If anybody actually reads this, I'm assuming it will degenerate quickly. Still, I was hoping to hear from people who are going to vote for Romney, and the reasons they are doing it.
I'm biased. I'm a huge fan of Obama. From my liberal perspective, I get the impression that people who are voting Romney are doing so not because they like his policies, but because they don't like Obama. If they don't fall into the anti-Obama category, I feel like his supporters agree with his social agenda of being pro-life, anti gay marriage, and generally religious and Christian.
The economy seems to be the #1 issue in every voters mind, on both sides. In a nutshell, I see this: Obama wants to raise money by increasing taxes for the very wealthy. Romney wants to raise money by cutting the budgets of pretty much every federal program outside of defense, medicare, and social security.
Am I taking crazy pills? Does half of the country really want to cut 40% out of the budgets of education, transportation, postal service, Pell grants, climate and energy research, and every other positive program the government runs just to avoid raising taxes, slightly, on people who own multiple houses?
I'm also blown away with the arguments against Obamacare. Romney fucking implemented it in his state while governor. How the hell can people be against Obamacare and for Romney? He created the working model!
I guess I just feel that Obama's policies are logical, practical approaches to improving life for the greatest number of people. I feel that Romney's entire campaign relies not on offering any solutions, but pointing out that Obama is a failure, simply because he hasn't solved every problem that exists in the country. Somehow I doubt Romney will fare any better, especially seeing as how little he as offered in terms of any kind of plan on virtually every issue he will face.
To end with, here is a small list of things off the top of my head that Obama has done in the last four years that has made me proud to have voted for him.
-Obamacare -Bin Laden -Publicly supporting same sex marriage and repealed 'don't ask don't tell' -Publicly supported womens equality and signed Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act -Supports clean energy and raises fuel efficiency standards -Effectively ended the war in Iraq
Anyway, rant over. Can some Romney fans give me some of their reasons for why they will vote for him? I will try to be open minded, and I am genuinely curious.
On September 17 2012 10:44 Entirety wrote: I'll vote for Romney because I make $400,000 per year.
Tell me what you do and how you do it.
I think it was David Stockman who said that both both sides' plans are "fantasies". While I wouldn't be inclined to go that far, it's true that he has a point. Stockman basically says that we need to let the Bush tax cuts expire and also cut back on spending. This will likely put us into a deeper recession, but according to him, it's actually quite necessary because by now our options are very, very limited.
But overall I would prefer Obama as a candidate as well.
This is why I haven't signed up to be able to vote, I'm just not skilled enough to pick out the 1% that politicians say that isn't bullshit.
(trying to word this paragraph is hard) There are always valid rebuttals. A very simple one is women want equality yet I see none doing hard labor. [usually] Men build houses and women sell them (construction/reality). That is a valid argument against full equality.
But I know nothing so don't take it to heart (oh and I'm neutral on everything so get no ideas).
On September 17 2012 10:35 rogzardo wrote: If anybody actually reads this, I'm assuming it will degenerate quickly.
I'm biased. I'm a huge fan of Obama. From my liberal perspective, I get the impression that people who are voting Romney are doing so not because they like his policies, but because they don't like Obama.
On September 17 2012 10:35 rogzardo wrote: I'm also blown away with the arguments against Obamacare. Romney fucking implemented it in his state while governor. How the hell can people be against Obamacare and for Romney? He created the working model!
And on top of that, it worked really really well. Massachusetts loved having Romney as a governor because of it...
If you still think voting changes anything, and that at this point both parties haven't turned 100% corporate and the president is just a PR man of the country, well then, I've got some dehydrated water in a can to sell you.
However, that being said, Romney has made no appealing arguments as to why anyone would vote for him. I'm sure that if we separated his speeches from his persona, we would have a case for labeling him clinically insane, because nothing he says is consistent, and many things that he says contradict reality, mathematics and common sense. His stances change every state, every speech, and perhaps more than once a day!
At least Obama has kept some of the promises he made in 2008, and that's still preferable to living in a mormon/christian wild west with oil fountains and ayn rand statues fantasy world of Romney.
On September 17 2012 10:35 rogzardo wrote: To end with, here is a small list of things off the top of my head that Obama has done in the last four years that has made me proud to have voted for him.
-Obamacare -Bin Laden -Publicly supporting same sex marriage and repealed 'don't ask don't tell' -Publicly supported womens equality and signed Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act -Supports clean energy and raises fuel efficiency standards -Effectively ended the war in Iraq .
I'm not necessarily voting, but,
Bin Laden was going to happen had it been anyone else, he had nothing to do with that, that would be like giving Kennedy full responsibility for the bay of pigs, which was created in the Eisenhower presidency. Bin Laden had been a 12 year long affair.
Womens equality is happening no matter who is president, I can't think of any self-serving president who would not do that, besides, laws don't help something like that. Glass ceilings are not based on laws, but rather on the capitalist system.
Supports clean energy? Really? His policies on offshore drilling have not changed the game, and with fracking and other cheaper methods coming I can't see this as much of a pro for Obama.
Ending the War in Iraq is definitely a pro for him, but he did not do anything special to get us out of there, he just said wtf are we doing here, lets gtfo. This is definitely a pro though.
Also a lot of people do not agree with his Obama-care and the fact that the fiasco that was Obama care dropped his approval rating to less than 30%, after Osama his approval rating shot up. The fact is that Obama only cleaned up after a terrible second term in Bush after a not so bad 1st term (though people will dispute that). I can't really say too much is that awesome for him when he spent most of his time cleaning things up.
Actually Bush ended the war in Iraq when he signed the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. He really didn't have anything to do with killing Bin Laden either, all he did was sign the papers to allow our Seals to go in.
I don't like Romney nor Obama, this election is a wash in my eyes.
On September 17 2012 10:35 rogzardo wrote: To end with, here is a small list of things off the top of my head that Obama has done in the last four years that has made me proud to have voted for him.
-Obamacare -Bin Laden -Publicly supporting same sex marriage and repealed 'don't ask don't tell' -Publicly supported womens equality and signed Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act -Supports clean energy and raises fuel efficiency standards -Effectively ended the war in Iraq .
I'm not necessarily voting, but,
Bin Laden was going to happen had it been anyone else, he had nothing to do with that, that would be like giving Kennedy full responsibility for the bay of pigs, which was created in the Eisenhower presidency. Bin Laden had been a 12 year long affair.
Womens equality is happening no matter who is president, I can't think of any self-serving president who would not do that, besides, laws don't help something like that. Glass ceilings are not based on laws, but rather on the capitalist system.
Supports clean energy? Really? His policies on offshore drilling have not changed the game, and with fracking and other cheaper methods coming I can't see this as much of a pro for Obama.
Ending the War in Iraq is definitely a pro for him, but he did not do anything special to get us out of there, he just said wtf are we doing here, lets gtfo. This is definitely a pro though.
Also a lot of people do not agree with his Obama-care and the fact that the fiasco that was Obama care dropped his approval rating to less than 30%, after Osama his approval rating shot up. The fact is that Obama only cleaned up after a terrible second term in Bush after a not so bad 1st term (though people will dispute that). I can't really say too much is that awesome for him when he spent most of his time cleaning things up.
Obama has been a stronger supporter of women's rights than most. I agree that Bin Laden was inevitable, but I do not think that many, especially Romney, would support women's equality as much as he did.
Clean energy: Boosted fuel efficiency standards, by a large amount. Implemented 'cash for clunkers' program. Wind and solar power generation increased 71 and 40% from 2008 to 2010. Issued a loan guarantee for the first nuclear power plant in the US in decades. Funded weatherization of low-income houses to save on heating and cooling costs.
Obamacare allows about 33 million people to receive health insurance who don't currently have any. It gives small businesses tax credits if they provide health care for employees (and does NOT mandate they provide it, contrary to popular belief), and generally reduces the overall cost of health care. It is successful in Massachusetts, and most civilized countries.
This is all in the face of an extremely stubborn congress, and after the royal fuck up that was the Bush administration.
On September 17 2012 11:24 R0YAL wrote: Actually Bush ended the war in Iraq when he signed the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. He really didn't have anything to do with killing Bin Laden either, all he did was sign the papers to allow our Seals to go in.
I don't like Romney nor Obama, this election is a wash in my eyes.
He signed it, and even had a ceremony on an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of troops stayed in Iraq and kept dying every day until last January.
On September 17 2012 10:35 rogzardo wrote: To end with, here is a small list of things off the top of my head that Obama has done in the last four years that has made me proud to have voted for him.
-Obamacare -Bin Laden -Publicly supporting same sex marriage and repealed 'don't ask don't tell' -Publicly supported womens equality and signed Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act -Supports clean energy and raises fuel efficiency standards -Effectively ended the war in Iraq .
I'm not necessarily voting, but,
Bin Laden was going to happen had it been anyone else, he had nothing to do with that, that would be like giving Kennedy full responsibility for the bay of pigs, which was created in the Eisenhower presidency. Bin Laden had been a 12 year long affair.
Womens equality is happening no matter who is president, I can't think of any self-serving president who would not do that, besides, laws don't help something like that. Glass ceilings are not based on laws, but rather on the capitalist system.
Supports clean energy? Really? His policies on offshore drilling have not changed the game, and with fracking and other cheaper methods coming I can't see this as much of a pro for Obama.
Ending the War in Iraq is definitely a pro for him, but he did not do anything special to get us out of there, he just said wtf are we doing here, lets gtfo. This is definitely a pro though.
Also a lot of people do not agree with his Obama-care and the fact that the fiasco that was Obama care dropped his approval rating to less than 30%, after Osama his approval rating shot up. The fact is that Obama only cleaned up after a terrible second term in Bush after a not so bad 1st term (though people will dispute that). I can't really say too much is that awesome for him when he spent most of his time cleaning things up.
I'm sorry, but women's equality is not going to happen "no matter who is president." Romney is, after all, anti-abortion. He's basically set on taking away the rights of 50% of the population. When women are not allowed to decide what happens to their own bodies, then they can't be considered equal, simple as that.
It seems that a lot of the abortion debate gets caught up in this idea of "morality" and "personhood" (which is exactly what the "pro-life" camp aims for, since that is basically all they have going for them). People seem to forget that abortion is also about a woman's right to her own body. Well, fine then, we can play that morality game too: is it really "right" to force a woman to become a mother, effectively restricting her ability to do what she wants with her own body for nine months, against her will just because some people (incidentally, a lot of men in particular) feel like a bundle of cells in her uterus is a "person" (whatever the hell that is)?
If nothing else, that's why people should vote for Obama. They're both unappealing candidates, but where Obama is simply a weak, ineffectual president, Romney is ... well, intent on setting back equality by several decades. (Not even gonna touch the anti-gay stance or the rape comments.)
On September 17 2012 11:11 Sadistx wrote: If you still think voting changes anything, and that at this point both parties haven't turned 100% corporate and the president is just a PR man of the country, well then, I've got some dehydrated water in a can to sell you.
However, that being said, Romney has made no appealing arguments as to why anyone would vote for him. I'm sure that if we separated his speeches from his persona, we would have a case for labeling him clinically insane, because nothing he says is consistent, and many things that he says contradict reality, mathematics and common sense. His stances change every state, every speech, and perhaps more than once a day!
At least Obama has kept some of the promises he made in 2008, and that's still preferable to living in a mormon/christian wild west with oil fountains and ayn rand statues fantasy world of Romney.
Romney literally is a compulsive liar and his ability and insistence on doing so sickens me. He is neither an honest or transparent politician and a politician like him servers no place in a modern democracy.
Here is my favorite. One of Romneys spokespersons was on air at Fox News and she mentioned Romney's health care plan in Mass. and conservatives flip. They however, didn't get mad that Romney implemented and mandated health care plan, they were mad that she talked about it. Then they want to fire her for mentioning it, and not the guy who designed it.
lots of potential for an obama circlejerk here lol
im not voting for either because they both suck. im voting 3rd party because i don't identify with democrats or republicans.
i dunno about the reasons ppl are voting for romney but some of the criticisms i know ppl have of obama...drones killing innocents, patriot act, troop surges, ndaa, assassination of us citizen, drug war, farm bill, tarp.
there's other ideaological stuffs like big goverment, executive priveledge, "you didn't build that", regulation, money to public or private sector, spending, taxation etc
There's a whole lot of ignorant people out there who believe that Obama has done nothing the past 4 years except take vacations, play golf or basketball, increase the national debt, cut jobs, make friends with the Taliban, and generally be a liberal punching bag who would like nothing more than to turn America into a socialist state like Canada with their affordable national healthcare and all. They think along the lines of...if Obama hasn't done anything for America the last 4 years, what makes you think he will do any differently the next 4?
It's really hard to try to reason with people who don't listen to logic or look at the facts and are irrational and arrogant and blindly follow empty rhetoric (i.e., Romney).
Anyway, my prediction is Obama is going to win again. But, it will be a closer contest than 2008 with McCain, because 1) Romney isn't as old as McCain was, so people might think he would be more reliable or less temperamental. 2) People might actually think Ryan would make a good president, I mean even hardcore republicans never thought Palin was ever a viable presidential choice. 3) Some people are "tired" of Obama and his so-called "failed" policies.
That being said, there is a bit of dirt on squeaky clean Romney, such as his assets in foreign banks to evade taxes, his fortune, and the inconsistencies in his views. Republicans keep saying that they will bring something different and that Obama is a bad president, but they never say exactly what they would do if they went to the White House. That's because they themselves don't know what their policies would be, they just like to shout like children that the people in charge now are doing the wrong things and they would do the right things.
I don't follow politics very much (or at least until recently), but I'm still voting against Romney, because I think he's such an inconsistent and insincere person/politican. He constantly seems to contradict himself, and the fact that he seems to be part of that class of super rich people who, even after tax cuts, make 2 or 3 (or more, idk) times what I can, and that just doesn't sit right with me. I don't think Obama is a very good President, but you can at least relate to him, and he has kept some of his promises of 2008. At the end of it I think Obama is still a helluva lot better than Romney.
This is an essential question in many elections, but this one especially: are people voting based on "Which candidate better?" Or are they voting purely based on "How happy am I with the incumbent's performance?" The first option is a direct comparison between the two candidates, while the second is purely an evaluation of the incumbent's performance, and his opponent only needs to be vaguely competent.
Most people are of the opinion that if voters choose based on the "which candidate is better?" option, Obama is quite likely to win. If people are purely voting based on "How do I think Obama's been doing?" the election will be much closer. Because it's not just you that thinks people aren't supporting Romney, they're opposing Obama; that's pretty much the common opinion this cycle, and both candidates know it. Note that Romney's and Ryan's speeches don't tout Romney's record nearly as much as they emphasize criticizing Obama's; they want people thinking in terms of the latter question. Obama, for his part, is trying to bring up Romney's record as much as possible to shift people back in to the former camp.
So to answer the question: Romney, because he was the only even slightly viable Repubican candidate, and a lot of people hate Obama's presidency enough that they're willing to vote for just about anyone else.
Keep in mind that budget cuts and taxation business is in the (not so capable hands) of Congress. The president doesn't technically have any legislative powers. When they make those promises, they don't tell you that it's not actually up to them.and the most they can do is ask Congress to cooperate, and those guys will do whatever the fuck they want, won't they?
Anyway Romney is such a strange specimen and shows how far lobbyism has gotten. Rich people have used their huge influence to convince commoners to vote neo-con even though it's against their interests. There are a few reasons to vote for Romney, the first is you're rich and immoral with no social conscience, the second is you dislike Obama, but given how you think Romney would be better, your reasons are probably not too convincing.
The man has an extensive history of acquiring his fortune through morally questionable ways, sometimes ruining the lives and careers of others. Don't be suckers just because of your ridiculous "Free Market" ideals.
On September 17 2012 12:41 Blazinghand wrote: I've had good dialogue in it. If you don't try to put something in you'll never get any thing out.
Yeah....no.
Blazinghand has a point. There are posters who know what they're talking about. Not to mention you post in it anyway.
If you really think it's a complete and utter waste of your time to post in that thread, then just stay out. It would be conducive to your continued privilege to post on TL, in any event.
On September 17 2012 12:41 Blazinghand wrote: I've had good dialogue in it. If you don't try to put something in you'll never get any thing out.
Yeah....no.
Blazinghand has a point. There are posters who know what they're talking about. Not to mention you post in it anyway.
If you really think it's a complete and utter waste of your time to post in that thread, then just stay out. It would be conducive to your continued privilege to post on TL, in any event.
LOL I like the wording of your post ^^
It's funny being Canadian, because it would seem we care more about your politics than our own.
My question is: can a person ever be 100% satisfied with the government?
On September 17 2012 12:41 Blazinghand wrote: I've had good dialogue in it. If you don't try to put something in you'll never get any thing out.
Yeah....no.
Blazinghand has a point. There are posters who know what they're talking about. Not to mention you post in it anyway.
If you really think it's a complete and utter waste of your time to post in that thread, then just stay out. It would be conducive to your continued privilege to post on TL, in any event.
LOL I like the wording of your post ^^
It's funny being Canadian, because it would seem we care more about your politics than our own.
My question is: can a person ever be 100% satisfied with the government?
This thread's a pretty good snapshot of youth today. Someone asks for serious discussion on a serious issue, everyone pitches in but no one answers the question. Everyone wants their say but nobody has anything worth saying. First amendment rights in the hands of people who love to exercise it but do not understand its true value.
I wish I can pitch in, but I'm in the Obama camp... at the very least his rhetoric appeals to me more than Romney's and I want to see what he can do in the next four years.
On September 17 2012 10:35 rogzardo wrote: To end with, here is a small list of things off the top of my head that Obama has done in the last four years that has made me proud to have voted for him.
-Obamacare -Bin Laden -Publicly supporting same sex marriage and repealed 'don't ask don't tell' -Publicly supported womens equality and signed Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act -Supports clean energy and raises fuel efficiency standards -Effectively ended the war in Iraq .
I'm not necessarily voting, but, [list] [*]Bin Laden was going to happen had it been anyone else, he had nothing to do with that, that would be like giving Kennedy full responsibility for the bay of pigs, which was created in the Eisenhower presidency. Bin Laden had been a 12 year long affair.
When you're president, it's your fault. Sometimes that's a good thing.
On September 17 2012 19:15 Newbistic wrote: This thread's a pretty good snapshot of youth today. Someone asks for serious discussion on a serious issue, everyone pitches in but no one answers the question. Everyone wants their say but nobody has anything worth saying. First amendment rights in the hands of people who love to exercise it but do not understand its true value.
Today's youth is raised in an era of considerably less journalism than ever. It wouldn't seem like it, there's information everywhere, but 80-90% of it is generated by a small number of news sources then flung and reflected around the net (twitter, anyone?). The old pillars of the industry have eroded and left news stations at the mercy of their advertisers who wield this corporate interest extremely effectively. Furthermore, we've been raised during the emergence of the attack ad and simplified campaign messages. Why did this happen? Because, for the older generation, it worked. The politicians who used these tactics got elected. So we grow up media savvy, see through it, and become cynical about the whole system. In a typical 30 minute newscast, 10 is devoted to commercials. 6~7 each to sports and the god damn weather & traffic (seriously? the weather ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT), then 4 minutes for civic issues.
So politicians have to dumb down their messages even more, refine their talking points harder and pander to the media -- it's the only way they can be seen by their constituencies. C-span removes the right of congress to secrecy and disallows the intrinsic deliberation, debate and friction around issues which needs to take place for the result to be worth anything. Furthermore it can't do any justice to the complex voting and discussion system which takes place in Congress.
So we see more and more attack ads, more and more of the same messages and themes used by all politicians -- because that's what works. Media only focuses on conflict, winners and losers, and follows the narrative frame "look at the game these people are playing. It's dramatic, but you're helpless and this doesn't involve your interests. We'll just highlight different points of view from powerful people and set those as the full spectrum of inevitable outcomes." Not mentioned is how, to feed their families, these networks have to feed off this system. Because, you know, it's all that gets paid for. People aren't willing to pay for actual journalism since the internet (*fingers crossed* -- yet!) And everybody thinks journalists are jackasses even though they're the ones who keep the gov't clean.
Don't ever think there aren't smart people in the government who want to make our country better. There are, and a lot of them. But they have to represent their constituencies and remain loosely true to the vows they ran on. If they suck, it's our fault. There's much more I can expand on but, in short, it's everybody's fault but nobody in particular.
The reality we're at now is that democracy is completely malnourished and sick from lack of participation. But because it's sick and not working the way we don't want to feed it. Or, in my generation's case, if we're part of the silent majority who want to participate despite the rampant cynicism ripping hope from people, we don't know how to participate effectively because they don't teach you that shit in school or anywhere unless you're born into it.
Just remember this, cynicism is cancer. Every time you devalue your importance to the democratic process it becomes sicker. So when that first romney supporter posts, before you type a response you have to try and identify with and understand his, and really think about the merits. which group of people share his pov? why? do you actually? why or why not? what group of people share your interests? Wish I could get more specific.
So, it's your choice, but stop not participating. I've had a policy where I don't post things I wouldn't/haven't said to people irl for a while now. So I can say with full authority that if you're not happy with something and you're not trying to change it or talk about it, I don't respect your point of view and you're a useless person.
I can also tell you we still have enough time from terminal condition. I hope we cure the cancer.
On September 17 2012 12:57 Djzapz wrote: Anyway Romney is such a strange specimen and shows how far lobbyism has gotten. Rich people have used their huge influence to convince commoners to vote neo-con even though it's against their interests. There are a few reasons to vote for Romney, the first is you're rich and immoral with no social conscience, the second is you dislike Obama, but given how you think Romney would be better, your reasons are probably not too convincing.
The man has an extensive history of acquiring his fortune through morally questionable ways, sometimes ruining the lives and careers of others. Don't be suckers just because of your ridiculous "Free Market" ideals.
The media. They were hamstrung to the ground by the corporations, and now they're getting hit over the head by everyone else!
On September 17 2012 21:14 B.I.G. wrote: As an outsider, I'm still amazed you guys have only two parties to choose from..
That is an unfortunate side effect of the way our election system is designed. Any given election is winner-takes-all, which is a massive reason to not vote for anyone who you don't think has a reasonable chance at winning. It's not that we don't have more than two parties, because we do - green, libertarian, workers', etc., but they often share candidates with the Democrats or Republicans on the big tickets, because third party candidates don't work. In fact, voting for a third-party candidate in the US usually means that it's more likely your least preferred candidate will win. For example, say you vote for the Green Party this election, and Obama loses your state by one vote, and therefore the election. I can reasonable say that someone who votes Green probably would prefer Obama to Romney, but Romney won, because people who would have voted Obama in a true 2-party election voted for someone else. Take the 2000 Presidential elections, where Bush won Florida (and thus the election) by 537 votes. That year, a staggering 2,882,000 (out of around 100,000,000 votes cast, that is, about 2% of the vote) people voted Green party. If even 600 of those people were in Florida and had voted for Gore, Gore would have won.
he was worth considering early on because he seemed to be a moderate and because i thought obama's first term was average enough that you'd have to at least see what your other option is.
however, he has proven himself to be a huge vote whore depending whichever way the wind blows any given day. he has steadily gone further towards the neo con religious right, and paul ryan is a fucking nutcase, which is what really sealed the deal for me
I'm probably going to vote Romney because of one simple concept. He is a businessman.
No matter how you slice the pie, a country is basically a business. I'm hoping he can do whatever business-stuff he needs too in order to fix our economy. Because if our economy isn't fixed, it's not going to be much longer that any of this shit even matters.
Okay, but there are also bad things in 4 years that could make one dissatisfied with Obama.
5T more debt(+ the infamous off sheets liabilities US is known for) Household incomes smaller than 4 years ago Economy stagnant or in slight real recession the entire time(given how low the official inflation numbers are compared to real increase expenses) Joblessness RISING - the unemployment number is down but participation rate is ALSO DOWN, people are giving up and leaving the labor force Reckless monetary policy(huge monetization) putting govt in a difficult position when they are pressurised into stopping inflation
On September 18 2012 00:25 brolaf wrote: Okay, but there are also bad things in 4 years that could make one dissatisfied with Obama.
5T more debt Household incomes smaller than 4 years ago Economy stagnant or in slight real recession the entire time(given how low the official inflation numbers are compared to real expenses) Joblessness RISING - the unemployment number is down but participation rate is ALSO DOWN, people are giving up and leaving the labor force
These are good points. What will Romney do to improve them?
On September 18 2012 00:25 brolaf wrote: Okay, but there are also bad things in 4 years that could make one dissatisfied with Obama.
5T more debt(+ the infamous off sheets liabilities US is known for) Household incomes smaller than 4 years ago Economy stagnant or in slight real recession the entire time(given how low the official inflation numbers are compared to real increase expenses) Joblessness RISING - the unemployment number is down but participation rate is ALSO DOWN, people are giving up and leaving the labor force Reckless monetary policy(huge monetization) putting govt in a difficult position when they are pressurised into stopping inflation
You do realize that Obama's powers are executive, not legislative. As such, Congress is responsible for most of those perceived shortcomings, as Obama's role in those matters is largely advisory, although he can pull some strings and hope for the best.
That's not to say he did a great job, but if we give it an honest look rather than partisan bullshit, we have to think about the fact that we can't compare the path that Obama's administration took with "the path not taken" for which we have no data (as it didn't happen, obviously). So, Obama was given very limited control of the US's economic policies at the beginning of a major economic crisis, and just like in every recession, unemployment goes up and in keynesian economies the debt goes up too.
Now you can look at that and say, look the debt is up and unemployment is up therefore its bad. Or, you can put on your critical thinker hat and say "well we don't know shit". Times are tough because it's a recession, so we can reasonably expect to get worse (and thus people will complain regardless). The question is, how much worse? So who's to say that things aren't better now than they would otherwise have been?
The rotten economy was left by the previous administration (Again, not Bush specifically - the decisions taken in Congress had a huge impact). To expect unemployment to be back after 4 years is probably quite crazy. And to put the blame on the executive branch of the government is just odd.
On September 18 2012 00:25 brolaf wrote: Okay, but there are also bad things in 4 years that could make one dissatisfied with Obama.
5T more debt(+ the infamous off sheets liabilities US is known for) Household incomes smaller than 4 years ago Economy stagnant or in slight real recession the entire time(given how low the official inflation numbers are compared to real increase expenses) Joblessness RISING - the unemployment number is down but participation rate is ALSO DOWN, people are giving up and leaving the labor force Reckless monetary policy(huge monetization) putting govt in a difficult position when they are pressurised into stopping inflation
You do realize that Obama's powers are executive, not legislative. As such, Congress is responsible for most of those perceived shortcomings, as Obama's role in those matters is largely advisory, although he can pull some strings and hope for the best.
That's not to say he did a great job, but if we give it an honest look rather than partisan bullshit, we have to think about the fact that we can't compare the path that Obama's administration took with "the path not taken" for which we have no data (as it didn't happen, obviously). So, Obama was given very limited control of the US's economic policies at the beginning of a major economic crisis, and just like in every recession, unemployment goes up and in keynesian economies the debt goes up too.
Now you can look at that and say, look the debt is up and unemployment is up therefore its bad. Or, you can put on your critical thinker hat and say "well we don't know shit". Times are tough because it's a recession, so we can reasonably expect to get worse (and thus people will complain regardless). The question is, how much worse? So who's to say that things aren't better now than they would otherwise have been?
The rotten economy was left by the previous administration (Again, not Bush specifically - the decisions taken in Congress had a huge impact). To expect unemployment to be back after 4 years is probably quite crazy. And to put the blame on the executive branch of the government is just odd.
The unemployment isnt even going down, it is stagnating(when you look at the decreasing participation rate) while inflation is steadily picking up. I dare say there is no recovery. Given a more realisting GDP deflator it is been in stagnation/deflation the entire time which is what you would expect when you look at the dreadful labor market.
On September 18 2012 00:25 brolaf wrote: Okay, but there are also bad things in 4 years that could make one dissatisfied with Obama.
5T more debt(+ the infamous off sheets liabilities US is known for) Household incomes smaller than 4 years ago Economy stagnant or in slight real recession the entire time(given how low the official inflation numbers are compared to real increase expenses) Joblessness RISING - the unemployment number is down but participation rate is ALSO DOWN, people are giving up and leaving the labor force Reckless monetary policy(huge monetization) putting govt in a difficult position when they are pressurised into stopping inflation
You do realize that Obama's powers are executive, not legislative. As such, Congress is responsible for most of those perceived shortcomings, as Obama's role in those matters is largely advisory, although he can pull some strings and hope for the best.
That's not to say he did a great job, but if we give it an honest look rather than partisan bullshit, we have to think about the fact that we can't compare the path that Obama's administration took with "the path not taken" for which we have no data (as it didn't happen, obviously). So, Obama was given very limited control of the US's economic policies at the beginning of a major economic crisis, and just like in every recession, unemployment goes up and in keynesian economies the debt goes up too.
Now you can look at that and say, look the debt is up and unemployment is up therefore its bad. Or, you can put on your critical thinker hat and say "well we don't know shit". Times are tough because it's a recession, so we can reasonably expect to get worse (and thus people will complain regardless). The question is, how much worse? So who's to say that things aren't better now than they would otherwise have been?
The rotten economy was left by the previous administration (Again, not Bush specifically - the decisions taken in Congress had a huge impact). To expect unemployment to be back after 4 years is probably quite crazy. And to put the blame on the executive branch of the government is just odd.
The unemployment isnt even going down, it is stagnating(when you look at the decreasing participation rate) while inflation is steadily picking up. I dare say there is no recovery. Given a more realisting GDP deflator it is been in stagnation/deflation the entire time which is what you would expect when you look at the dreadful labor market.
Who's to say unemployment couldn't be 12% (figure picked at random). I'm not saying things were handled perfectly at all, but come on. People need to have a little modesty too.
On September 17 2012 19:15 Newbistic wrote: This thread's a pretty good snapshot of youth today. Someone asks for serious discussion on a serious issue, everyone pitches in but no one answers the question. Everyone wants their say but nobody has anything worth saying. First amendment rights in the hands of people who love to exercise it but do not understand its true value.
Today's youth is raised in an era of considerably less journalism than ever. It wouldn't seem like it, there's information everywhere, but 80-90% of it is generated by a small number of news sources then flung and reflected around the net (twitter, anyone?). The old pillars of the industry have eroded and left news stations at the mercy of their advertisers who wield this corporate interest extremely effectively. Furthermore, we've been raised during the emergence of the attack ad and simplified campaign messages. Why did this happen? Because, for the older generation, it worked. The politicians who used these tactics got elected. So we grow up media savvy, see through it, and become cynical about the whole system. In a typical 30 minute newscast, 10 is devoted to commercials. 6~7 each to sports and the god damn weather & traffic (seriously? the weather ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT), then 4 minutes for civic issues.
So politicians have to dumb down their messages even more, refine their talking points harder and pander to the media -- it's the only way they can be seen by their constituencies. C-span removes the right of congress to secrecy and disallows the intrinsic deliberation, debate and friction around issues which needs to take place for the result to be worth anything. Furthermore it can't do any justice to the complex voting and discussion system which takes place in Congress.
So we see more and more attack ads, more and more of the same messages and themes used by all politicians -- because that's what works. Media only focuses on conflict, winners and losers, and follows the narrative frame "look at the game these people are playing. It's dramatic, but you're helpless and this doesn't involve your interests. We'll just highlight different points of view from powerful people and set those as the full spectrum of inevitable outcomes." Not mentioned is how, to feed their families, these networks have to feed off this system. Because, you know, it's all that gets paid for. People aren't willing to pay for actual journalism since the internet (*fingers crossed* -- yet!) And everybody thinks journalists are jackasses even though they're the ones who keep the gov't clean.
Don't ever think there aren't smart people in the government who want to make our country better. There are, and a lot of them. But they have to represent their constituencies and remain loosely true to the vows they ran on. If they suck, it's our fault. There's much more I can expand on but, in short, it's everybody's fault but nobody in particular.
The reality we're at now is that democracy is completely malnourished and sick from lack of participation. But because it's sick and not working the way we don't want to feed it. Or, in my generation's case, if we're part of the silent majority who want to participate despite the rampant cynicism ripping hope from people, we don't know how to participate effectively because they don't teach you that shit in school or anywhere unless you're born into it.
Just remember this, cynicism is cancer. Every time you devalue your importance to the democratic process it becomes sicker. So when that first romney supporter posts, before you type a response you have to try and identify with and understand his, and really think about the merits. which group of people share his pov? why? do you actually? why or why not? what group of people share your interests? Wish I could get more specific.
So, it's your choice, but stop not participating. I've had a policy where I don't post things I wouldn't/haven't said to people irl for a while now. So I can say with full authority that if you're not happy with something and you're not trying to change it or talk about it, I don't respect your point of view and you're a useless person.
I can also tell you we still have enough time from terminal condition. I hope we cure the cancer.
On September 17 2012 10:58 iTzSnypah wrote: This is why I haven't signed up to be able to vote, I'm just not skilled enough to pick out the 1% that politicians say that isn't bullshit.
I have thought this way before as well, but the thing is, as little as someone may know about politics, there are millions of other citizens out there who know even less and will still be voting. So I will be voting this fall on who I think is the best nominee, even if I don't know every little aspect of each of their campaigns. Don't get me wrong, I won't go in to the voting booth completely ignorant, but I won't go in the most knowledgeable either.
On September 17 2012 10:58 iTzSnypah wrote: This is why I haven't signed up to be able to vote, I'm just not skilled enough to pick out the 1% that politicians say that isn't bullshit.
I have thought this way before as well, but the thing is, as little as someone may know about politics, there are millions of other citizens out there who know even less and will still be voting. So I will be voting this fall on who I think is the best nominee, even if I don't know every little aspect of each of their campaigns. Don't get me wrong, I won't go in to the voting booth completely ignorant, but I won't go in the most knowledgeable either.
That's very true. You can be sure that many will vote based on skin color or daddy's opinion.
On September 19 2012 07:42 rogzardo wrote: It's a blog, and my blog at that. No clean up necessary. If no one here can make any good points about Romney, that's telling.
Well, the Team Liquid user base is generally on the liberal side, so I wouldn't expect them to say good things about Romney anyway.
Something VERY minor here. 3 Pages in but I have to say that you cannot credit Obama with Bin Laden....That op goes 100% to the military and the intelligence community that put the whole thing together. That's like me crediting myself with killing a chicken today so I could have some wicked good Stir Fry. But that's semantics.
Can't say who I'll vote for yet. I need to see some debates and read the platforms (for all the good that will do me; because those get thrown out the window once elected).
On September 17 2012 11:11 Sadistx wrote: If you still think voting changes anything, and that at this point both parties haven't turned 100% corporate and the president is just a PR man of the country, well then, I've got some dehydrated water in a can to sell you.
This. Although if forced to choose between Romney or Obama i would still probably choose Obama because he seems less vocally pro-Israel and the way things are looking an Israeli strike on Iran is quite possible within the next couple of years.So if the US is less vocal in it's support of such an attack then possibly Israel will not undertake such an action.
Of course i would vote Libertarian or other third party before voting one of the two big parties so these hypotheticals are academic.
A question for the true Obamaheads out there though , has he actually given a detailed explanation why he broke his promise to close down guantanamo bay?
On September 17 2012 21:14 B.I.G. wrote: As an outsider, I'm still amazed you guys have only two parties to choose from..
That is an unfortunate side effect of the way our election system is designed. Any given election is winner-takes-all, which is a massive reason to not vote for anyone who you don't think has a reasonable chance at winning. It's not that we don't have more than two parties, because we do - green, libertarian, workers', etc., but they often share candidates with the Democrats or Republicans on the big tickets, because third party candidates don't work. In fact, voting for a third-party candidate in the US usually means that it's more likely your least preferred candidate will win.
Perot was leading in the polls back in 1992 i think it was but he pulled out and then re-entered later.It is possible he may have been pressured or blackmailed to leave the race that has always been my feeling on the matter.If he didn't pull out he may very well have won and personally i think the US would have been better off had he been in instead of the two big parties.
On September 17 2012 11:11 Sadistx wrote: If you still think voting changes anything, and that at this point both parties haven't turned 100% corporate and the president is just a PR man of the country, well then, I've got some dehydrated water in a can to sell you.
This. Although if forced to choose between Romney or Obama i would still probably choose Obama because he seems less vocally pro-Israel and the way things are looking an Israeli strike on Iran is quite possible within the next couple of years.So if the US is less vocal in it's support of such an attack then possibly Israel will not undertake such an action.
Of course i would vote Libertarian or other third party before voting one of the two big parties so these hypotheticals are academic.
A question for the true Obamaheads out there though , has he actually given a detailed explanation why he broke his promise to close down guantanamo bay?
The idea that both parties are exactly the same is ridiculous. It's really annoying to see hipsters from the left think like that, and it's sad that they won't vote because they're generally otherwise pretty decent ideologically. I wrote a big post somewhere about this and it's sad to see people being so deluded. And the worst part is, THEY think we're the deluded ones. Now I'll make a concession - both parties are similar in ways (they both have corruption, a lot of incompetents, they both accept some of the current US policies, the "core" of the US perhaps...)
However both parties do things extremely differently, when they're not busy being buried in filibusters. You'd have to be incredibly deluded not to see that, while the corporate world DOES have an important effect on the policies of both parties, there are still major differences between the parties. There are tangible differences that basement dwellers don't hear about because they don't even read the news and they have their retarded opinions about how both parties are the same because none of them have given them a new xbox.
*Taxes: Depending on who you vote for, the tax code can and WILL change, a lot. Neckbeards don't know this because of their lack of financial responsibilities. *Budget: The budget of the US changes DRAMATICALLY depending on who's elected. The focus is different. Neckbeards don't know this because they're busy thinking about how bad the government is. Do you think this is minor? Billions of dollars are moved all over the place. People lose jobs, others get jobs - sometimes jobs are lost, other times jobs are gained. This is huge, and lives are changed completely by this. Just because it's not you doesn't mean the US is not affected. *Moral stuff: Ask homosexuals and blacks. They'll tell you that some governments work much harder to provoke social change. I'll use an example that I've actually studied: Research done by my uni showed that riot police is a LOT more aggressive under a conservative government than it is under a liberal government. Similar things happen in the US depending on who's in charge. Think about the abortion debate, gay marriage, capital punishment to name a few (out of hundreds). *International stuff: Do you honestly think that Bush and Obama's administration have the same sort of behavior when it comes down to wars, globalization/protectionism, etc. *Economic policies: Night and fucking day. Do you think the republicans would have handled the recession in the same way? Come on! *Environmental policies: [More obvious stuff that YOU KNOW ABOUT] *Military: Need I say anything? *Laws: Tough on crime stuff from Republicans, looser drug laws from Democrats... *So much other shit
Can you just outright deny all that shit?
"Oh it's all the same". No - you only think that because it's a popular opinion to have. AGAIN, the reason why people think that is because the two party indeed share some similarities and they do both suffer from corruption. That is not to say that they are the same, or entirely controlled by corporations. Throw your conspiracy theorist hat of "they're 100% the same" and put on your critical thinking hat. Things are clearer when you allow your world view not to be a simpleton's black and white conception. There's a point at which you're so pessimistic about something that you end up being just wrong. I think people feel like they're pretty cool when they feel like they're onto something grand like "it's all the same DUDE I'm 16 and I'm totally into their schemes dude".
And just to make things clear, I understand the overarching idea behind that ridiculous idea that both parties are the same. Like I said in that post, there are major problems with the bipartisan system, and a lack of choice. There's also a perception that shit doesn't get done sometimes when the parties constantly block each other. There ARE big problems with the US political system. But "both parties are the exact same" is not true - it's an extrapolation of reality at best. Educate yourselves and go find out what the real problems are.
Lastly, you want to know why Obama didn't close Guantanamo? Why don't you read instead of asking here? You've undoubtedly heard about checks and balances: Obama doesn't have a "close Guantanamo" button, he's not a dictator who speaks orders and things get done. He's got the executive power, which means that he doesn't get to de-fund Guantanamo. Congress has to do that. They didn't want to. Also, Congress had to fund the new prison slots that Guantanamo's prisoners would occupy in the continental US. They didn't want to. On top of that, the Governors who would have had to host those prisoners, they didn't want to have them. Result: Guantanamo is funded, prisoners have no where to go. Guantanamo cannot be closed unless the prisoners go free. (Not happening). That's not solely the president's fault, that's Congress's. And given fresh blood, it could end up going through - but probably not under a neo-con POS.
I don't believe there is any smart human being on this forums, that would vote for Romney or any delusional republican. They are just filled with non-sense, no logic and hate against different and poor people. Seriously.
Lastly, you want to know why Obama didn't close Guantanamo? Why don't you read instead of asking here? You've undoubtedly heard about checks and balances: Obama doesn't have a "close Guantanamo" button, he's not a dictator who speaks orders and things get done. He's got the executive power, which means that he doesn't get to de-fund Guantanamo. Congress has to do that. They didn't want to. Also, Congress had to fund the new prison slots that Guantanamo's prisoners would occupy in the continental US. They didn't want to.
When did congress vote to support the military operations in Libya?
Both parties say one thing and do another , usually to the benefit of big banks and the military industrial complex.Here is a video of Dick Cheney from 1994 on why a land invasion into Iraq would be a bad idea.
Remind me how many people in the financial world have been jailed since the 2008 financial crisis.Don't try and tell me Bernie Madoff was the only guy doing dodgy deals , he was small fry.You really believe all the occupy stuff and how the democrats support that? Go do some research on how many of Obamas advisors were former Wall St then come back to me.Remember that Clinton was the one who repealed Glass-Steagal and set the financial scam into high gear back in 1999.The 1% owe the democrats big time for that move.Remember just because i am criticising the Democrats now does not mean i support the mainstream Republican party in any way.
Like I said, both parties have corruption and fraud, and both parties are partially controlled by corporate interests (although for the most part, mostly indirectly).
I don't know how your post supports the idea that they're both the same. They both have major failings and in fact I do believe that both parties suck to varying degrees. But they're not the same.
So to reiterate, whoever you vote for, you'll have corruption and fraud, but other things will change. Sometimes dramatically.
On September 19 2012 07:42 rogzardo wrote: It's a blog, and my blog at that. No clean up necessary. If no one here can make any good points about Romney, that's telling.
I stopped taking you seriously as soon as you said this.
You can't be "genuinely" trying to learn about the other side and keep having this mentality.
1. This forum board is international and "young" so it's going to be heavily liberal to begin with. 2. "any good points" is so vague; someone can make a "good point" and it wouldn't be "good" to you, so what's the point?
EPT
