|
|
On October 30 2012 04:55 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:
^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? I guarantee you national security leaks will happen under Romney as well. If that's one of your main reasons to vote for Romney, you're deceiving yourself.
I can't think of any other politician that intentionally leaked stuff like Obama did. Not even Clinton.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:55 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:52 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Lol at BluePanther acting surprised he's voting Romney. I actually had no intention to vote for him 3 months ago, so yeah, I am a little. I was thinking Obama/Johnson, then Romney.
^ See, xDaunt, people did change their minds.
On October 30 2012 04:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:55 Adila wrote:On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:
^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? I guarantee you national security leaks will happen under Romney as well. If that's one of your main reasons to vote for Romney, you're deceiving yourself. I can't think of any other politician that intentionally leaked stuff like Obama did. Not even Clinton.
I don't have proof but leaking stories has always been a political tool. Sometimes you do it to gauge initial response, and at times you do it so you don't shock the world with one big announcement.
iirc I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger did it as well here.
|
On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:
^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him.
You said that these national security issues "appeared" to be political, leaving you open from a rhetorical standpoint to the possibility that they are instead different in nature. You then said that that is where you draw the line. That's all. Appearances are indeed quite seductive.
|
On October 30 2012 04:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:55 Adila wrote:On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:
^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? I guarantee you national security leaks will happen under Romney as well. If that's one of your main reasons to vote for Romney, you're deceiving yourself. I can't think of any other politician that intentionally leaked stuff like Obama did. Not even Clinton.
W. Bush and the whole build-up to the Iraq War?
|
On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 02:51 oneofthem wrote:absolute poverty in the u.s. once again with credible, leading study on the matter. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=cpr"The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor." this is while... "The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent" and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones. "One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated" a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening. This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living.
True, though different parts of the world have different definitions of absolute poverty. That includes cost of living adjustments.
|
On October 30 2012 04:55 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:52 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Lol at BluePanther acting surprised he's voting Romney. I actually had no intention to vote for him 3 months ago, so yeah, I am a little. I was thinking Obama/Johnson, then Romney.
You're pro-life, support voter ID laws, do not believe the POTUS should protect jobs, and have consistently praised/defended Romney while doing the opposite regarding Obama.
So.... yeah, I think its funny you've surprised yourself.
|
On October 30 2012 04:55 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:
^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? I guarantee you national security leaks will happen under Romney as well. If that's one of your main reasons to vote for Romney, you're deceiving yourself.
Maybe, Maybe not.
I've always preferred Romney's domestic policy to Obama's. I prefer Obama on foreign policy 10x over though.
I liked Obama because I think he's very good with international politics and statesmanship. I thought he handled the wars, the Arab Spring, and the resulting incidents very well. In practice, that's 90% of the effective work a President does anyways. However, I've been in the military; I cannot justify a superior compromising that work for political gain (and while it may not have been him, it was someone very close to him that knowingly leaked it for his benefit). It's a red flag. I'm generally a malleable person. I don't get offended by much. But when something crosses the line, I get very upset at it. That issue was him crossing the line for me.
Let me clarify. My vote is a vote against Obama, not for Romney. But I chose Romney over Johnson because I think he has the potential to be a good President, despite my disagreements on a lot of his social and foreign stances.
|
On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 02:51 oneofthem wrote:absolute poverty in the u.s. once again with credible, leading study on the matter. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=cpr"The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor." this is while... "The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent" and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones. "One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated" a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening. This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living.
Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices.
Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale.
|
On October 30 2012 04:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:
^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? Show nested quote +However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. You said that these national security issues "appeared" to be political, leaving you open from a rhetorical standpoint to the possibility that they are instead different in nature. You then said that that is where you draw the line. That's all. Appearances are indeed quite seductive.
I don't see how it could "appear" any other way but political...isn't "Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive" a significant boost for his campaign? Especially to those who think he lacks a backbone in tackling military operations.
|
On October 30 2012 04:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:55 Adila wrote:On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:
^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? I guarantee you national security leaks will happen under Romney as well. If that's one of your main reasons to vote for Romney, you're deceiving yourself. I can't think of any other politician that intentionally leaked stuff like Obama did. Not even Clinton.
Bush
That took almost 3 full minutes of googling. Intelligence leaks are run of the mill under pretty much all presidents, they're used strategically when needed. They're not always for internal political gain either: claiming Stuxnet was partially american is not just domestic policy, it is international also.
|
On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them.
I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue.
Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was.
|
On October 30 2012 05:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:55 Adila wrote:On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:
^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? I guarantee you national security leaks will happen under Romney as well. If that's one of your main reasons to vote for Romney, you're deceiving yourself. Maybe, Maybe not. I've always preferred Romney's domestic policy to Obama's. I prefer Obama on foreign policy 10x over though. I liked Obama because I think he's very good with international politics and statesmanship. I thought he handled the wars, the Arab Spring, and the resulting incidents very well. In practice, that's 90% of the effective work a President does anyways. However, I've been in the military; I cannot justify a superior compromising that work for political gain (and while it may not have been him, it was someone very close to him that knowingly leaked it for his benefit). It's a red flag. I'm generally a malleable person. I don't get offended by much. But when something crosses the line, I get very upset at it. That issue was him crossing the line for me. Let me clarify. My vote is a vote against Obama, not for Romney. But I chose Romney over Johnson because I think he has the potential to be a good President, despite my disagreements on a lot of his social and foreign stances.
Isn't the area where the president has the most influence foreign policy?
Sounds to me like you're nitpicking something to convince yourself that you're more objective than you really are.
|
On October 30 2012 05:01 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:55 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:52 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Lol at BluePanther acting surprised he's voting Romney. I actually had no intention to vote for him 3 months ago, so yeah, I am a little. I was thinking Obama/Johnson, then Romney. You're pro-life, support voter ID laws, do not believe the POTUS should protect jobs, and have consistently praised/defended Romney while doing the opposite regarding Obama. So.... yeah, I think its funny you've surprised yourself.
I'm not pro-life at all. I support voter ID laws on a basis of fairness. I don't think it's POTUS job to protect jobs (it's a constitutional-based objection). I've mostly defended Romney in this thread on a devil's advocate basis. There is so much vitriol towards him, I tried to give a voice of reason to his camp to balance the discussion out a bit. He's not nearly as bad of a choice as liberals and the left attempt to make him out to be. He's not some scumbag rich dude who wants to suck the blood of newborns like he's made out to be.
I confess, I lean republican and work on a republican campaign. That doesn't mean I'm a die-hard reddie. I am just someone who feels moderates should be more involved to temper the discussions and I happen to lean to the red side. That said, I know for a fact I've voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my lifetime.
|
On October 30 2012 05:03 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue. Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was.
Except for his inability to keep his story straight about any of his policies.
Don't get me started on the fact that foreign relations under Romney would be a joke. Look at his trip to the Olympics and how well that went.
|
On October 30 2012 05:02 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:56 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2012 04:55 Adila wrote:On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:
^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? I guarantee you national security leaks will happen under Romney as well. If that's one of your main reasons to vote for Romney, you're deceiving yourself. I can't think of any other politician that intentionally leaked stuff like Obama did. Not even Clinton. BushThat took almost 3 full minutes of googling. Intelligence leaks are run of the mill under pretty much all presidents, they're used strategically when needed. They're not always for internal political gain either: claiming Stuxnet was partially american is not just domestic policy, it is international also.
There is no policy to be gained from that. None whatsoever. Obama wasn't justifying his actions, but exposing military capabilities (which is a big nono). The Bush thing that was linked is questionable in this regard. I'm not going to defend him on it, but I also won't condemn him right now without knowledge of what exactly was leaked.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 02:51 oneofthem wrote:absolute poverty in the u.s. once again with credible, leading study on the matter. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=cpr"The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor." this is while... "The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent" and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones. "One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated" a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening. This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices. Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale.
Well, if we're going to talk about Europe, lots of countries in Western Europe/Scandinavia also have higher GDP-per-capita per purchasing power than America, higher median incomes, and have much more efficient modes of public transportation than the U.S. so, the price of fuel is a weird comparison especially if you include gas taxes. Food prices vary wildly from country-to-country, so does housing, so does the cost of water, electricity, etc.
This is what I'm saying: in terms of absolute poverty, you can't just say, "Oh, well, he'd be rich in another country!" What matters is if they're able to afford their very essential needs solely on their earned income in their particular area. The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income.
|
On October 30 2012 05:06 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:01 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:55 Adila wrote:On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:
^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? I guarantee you national security leaks will happen under Romney as well. If that's one of your main reasons to vote for Romney, you're deceiving yourself. Maybe, Maybe not. I've always preferred Romney's domestic policy to Obama's. I prefer Obama on foreign policy 10x over though. I liked Obama because I think he's very good with international politics and statesmanship. I thought he handled the wars, the Arab Spring, and the resulting incidents very well. In practice, that's 90% of the effective work a President does anyways. However, I've been in the military; I cannot justify a superior compromising that work for political gain (and while it may not have been him, it was someone very close to him that knowingly leaked it for his benefit). It's a red flag. I'm generally a malleable person. I don't get offended by much. But when something crosses the line, I get very upset at it. That issue was him crossing the line for me. Let me clarify. My vote is a vote against Obama, not for Romney. But I chose Romney over Johnson because I think he has the potential to be a good President, despite my disagreements on a lot of his social and foreign stances. Isn't the area where the president has the most influence foreign policy? Sounds to me like you're nitpicking something to convince yourself that you're more objective than you really are.
I'm sorry if I made it sound like that was the "one thing" that made me change my vote. It wasn't just "one thing." But that was the point where I realized I was open to switching off Obama.
|
On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:
The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income.
Yet I bet every one of them owns a cellphone.
|
On October 30 2012 05:08 Holytornados wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:03 Zaqwert wrote:On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue. Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was. Except for his inability to keep his story straight about any of his policies. Don't get me started on the fact that foreign relations under Romney would be a joke. Look at his trip to the Olympics and how well that went.
Clinton was a serial liar (it's called being a good politician) and was a very successful President. I think Romney is cut from the same cloth as Clinton. A win at all costs, say anything you need to to get elected guy, but at the end of the day a very effective administrator.
If you're picking your candidates on the basis of some casual foo-foo trip they took to the Olympics I think you're doing it wrong, just my opinion.
|
On October 30 2012 05:15 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:08 Holytornados wrote:On October 30 2012 05:03 Zaqwert wrote:On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue. Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was. Except for his inability to keep his story straight about any of his policies. Don't get me started on the fact that foreign relations under Romney would be a joke. Look at his trip to the Olympics and how well that went. Clinton was a serial liar (it's called being a good politician) and was a very successful President. I think Romney is cut from the same cloth as Clinton. A win at all costs, say anything you need to to get elected guy, but at the end of the day a very effective administrator. If you're picking your candidates on the basis of some casual foo-foo trip they took to the Olympics I think you're doing it wrong, just my opinion.
I would agree with the comparison to Clinton. I actually thought he was a pretty good President, aside from the perjury thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
