maybe they realized the bureaucracy of government. That idea doesn't really translate over to this situation because it would disprove the liberal belief that the ones needing regulation are greedy and only in it for themselves.

You have your opinion and I respect you for it. If you like Obama, I say go for it. Welcome to America.

Companies tend to hedge their bets. They'll donate to all candidates who they think have a real shot at winning. By looking at the top 10 lists of who donates to Obama and Romney it's pretty clear who the financial services industry wants as their president.

lol back at ya.

You're right. It's just so they have something on the politicians so when they get elected the companies can get their way.

 

[olylifter420]

Could it be that mysteriously, the corps syncos mentioned, did not pay taxes!

 

[Dan Kone]

I don't know where you are getting your data from, but opensecrets.org Goldman Sachs at #2 with $1.013 million, JP with $800k, Citi $730k.

That's from the 2008 campaign, I thought we were talking about 2012 here. The money I listed is for this up coming election, not past elections.

After 4 years of Obama, it's pretty clear the financial services industry wants a change.

You don't need to show me anything about Romney or Gingrich, they both are letting rich CEO billionaires play pocket pool with them.

Well there really is no one else to compare Obama's fund raising too as there are no other candidates who look like they have a legit chance of winning. It's easy for a candidate to look pious when they have no real chance at winning so the corporations aren't offering them money.

I'm not going to argue regulation/deregulation, that wasn't the point. Just want you to question it.

It is the point for me. That's why I'm supporting Obama over the other candidates. I'm not sure how I can discuss the election without bringing that up since it's my 2nd most important deciding factor, only behind campaign financing.

You have your opinion and I respect you for it. If you like Obama, I say go for it. Welcome to America.

I don't like Obama, I just like him better than the alternatives.

 

[Ringsixty]

Anyone but....? .... hmmm... none of the above

 

[sync0s]

That's from the 2008 campaign, I thought we were talking about 2012 here. The money I listed is for this up coming election, not past elections.

After 4 years of Obama, it's pretty clear the financial services industry wants a change.

Yeah, you're right. I didn't check the year, my bad.

Dude, I don't know if you've seen this already or not: https://www.rollitup.org/politics/501598-why-vote-2.html#post6904527

Compare donations amounting to $2,500 between Romney and Perry. Ridiculous or what? http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance#canda=barack-obama&candb=mitt-romney

Well there really is no one else to compare Obama's fund raising too as there are no other candidates who look like they have a legit chance of winning. It's easy for a candidate to look pious when they have no real chance at winning so the corporations aren't offering them money.

Trolling me, here? Romney/Santorum/Paul are tied for delegates (that's what gets the nomination).

It is the point for me. That's why I'm supporting Obama over the other candidates. I'm not sure how I can discuss the election without bringing that up since it's my 2nd most important deciding factor, only behind campaign financing.

No, like I said, my point was to see if you question your beliefs in odd circumstances like that.

While Obama continues to woo supporters at low-dollar fundraisers, his meetings with high rollers — including a $35,800-a-plate dinner Thursday night with Wall Street executives in a posh Manhattan restaurant — could undercut the image he has tried to craft.So far, about 115 donors have signed up for Presidential Partners, one of three major donor programs to offer special access to campaign officials in exchange for contributions.
Early reports filed with Federal Election Commission show the Obama campaign is getting results, with the Democratic National Committee far outperforming its Republican counterpart in drawing large donations.
Between January and May, the DNC raised $11 million from donors contributing more than $30,000 compared with just $3 million raised in that category by the Republican National Committee, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Big donations — those in amounts of $10,000 or above — represent 38% of the total raised in the early part of this year by the DNC, the Center found, compared with just 18% in that category for Republicans.

It's clear they haven't completely, but we'll wait to see when Obama actually starts campaigning what happens to his donations.

My point was only to make you question your belief for a second. I was testing to see how open your mind was

I don't like Obama, I just like him better than the alternatives.

lesser of two evils vote. Vote Johnson?

 

[deprave]

You can't just look at those numbers if you want to play semantics you have to look at the Pacs also......

Numbers aside for a momment....Lets look at what really counts...Obama's whitehouse staff is composed of ex-wall st kingpins, ceos of companies like goldman sachs, and other banker types...Now....Obama put the same people in charge of REGULATING the financial industry that de-regulated it in the first place and caused the collapse...So WTF??? How can you support Obama if your number one issue is regulation? Obama is a centrist and a puppet for Wall Street just like corporate person hood advocate Mitt Romney. I see them as one in the same.. further...Obama isn't to the left of much...he is a centrist...George W Bush could actually be more liberal, but I digress..they are both centrist and authortarian and in no way are they either liberal nor conservative. Sure, Obama pays lip service to the left and G Dub to the right..but lets look at the truth.

Lael Brainard: Brainard is the United States Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in the administration of ObamaGregory Craig: Former White House Counsel, Recently hired by Goldman Sachs
Thomas Donilon: Deputy National Security Adviser(despite having a career that is mostly involved with domestic politics). Donilon was a lawyer at O’Melveny and Myers and made almost $4 million representing meltdown clients including Penny Pritzker (of Chicago) and Goldman sachs.
William C. Dudley : president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, partner and managing director at Goldman, Sachs and was the firm’s chief U.S. economist for a decade
Douglas Elmendorf: Obama Director of the Congressional Budget Office in January 2009, replaced Furman as Director of the Hamilton Project (Note that the Hamilton Project was funded by Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs)
Rahm Emanuel: Obama Chief of staff, on the payroll of Goldman Sachs, receiving $3,000 per month from the firm to “introduce us to people,” in the words of one Goldman partner at the time.
Dianna Farrell: Obama Administration: Deputy Director, National Economic Council, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Financial Analyst
Stephen Friedman: Obama Administration: Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2005
Michael Frohman: Robert Rubin’s Chief of Staff while Rubin served as Secretary of the Treasury and an Obama “head hunter” according to “Rubin Proteges Change Their Tune as They Join Obama’s Team” in the New York Times.
Anne Fudge: appointed Fudge to Obama budget deficit reduction committee. Fudge has been the PR craftsman for some of America’s largest corporations. She sits, according to the Washington Post, as a Trustee of the Brookings Institution within which the Hamilton Project is embedded.
Jason Furman: directed economic policy for the Obama Presidential Campaign, served as the second Director of the Hamilton Project after Peter Orszag’s departure for the Obama administration
Mark Gallogly: Sits on the Hamilton Project’s advisory council. He is also, according to Wikipedia, currently a member of Obama’s President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
Timothy Geithner: Secretary of the Treasury, a former managing director of Goldman Sachs
Gary Gensler: Obama Administration: Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance
Michael Greenstone: the 4th Director of the Hamilton Project. Just as attorney Craig went from advising Obama to defending Goldman Sachs against the SEC complaint, Greenstone has used the revolving door to go from went an economic adviser position to Obama to one of the Goldman Sachs outlets, in this case its think tank embedded in the Brookings Institution and funded by Goldman and Robert Rubin. All 3 previous Directors of the Hamilton Project work in the Obama administration.
Robert Hormats: Obama Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State DepartmentFormer Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group
Neel Kashkari: served under Treasury Secretary Paulson and was kept on by Obama after his inauguration for a limited period to work on TARP oversight, former Vice President of Goldman Sachs in San Francisco where he where he led Goldman’s Information Technology Security Investment Banking practice.
Karen Kornbluh: (sometimes called "Obama’s brain") Obama Ambassador to the OECD, was Deputy Chief of Staff to Mr. Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin
Jacob (AKA "Jack") Lew: the United States Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. According to Wikipedia, Lew sits on the Brookings-Rubin funded Hamilton Project Advisory Board. He also served with Robert Rubin in Bill Clinton’s cabinet as Director of OMB.
David Lipton: now at Obama’s National Economic Council and the National Security Council. Lipton -worked with Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, on the US response to the Asian financial crisis of the 1990’s. MergeFoundations reports that Lipton worked closely with Robert Rubin:
Emil Michael: White House Fellow, former investment banker with Goldman Sachs
Eric Mindich: Former chief strategy officer of New York- based Goldman Sachs, started Eton Park in 2004 with $3.5 billion, at the time one of the biggest hedge-fund launches ever. .....Hank Paulson Tipped Off The Goldman-Led "Plunge Protection Team" About Fannie Bankruptcy 7 Weeks In Advance (2007): Goldman operative Eric Mindich in the hierarchy of the Asset Managers' committee of the President's Working Group on Capital Markets, better known of course as the PPT (in 2009)
Philip Murphy: Obama Administration: Ambassador to Germany, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Head of Goldman Sachs, Frankfurt
Barack Obama: Obama owes his career to Goldman Sachs which was not only his biggest financial contributor when he ran for the presidency but also his biggest contributor when he ran for the Senate
Peter Orszag, Obama Budget Director, founding director of the Hamilton Project, funded by Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin. Wikipedia indicates that Robert Rubin, Goldman’s ex-head, was one of Orszag’s mentors.
Mark Patterson: Obama Administration: Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner, Former Goldman Sachs Title: Lobbyist 2005-2008; Vice President for Government Relations
Mark Peterson: Chief of staff to Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs vice president and lobbyist
Steve Ratner: the shady billionaire financier who Obama appointed as his “car czar” and who resigned after it was revealed that his company, the Quadrangle Group, was apparently involved in “pay to play” for a billion dollars or so of New York State pension funds, and was under possible indictment by the New York AG and the SEC, also sits on the Advisory Council of the Goldman funded Hamilton Project
Robert Reischauer: a member of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission from 2000-2009 and was its vice chair from 2001-2008. He too sits on the Hamilton Project’s advisory board.
Alice Rivlin: Obama named Alice Rivlin to his so called deficit reduction commission.
James Rubin: Son of Robert Rubin. Served as a headhunter for Obama per the New York Times article, "Rubin Proteges Change Their Tune as They Join Obama’s Team"
Gene Sperling: advisor to Timothy Geithner on bailouts, Sperling paid by Goldman Sachs for one year of consulting work.
Adam Storch: Obama Managing Executive of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement Vice President in the Goldman Sachs Business Intelligence Group
Larry Summers: Obama chief economic adviser and head of the National Economic Counsel, Worked under Robert Rubin at Goldman Sachs
John Thain: Obama Administration: Advisor to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner, Former Goldman Sachs Title: President and Chief Operating Officer (1999-2003)

Additionally the very foundation of your view of Ron Paul is as if he is an anarchist. This is entirely false. Ron Paul is not an anarchist, Libertarians are not anarchist, and Ron Paul can and will be practical.





A few clips from the Obama Administration's scandal with Goldman sachs that you seem to have been AFK during:

[video=youtube;qaRq_aF5A4c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaRq_aF5A4c[/video]

[video=youtube;evpFtFfPWP8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evpFtFfPWP8[/video]

[video=youtube;h29_8yg5UZk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h29_8yg5UZk[/video]

 

[Dan Kone]

Trolling me, here? Romney/Santorum/Paul are tied for delegates (that's what gets the nomination).

Well that's not really true is it? One out of 5 major news sources projected it as a possible 3 way tie, but that hasn't been decided yet and every other news source agrees it's not a tie. Fox projects Paul getting 0 delegates, NBC 3. So let's not pretend that's a fact. Also, even if that were true, we all know that doesn't mean they have an equal chance at winning. Romney is the heavy favorite.

No, like I said, my point was to see if you question your beliefs in odd circumstances like that.

lesser of two evils vote. Vote Johnson?

I'm not a libertarian. If Johnson had a chance to win, I'd listen to what he had to say for sure, but that's not the case. Right now I just want to make sure we don't elect some free market right winger.