|
|
On October 30 2012 05:15 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Public phones are nearly nonexistent, and land-lines are usually more expensive than cell phone coverage today. If you don't have a phone, you can't get a job.
Not really a good example.
|
On October 30 2012 05:12 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:02 Derez wrote: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.
Yeah, I agree with this.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:15 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Keep in mind that poverty is based on income and doesn't take into consideration government assistance. So with government housing, welfare etc. it's possible they have more money to spend on things such as cellphones.
However, I doubt 'every one of them owns a cellphone.' Unless Obama distributed cellphones along with laptops. :p
|
On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote: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. 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.
That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world.
|
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.
to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics.
|
Err... so if I understand correctly:
"I think Romney's campaign platform is a load of shit, but I have faith that he'll take off the lucky underpants when he gets to the White House and be a uniting and effective leader despite all evidence to the contrary during the campaign where he's shown a remarkable lack of tact and understanding on domestic and foreign policy issues."
Don't forget: the Salt Lake City Olympics were bailed out by the government to the tune of a couple hundred million dollars. Quoth Romney: "The money is in Washington, and that's where I'm getting it from".
EDIT: actually, it was $410 million.
So... my roommate just filled out his absentee ballot for Florida. I had to help him with some of the language in the amendments and such that were up for approval though. Hmm, yeah. For the note, I told him I wouldn't tell him what to vote for because it was his own decision to make, and he picked Obama.
|
On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 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. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics.
"Romney's approval rating stood at 34 percent in November 2006, ranking 48th of the 50 U.S. governors."
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Approval50StateGovernor061120.htm
What I do not understand is how so many Americans forget that by the time Romney was finishing his first term as governor he had horrible ratings, and this was still during the economic boom years. Why on earth does anyone think he will make a good president. His private equity background clearly did not help him with being governor, I dont see why it should help with being president.
|
On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 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. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics.
Whose accounts are these? Who would even dedicate time to entertaining such an incredibly stupid comparison?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:19 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote: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. 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. That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world.
No, it's talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty, so it's basing the number on whether or not people, based on their specific income, can afford their essential needs.
|
On October 30 2012 05:23 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. "Romney's approval rating stood at 34 percent in November 2006, ranking 48th of the 50 U.S. governors." http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Approval50StateGovernor061120.htmWhat I do not understand is how so many Americans forget that by the time Romney was finishing his first term as governor he had horrible ratings, and this was still during the economic boom years. Why on earth does anyone think he will make a good president. His private equity background clearly did not help him with being governor, I dont see why it should help with being president.
he was a Republican governor of a heavily Democratic state. I'm jazzed that he got elected at all, and even more jazzed that he was able to do anything at all. let's be honest, Romney has shown more ability to work with the other side than Obama ever has.
On October 30 2012 05:24 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. Whose accounts are these? Who would even dedicate the time to entertaining such an incredibly stupid comparison?
well, if you're an athlete or spectator, I would think that you would notice whether one Olympics was run better than another one. I remember in high school, I was on the wrestling team, and there were 2-3 tournaments that everyone hated because they were run like shit, and there were 2-3 tournaments that were awesome because they were run really well and went very smoothly.
when you suddenly saw the guy who runs the shitty tournament on the team that's running the usually-nice tournament, you would definitely take notice, because it meant you were probably in for a really shitty weekend.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
So... my roommate just filled out his absentee ballot for Florida. I had to help him with some of the language in the amendments and such that were up for approval though. Hmm, yeah. For the note, I told him I wouldn't tell him what to vote for because it was his own decision to make, and he picked Obama.
Did you peer over his shoulder and give him the evil eye whenever his pencil would float over a Republican candidate?
|
On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 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. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics.
On the topic of the Olympics, the Olympics Romney "saved" also received substantial financial aid from the federal government to get back on track.
|
On October 30 2012 05:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:23 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. "Romney's approval rating stood at 34 percent in November 2006, ranking 48th of the 50 U.S. governors." http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Approval50StateGovernor061120.htmWhat I do not understand is how so many Americans forget that by the time Romney was finishing his first term as governor he had horrible ratings, and this was still during the economic boom years. Why on earth does anyone think he will make a good president. His private equity background clearly did not help him with being governor, I dont see why it should help with being president. he was a Republican governor of a heavily Democratic state. I'm jazzed that he got elected at all, and even more jazzed that he was able to do anything at all. let's be honest, Romney has shown more ability to work with the other side than Obama ever has.
Not to burst your bubble, there's a lot of examples of elected officials in a state where his/her party is rather weak but with stellar approval records.
|
On October 30 2012 05:18 Souma wrote:
However, I doubt 'every one of them owns a cellphone.' Unless Obama distributed cellphones along with laptops. :p
He actually does.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:18 Souma wrote:
However, I doubt 'every one of them owns a cellphone.' Unless Obama distributed cellphones along with laptops. :p He actually does.
Haha, well there we go.
|
On October 30 2012 05:27 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
So... my roommate just filled out his absentee ballot for Florida. I had to help him with some of the language in the amendments and such that were up for approval though. Hmm, yeah. For the note, I told him I wouldn't tell him what to vote for because it was his own decision to make, and he picked Obama. Did you peer over his shoulder and give him the evil eye whenever his pencil would float over a Republican candidate?
Nah, I was busy watching How I Met Your Mother and reading this thread. He's pretty liberal anyways, though I facepalm at his lack of political knowledge sometimes.
|
On October 30 2012 05:27 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:23 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. "Romney's approval rating stood at 34 percent in November 2006, ranking 48th of the 50 U.S. governors." http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Approval50StateGovernor061120.htmWhat I do not understand is how so many Americans forget that by the time Romney was finishing his first term as governor he had horrible ratings, and this was still during the economic boom years. Why on earth does anyone think he will make a good president. His private equity background clearly did not help him with being governor, I dont see why it should help with being president. he was a Republican governor of a heavily Democratic state. I'm jazzed that he got elected at all, and even more jazzed that he was able to do anything at all. let's be honest, Romney has shown more ability to work with the other side than Obama ever has. Not to burst your bubble, there's a lot of examples of elected officials in a state where his/her party is rather weak but with stellar approval records.
I'm not sure I want Romney to be getting massive approval in one of the most heavily Democratic states in the union...
on a side note: I wish that people who don't pay a lot of attention to politics just wouldn't vote at all. fuck "get out the vote" how about supporting a "get the fuck off my voter rolls"?
|
On October 30 2012 05:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:27 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 30 2012 05:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:23 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. "Romney's approval rating stood at 34 percent in November 2006, ranking 48th of the 50 U.S. governors." http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Approval50StateGovernor061120.htmWhat I do not understand is how so many Americans forget that by the time Romney was finishing his first term as governor he had horrible ratings, and this was still during the economic boom years. Why on earth does anyone think he will make a good president. His private equity background clearly did not help him with being governor, I dont see why it should help with being president. he was a Republican governor of a heavily Democratic state. I'm jazzed that he got elected at all, and even more jazzed that he was able to do anything at all. let's be honest, Romney has shown more ability to work with the other side than Obama ever has. Not to burst your bubble, there's a lot of examples of elected officials in a state where his/her party is rather weak but with stellar approval records. I'm not sure I want Romney to be getting massive approval in one of the most heavily Democratic states in the union... on a side note: I wish that people who don't pay a lot of attention to politics just wouldn't vote at all. fuck "get out the vote" how about supporting a "get the fuck off my voter rolls"?
B-b-b-but Democracy!
But yeah, I am inclined to agree.
|
On October 30 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:18 Souma wrote:
However, I doubt 'every one of them owns a cellphone.' Unless Obama distributed cellphones along with laptops. :p He actually does.
No, he doesn't.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/02/12/are-taxpayers-paying-for-free-cell-phones/
"The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson."
|
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.
Ahhhh come on. You made it sound like Obama has been twiddling his thumbs for four years. Obama did accomplish quite a bit though despite active obstruction by a Republican congress. Whether you actually like what he accomplished in regards to the auto-bailout, stimulus, health care reform, student loan reform, and foreign policy is up for debate. But he does have a record you can criticize.
I think Romney would have been a far better candidate maybe four years from now. But his pandering to the extreme right during this election revealed his lack of character. It's almost as if a majority of his supporters base their support on the hope that he is lying -- severe conservative hope that he is lying about being moderate, while moderates are hoping that he is lying about being severely conservative. The idea of him winning and the precedent that it would set leaves a bad taste in mouth, and makes me wonder what the future of 'democracy' in America would turn into.
Obama may get lost in the sound of his own voice and flowery rhetoric, but his position on issues have been relatively consistent. It's one thing for a leader to not live up to or break a promise, it's another thing to not know what the hell a leader is committed to, if anything.
Romney is pretty much saying anything and everything. It's so cynical and depressing to me, personally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
5194
4842
3420
EPT
