Which Republican do you support in the 2016 election

[Vile Lynn]

this convo

[Evan1000]

not that he would be allowed to be president for more than 2 terms, thank God for that btw.

I disagree. If a president did a good job and would like to run for a third term, and the American people want him, I feel that he should have the right to run for a third term. Look at the one (and only) perfect example FDR, who was an amazing president and ran and was elected for 4 terms.

Of course I understand that all these restrictions are in place so presidents don't abuse there power, but two things wrong with this. If a president abuses his power or is just a bad president in general, people won't vote for him in the first place, and because of all these restrictions it keeps good presidents from leading efficiently

[Ant venom]

I disagree. If a president did a good job and would like to run for a third term, and the American people want him, I feel that he should have the right to run for a third term. Look at the one (and only) perfect example FDR, who was an amazing president and ran and was elected for 4 terms.

Of course I understand that all these restrictions are in place so presidents don't abuse there power, but two things wrong with this. If a president abuses his power or is just a bad president in general, people won't vote for him in the first place, and because of all these restrictions it keeps good presidents from leading efficiently

A president really doesn't have much more power other than veto something without being controlled by the Congress especially anything he wants like new laws or something. A president is much like the 'Monarch' of the United Kingdom, nothing more than a figurehead except the Monarchs are more of a
long term thing whereas the President's time as a President is limited. Honestly Barack Obama is one of my least favorite presidents much like his predecessor.

[Evan1000]

Apparently it is for you, for us not really (Btw I could read the sarcasm in your post).

I may have made it obvious with a bizarre idea and topped it off with an exclamation point. But reading back on your post I didn't realize you put "just" a figurehead, so yeah now I see the sarcasm. Oops

[Evan1000]

A president really doesn't have much more power other than veto something without being controlled by the Congress especially anything he wants like new laws or something.

Exactly. That's why I don't like politics.

I also don't like the fact that politics parties run everything and all they care about is what's best for their party, not the country.

When I heard that there was a problem with there being more republicans than democrats in the white house and nothing was getting done because they couldn't agree on anything or whatever it was, I laughed.

Dippy this is why I use my age. It's only a number and has nothing to do with anything, and it for sure can hurt my argument because people like max power (and maybe you, I could never tell) take it as I don't know anything, but it can also make my argument stand out because a 17 year old is laughing over a bunch of 30 year old's running our country arguing over who gets to use the white house bathroom.

Also, one more thing.. aren't political discussions of any kind banned from the forum?

[Dipstik]

I disagree.

With what?

Dippy this is why I use my age. It's only a number and has nothing to do with anything, and it for sure can hurt my argument because people like max power (and maybe you, I could never tell) take it as I don't know anything, but it can also make my argument stand out because a 17 year old is laughing over a bunch of 30 year old's running our country arguing over who gets to use the white house bathroom.

No your arguments are laughable on their face, but every time I start to respond, I think "I'm arguing with a dumb kid" and move along.

[Evan1000]

With what?

That a president shouldn't be allowed to run for more than two terms

[Dipstik]

That a president shouldn't be allowed to run for more than two terms

Good for you. Move to Cuba. No one has said the president "shouldn't" be allowed to run for three terms. It's a legal fact, not a debate.

[TMI]

Not true because of third parties. The USA democracy is beter than Britain's democracy because our taxes don't go to the queen in order to help expand her palaces and expand her body size.

I'm not sure how a measure of democracy is by what your taxes go to.
Democracy is like 2 lions and a gazelle voting on what's for dinner. And If the gazelle doesn't like it, he should just move out of the Serengeti

Anyways,
2 scenarios:
1. Someone robs you at gunpoint to take the product of your labour, and he'll use that to buy guns and bullets to murder other human beings on this planet.
2. Someone robs you at gunpoint to take the product of your labour, and he'll use that to buy a bigger home and buy more donuts and chocolate.

I'd rather be robbed by the 2nd scenario. But that's just my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather NOT be robbed AT ALL.

A president really doesn't have much more power other than veto something without being controlled by the Congress especially anything he wants like new laws or something. A president is much like the 'Monarch' of the United Kingdom, nothing more than a figurehead except the Monarchs are more of a
long term thing wheras the President's time as a President is limited. Honestly Barack Obama is one of my least favorite presidents much like his predecessor.

Quoted for truth.

[Dipstik]

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather NOT be robbed AT ALL.

I agree. We should get together with a bunch of similarly situated people and form some sort of organization where we could provide for our mutual defense from getting robbed.

[TMI]

I agree. We should get together with a bunch of similarly situated people and form some sort of organization where we could provide for our mutual defense from getting robbed.

Quoted for truth.

Edit: However, what should one do if the robber prevents you from forming this DEFENSIVE organization and prevents you from OWNING the weaponry needed to fend of the robber? Another problem is that most of the robber's victims around you will defend this robber. In fact, they may even HELP the robber to either kill you, or throw you into a cage.

[Dipstik]

I'm only saying that your pessimism with "democracy" is really only a complaint against the way it's been used. As they say, ours is the worst political system out there except for everything else that's ever been tried. The people who want to abandon the Republic love watching people complain about "the system." Wait until you see what replaces it.

[TMI]

Perhaps you're right about the fear of what replaces it.

Perhaps humanity isn't ready to organize without the threat of violence.

I am optimistic that we should be able to put tar on the surface of this planet without pointing guns at each other.


Edit: Without slaves, who will pick the cotton? I would dare to suggest, that if there is a product or service, that can only exist by the threat of force or coercion, then maybe that product or service shouldn't exist.

[Dipstik]

Humanity organizes FOR the threat of violence. As long as you presume the fact that there are bad people in the world, you have three options: 1) Never interact with another human being, 2) Might makes right, and 3) A system of agreed upon rules with enforcement handled by some form of government. The first option is impossible, and it's been almost universally accepted that the third option is preferable to the second. We're really only talking about who gets to decide on the rules and control the enforcement mechanisms.

[TMI]

If feel like there must be more than 3 options. At least, an option that doesn't violate the Non-Aggression Principle, that it is always unethical to threaten violence/force or coercion against peaceful ppl. I'm sure there must be. This option would go against your option 1 (never interact with another human). I know that I personally interact with humans around me, without threatening them with violence.

The violation of the NAP might be my own bias of my comfortableness at such a notion. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity.

btw, I certainly do understand that statements that contain ALWAYS or NEVER, should be looked at with much skepticism.

Maybe there are products or services that justly exist, that can only be brought about by threatening violence/force, 2 of which may be justice, and giving money to the poor.

But idk, I'm still uncomfortable with it, and I'm sure there must be a more peaceful way.