[swashmebuckle]

I feel this is the wrong way to go about choosing who to vote for president. The president's actual job is so loosely related to a person's quality of life that his campaigning and campaign promises will have a far greater impact than he ever will otherwise.

I don't understand what you're saying here--the president's job(s) directly impact the quality of life for millions of people in and out of the states.  Think about all the people in the military whose lives were changed in Iraq (not to mention the Iraqis) in an invasion/occupation that very likely would not have happened under hypothetical president Gore.  Likewise, all the people who have or will have some form of health insurance under a bill that would certainly have drawn a veto from president McCain, if it had even gotten started.  Those are major quality of life issues that are clearly attributable to the president's direct powers--why wouldn't a voter look to that stuff when deciding who best to vote for?

[Polpolion]

I feel this is the wrong way to go about choosing who to vote for president. The president's actual job is so loosely related to a person's quality of life that his campaigning and campaign promises will have a far greater impact than he ever will otherwise.

I don't understand what you're saying here--the president's job(s) directly impact the quality of life for millions of people in and out of the states.  Think about all the people in the military whose lives were changed in Iraq (not to mention the Iraqis) in an invasion/occupation that very likely would not have happened under hypothetical president Gore.  Likewise, all the people who have or will have some form of health insurance under a bill that would certainly have drawn a veto from president McCain, if it had even gotten started.  Those are major quality of life issues that are clearly attributable to the president's direct powers--why wouldn't a voter look to that stuff when deciding who best to vote for?

Note that there's a difference between personal quality of life and general quality of life. I read The E's post as him asking about Thaeris in particular, which is primarily what I had an objection to. I'd also like to point out that the economy is the biggest issue at these elections and typically what people think of when they think of quality of life (as opposed to getting nuked by the DPRK, getting drafted, and law signing - all big deals, but not regularly relevant), and is something that the president has very little direct control over.

[Thaeris]

Even if you do not like any of the candidates noted, any of the parties noted, I still encourage you to "rage against the machine," where your democratic/republic system is being stifled and laid to waste by men and women with motives they choose to hide from you for their own gain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=35OXo9SSj5I

[swashmebuckle]

I feel this is the wrong way to go about choosing who to vote for president. The president's actual job is so loosely related to a person's quality of life that his campaigning and campaign promises will have a far greater impact than he ever will otherwise.

I don't understand what you're saying here--the president's job(s) directly impact the quality of life for millions of people in and out of the states.  Think about all the people in the military whose lives were changed in Iraq (not to mention the Iraqis) in an invasion/occupation that very likely would not have happened under hypothetical president Gore.  Likewise, all the people who have or will have some form of health insurance under a bill that would certainly have drawn a veto from president McCain, if it had even gotten started.  Those are major quality of life issues that are clearly attributable to the president's direct powers--why wouldn't a voter look to that stuff when deciding who best to vote for?

Note that there's a difference between personal quality of life and general quality of life. I read The E's post as him asking about Thaeris in particular, which is primarily what I had an objection to. I'd also like to point out that the economy is the biggest issue at these elections and typically what people think of when they think of quality of life (as opposed to getting nuked by the DPRK, getting drafted, and law signing - all big deals, but not regularly relevant), and is something that the president has very little direct control over.

So you are criticizing voters who make their decisions based on how they think the candidates' policies will affect them because ultimately the economy determines quality of life and the president can't influence the economy?  What should people base their decisions on then?

[Thaeris]

Speaking of policy... one wonders if Bush was as bad economically as one is led to believe - check out this interesting chart:

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-create-deficits?gclid=cjsp-iixk7icfykwmgodexuaiq

[z64555]

Why isn't FDR on that list? 

[Aardwolf]

Or more recently, good ol' 90%-taxing Eisenhower

[NGTM-1R]

a general expansion of US militarism.

Considering the withdrawal from Iraq, the ongoing changeover in Afghanistan, leaving most of Libya to the EU, and the fact that the US military is in a draw-down rather than an expansion phase and emphatically does not want to commit to any major action in the near future, this statement is not only bizarre, but suggests you aren't really paying attention.

[Scotty]

I can confirm the draw-down, too.  The Army, at the very least, is flat out not accepting new active duty recruits.  You either go reserves/national guard, or you don't enlist.

[Thaeris]

I'd like to point out that the DoD's budget has grown for 3 out of the 4 years that Obama has been in office. My statement could certainly use some clarification, but it is by no means completely untrue. Find page 8, Figure 1-2 in the following link:

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

[Polpolion]

So you are criticizing voters who make their decisions based on how they think the candidates' policies will affect them because ultimately the economy determines quality of life and the president can't influence the economy?  What should people base their decisions on then?

Yes I am criticizing them. It's an awful way to decide who to vote for. Congress is more important to fixing the economy. There are plenty of social caveats about presidential elections since most of his social views mean squat after his honeymoon, but it feels damn weird to vote for a homophobic guy no matter how much experience he has with foreign relations. I honestly think you should vote based on experience, party support, and what party you think will be holding congress for the brunt of his term.

Also it's obviously going to hurt my last argument, but sue me; I'm an asshole and an idiot. I'm probably just going to end up voting for Obama out of spite. If you watched the news coverage about the RNC, I think it was MSNBC that I watched, it was nice to see the republicans get called out on the **** they gave Obama during his term (and lies spoken during paul ryan's speech). Obama was a bit of a disappointing president tbh, but god dammit I hate those republicans so much.

[swashmebuckle]

I don't think you're an asshole or an idiot, I just think that a major cornerstone of republican national campaigns in the time I've been voting has been convincing people of exactly what you are saying--that their choice basically doesn't affect their day to day lives and should be made based on more intangible criteria such as (as you mentioned) leadership qualities or which way the political winds might turn over the next four years.  Once that step is made, it's easy for them to frame the debate in more "gut feeling" or emotional terms, at which point they can pretty much dominate by default by not being a black dude with a foreign sounding name who wants to give our hard-earned money to lazy pot-smoking good-for-nothings.

I agree with you that congress (and the people who pay for their campaigns) have the most important role in setting up the nation's economic framework, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the president isn't really really very really super powerful and responsible for many decisions that directly impact all of our lives, economically and otherwise.

[jr2]

Nope, the president has nothing to do with it.  Unless it was Bill Clinton.  'cause, you know, he was the reason the economy was just rolling back then.  Or Bush, cause he's responsible for the mess we're in now.   

I think the President is a big piece in the puzzle though.

[Ghostavo]

[Nuke]

id vote eastwood, i dont care what party he supports

"I know what you're thinking. "Did he drop six nukes or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a B53 nuclear bomb, the most powerful nuclear weapon in the world*, and would incinerate your capitol clear to the ground, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"

*in service, im not counting tsar bomba and some of our test nukes or the mk-41, or anything which would be a treaty violation for us to own, but which we probibly do anyway because were badasses.

[NGTM-1R]

I'd like to point out that the DoD's budget has grown for 3 out of the 4 years that Obama has been in office. My statement could certainly use some clarification, but it is by no means completely untrue.

Militarism is not military spending. It is the embrace of military power as an end unto itself and the sole instrument of national policy. Your statement is, in fact, untrue, as it is demonstrably true that the US is further from that mindset both as a nation and as a culture today than it was when Obama took office.

[Thaeris]

I'm not entirely in agreement about militarism not being military spending, as the two are inherently in relation. However, you do make a point, and I cannot justly deny all of the implications therein.

I will note that there are still elements of the current admin's military and defence policies which I find very disagreeable, though one can argue that those matters were inhereted from the previous admin. I do not believe either the existing admin nor the primary opposition offers acceptable solutions for defence policies in the coming years, and that both principal parties offer up a continuation of Cold War militarism that has been both wasteful and destructive (and not to mention largely unneeded) since the mid 1990's. The Cold War is over, damnit!

[Nuke]

i cant wait till Cold War II, or WWIII for that matter

[Thaeris]

OHMAHLAWD!

It seems there is imputus to identify some of the anomalies we have been seeing in the behavior of the RNC. All things with a grain of salt, of course, but this helps pull together the seeming connections between some of the past allegations I've heard of whilst adressing the obvious very non-democratic/republic proceedings at the convention in August. It also greatly appeals to my desire to see Romney's lying sack-o'-crap backside, as well as the backsides of those behind his remarkably peculiar advancement get fried. And burned in the process.

http://electionfraudremedy.com/

[MP-Ryan]

I saw the word socialism appear in some earlier posts by Thaeris and I'd like to point out that nothing Obama has done, not even healthcare reform, actually even comes close to a socialist governing style.  Obama would be considered a conservative politician in virtually every other first-world democratic nation.

The fact that anyone can use Obama and socialist in the same sentence without irony indicators is a sad commentary on the state of American politics.