Most forums that are not political by nature ban political threads. They have nothing to do with the intent of the forum and divide out contributors that make the site good.

I can do a lot of good work with someone until we bring up politics. After that we may hate each other and the learning stops.

 

That's really too bad that you are unable to seperate politics from life. I would have a difficult life if I were to hate people I dissagree with. I love my wife but we see two completely different pictures politically. My good friends have usually been on the complete opposite side of political discussions from me, but we've actually learned a lot from thoes, sometimes heated, discussions. I was a liberal when I was younger. My life experience has taught me the error of my ways. I see many of the people around me, who tend to lean to the left, coming around to my line of thinking. Quite remarkable considering I'm in Massachusetts.

Like 1depd mentioned, we did used to have a lot of discussions about politics in the "general disscussion" section. They were often heated, and there was often someone who resorted to name calling. I learned so much from the political discussions that we used to have here. I got a lot of typing practice as well. Unfortunately, there were a few people who were offended by political discussion, who found it offensive to even have to see the title of a poliltical thread in "general discussion". So the powers that be decided to create this "sub" forum, so that people interested in discussing the condition of our country and culture could do thier thing without being in the way or offending anyone. I know that the mods have a slightly different take on the reasoning. I still am unable to wrap my head around that reasoning.

and.... to bring this back around to the original topic.... 2016 is a movie done in a way that isn't offensive. There isn't name calling. There is just a guy who takes the words and actions of our current president and tries to explain their meaning. It was well done. People should see it. It is the type of dissent that we should have. We should be questioning people's motives. We should question peoples pasts. We should question of their intentions. We should do it for the current prsident and all of thoes who follow. We should question anyone who claims to represent us.

 

We didn't get runnoft.
We're just picking our spots.

 

Personally, I don't think it matters who gets in. They are not going to be able to magically change things over night, or in four years.
The president just does not have that kid of power. Even if a president did have that sort of power to make broad and sweeping changes do you actually think that either of the two people running would change anything for the better, in regards to the common person?

I didn't vote anyone in 2008, haven't voted since 2004 because I personally feel that my vote doesn't matter, I am not even in a "swing state". I feel that if it was who the majority of the people vote for is who won, it would be worth voting, but as it is some states are "useless" and the electoral vote isn't helping.

In this day, with the technology we have there is no excuse for a instant and secure vote to be outweighed by anything.
It should be based on one thing, who the people vote for, the technology is there to make it work.
No more red/blue garbage, let the people vote for who they want. If anyone could run and the people's vote was all that counted, not how much money you can spend and who is backing you things *might* start to change.

This two party separation is bad for everyone, it makes a "my side Vs your side" mentality that hurts more than it helps.

Obama might not have done much (or anything), but I still prefer that to the magic Mormon and catholic "dream team".
The stance they have taken on women's rights, health and birth control was more than enough to put me off them.
At least under the Affordable Care Act birth control is now covered for free for any new policy.

I know my ideas and thoughts are not popular, they never will be.
I think the two part system is a sham, a division among the people. I don't think individual votes count like they should.
I don't think the president has as much power as people think he (or she maybe soon?) does.
I like Ron Paul more than Obama or R&R.
Romney (IMO) has no idea about women's rights or health, adding Ryan to that mix didn't help.

Church and State should stay far, far away from each other. The church is too involved now as it stands.
Gun control is not the answer, better (physical and mental) health care is.
Affordable (maybe not government funded) health care is very important, other lesser devolved nations spend less and have better health care.
More science, less religion and creationism.

Edit. Spelling and such.

Also, gay should be allowed to marry.

 

Titan--I agree the President doesn't have a lot of power, per se. The President does have a lot of influence though. The President's economic policy effects business. If there is uncertainty then business stops to see what is going to happen. If there is a clear path business can plan and adjust their business to be profitable. The problem with Obama is he has taken a stance that is very bad for business. This results in business hunkering down and not doing much of anything. THAT is why unemployment is still so high. THAT is why the economy hasn't improved much under Obama. If he had taken a more pro business stance, then businesses would feel confident to hire and expand. This in turn would increase consumer confidence spurring economic growth, increased tax revenue, and profits for many.

I agree that the church should stay out of government, but conversely the government should stay out of church. That means that the government should not force a religious organization to fund or purchase things that are against their fundamental beliefs.

As to health care, I did a quick comparison between countries using a WHO study (for another site where if you're conservative and your crap isn't wired tight you will be torn apart). One thing the WHO did not account for was cost of living. Once cost of living was taken into consideration just about all western nations were very close on health care expenditures. Most were within $1-2k of each other and many were less than $1000 per year difference. Things not considered by the WHO was wait time, elective surgeries, or medical tourism. Do you realize in large border cities between the US and Canada we have standing agreements to allow Canadian emergencies to be treated in the US? This and medical tourism to the US acts to artificially inflate the per capita cost of US health care. Both types of medical care are the very expensive type so not only does it increase the per capita expenditure, but it increases the expenditures by a good amount in each instance. Also consider that in many countries where socialized medicine is the norm they do not have the strong cosmetic surgery system. The list can go on and on about the differences between countries that are not taken into consideration when doing a straight comparison. Just a few off the top of my head: In the US we live in suburbs and drive to the cities to work. In many foreign countries they work within a few blocks of where they live and walk. In the foreign countries I have lived and visited they typically eat more fresh foods and far less fast foods and highly processed foods. The US population is generally very vain and we spend an inordinate amount on cosmetic procedures many other countries don't. The population of the US is large enough to have several major sports, consisting of several sports teams, that would be considered dangerous. The US is generally a more violent society than many other countries.