EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 122
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 07 2012 21:35 TOloseGT wrote: Yea, the timing sucks. The left will blow this off like no big deal. Stuxnet was already widely believed to be from the U.S. and/or Israel, and the target was obviously a big tip off. The right will use this in the general election, citing national security issues, and Obama being careless. This will give Romney another point to attack Obama on. Presuming that the leak was intentional, the irony is that the very people whom the Obama administration sought to impress with the leak (independents/moderates) are the same people who will be appalled by the breach of national security. The leak isn't going to score Obama any points on the left, other than possibly helping to bring/keep pro-Israel Jewish voters into his camp. Also, the problem with the leak isn't that it reports that the US and Israel are responsible for Stuxnet; everyone already believed that as you pointed out. The problem is that the leaks describe in great detail how the cyber attack was accomplished, right down to the mode of infiltration. That's why this is so serious. I really don't want to believe that a president and his administration could be so careless with this kind of information, but I really wouldn't be surprised if the leak was intentional. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Republican groups raised more than $76.8 million in May, his campaign said on Thursday, topping the $60 million President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies hauled in. The campaign and Republican National Committee have $107 million cash on hand, the campaign said. So much for the financial advantage.... http://www.freep.com/article/20120607/NEWS06/120607030/Poll-Barack-Obama-dead-heat-Mitt-Romney-Michigan-popularity-slips President Barack Obama’s popularity in Michigan has slipped in recent months, leaving him in a dead heat with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, according to a new poll of state voters by EPIC-MRA of Lansing. The poll, released this morning to the [Detroit] Free Press and four TV stations, shows Romney leading Obama 46%-45%, a reversal from the last EPIC poll in April which showed Obama ahead 47%-43%. Obama’s personal and job approval numbers also have slipped, with 46% of Michiganders saying they have a favorable opinion of the president, and 41% approving of the job he’s doing. EPIC co-founder John Cavanagh said the softening in support for Obama is likely related to a robust TV advertising campaign by pro-Romney PACs which have been critical of his handling of the economy. Perhaps most troubling for the Democratic president is a decline in support from independent voters, Cavanagh said. Not sure what this means for Obama, exit polls from Wisconsin's recall on Tuesday showed Obama with a lead here, but the dems usually win both Wisconsin and Michigan, so it's interesting to see the two neck and neck. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press. Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz?pg=1 | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 07 2012 03:03 Epocalypse wrote: Here's a short clip about a guy in the 1% and how he will change his investment strategies if taxes on him increase... his point is that instead of investing in ways that benefit him and also benefit the economy he will be forced to invest in ways that lead to less benefit or no benefit at all. Unfortunately it's only a short clip with little explanation as how exactly the paths for better investment get closed when taxes are increased. This is a pretty weak apologia. He appeals to "unfairness" about taxing rich people and then just points out that the government has made poor uses of its money, which is a separate issue from the issue about taxing rich people more. After WWII, the tax on the upper bracket was around 70% (at one point higher than that, immediately after the war) and there was lots of growth. Reagan lowered it from that level to its present level around 40%, which he mentions, and everything has been perfect since then, of course. Not that growth is what we want, but the point is that this dude's apologia for rich people ignores all the complexity of everything. | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
On June 08 2012 04:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Just realized that Ron Paul is actually hurting third parties and even the Libertarian "movement" in the U.S. Why is that? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
Not sure if its what StealthBlue was thinking, but I would think that its now associated with failure and that people won't have much faith in it anymore, since Ron Paul basically took it as far as he could. Received very little support. | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
On June 08 2012 07:38 Mohdoo wrote: Not sure if its what StealthBlue was thinking, but I would think that its now associated with failure and that people won't have much faith in it anymore, since Ron Paul basically took it as far as he could. Received very little support. Not sure what you mean by it. Do you mean to say that Ron Paul was a failure and received little support and that people will now be drawn away from libertarianism? Because if that is the case, I would suggest you are comparing with the wrong benchmark. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On June 08 2012 07:40 AdrianHealey wrote: Not sure what you mean by it. Do you mean to say that Ron Paul was a failure and received little support and that people will now be drawn away from libertarianism? Because if that is the case, I would suggest you are comparing with the wrong benchmark. I am saying that a very small percentage of people voted for Ron Paul, and that the effect of that was that people will take him and the ideas he put forward less seriously, because he made those ideas look weak. How did he make them look weak? They were the ideas he was preaching and very few people voted in favor of them. Makes people lose hope in it being a viable alternative. | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
On June 08 2012 07:53 Mohdoo wrote: I am saying that a very small percentage of people voted for Ron Paul, and that the effect of that was that people will take him and the ideas he put forward less seriously, because he made those ideas look weak. How did he make them look weak? They were the ideas he was preaching and very few people voted in favor of them. Makes people lose hope in it being a viable alternative. You are comparing the wrong benchmark. If you compare where libertarianism comes from (as a movement), Ron Paul is pretty damn huge. What's the percentage of votes/delegates he got? Around 10ish? What is that? A couple of million people? (Taken into account that most libertarians simply do not vote, in primary nor in the general.) Thirty years ago, the conscious libertarian movement fitted in two apartments in New York, and both apartments didn't like the audience in the other one. :p I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul got more votes in the primary than any libertarian candidate every in the general election. (Including Ron Paul) Besides that, I find it odd that you would say 'only a very small percentage voted for him' and therefore 'people will take him less serious'. The people who voted for him, took him serious enough, no? Why does 'getting a small percentage' meant that 'the ideas look weak'? Of course, those who didn't vote for him, thought the ideas were weak. Those who did vote, didn't think they were weak. Just because 'your guy' doesn't win, doesn't mean you stop believing he has the right ideas, now does it? | ||
|
GarethGore
United Kingdom59 Posts
| ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
On June 08 2012 08:03 GarethGore wrote: I dont think Romney will get it partly due to him being a Mormon. A lot of the bible belt states would look down on him for that. I prefer obama anyway, America doesn't need another rich as hell white guy republican in power. Although I agree that Romney would not be a good president, I hardly consider such a racist remark to be a good argument against him. Suppose I said, 'America doesn't need another elitist black guy democrat in power', I would be flamed for it - and justly so. People's race, gender or socio-economic background shouldn't matter. What matters, are their ideas/policies/principles. Of which both Obama and Romney have an abyssal record. | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
I liked Huntsman though. Didn't agree with him on a lot of things, but he was someone who was conservative, yet wasn't afraid to break party lines and put country above politics when he took Obama's ambassador appointment. In addition, he seems like a nice guy. Hopefully he can run again in 2016 and be more successful then. | ||
|
xParadoxi
United States78 Posts
On June 08 2012 08:03 GarethGore wrote: I dont think Romney will get it partly due to him being a Mormon. A lot of the bible belt states would look down on him for that. I prefer obama anyway, America doesn't need another rich as hell white guy republican in power. What an ignorant comment... Both of the canidates are pretty much for the same things. Such as agressive pre-emptive wars, civil liberties being removed "for safety", and expanded government power. If you really look at the two parties, there isn't much of a difference, just two wings of one major party. It seems to me that very few people today actually care about constitutional rights, and instead just pick whoever Fox News or MSNBC tells them to. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2012 04:42 TheToast wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/07/us-usa-campaign-fundraising-idUSBRE8560UG20120607 So much for the financial advantage.... http://www.freep.com/article/20120607/NEWS06/120607030/Poll-Barack-Obama-dead-heat-Mitt-Romney-Michigan-popularity-slips Not sure what this means for Obama, exit polls from Wisconsin's recall on Tuesday showed Obama with a lead here, but the dems usually win both Wisconsin and Michigan, so it's interesting to see the two neck and neck. Keep in mind that those same exit polls also showed that the recall was close to a 50/50 dead heat when Walker won by 7 points. I don't think that Obams should feel particularly encouraged by those polls. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On June 08 2012 08:10 Bagration wrote: Not the best choices in my opinion. I guess I'll go with Obama, simply because Romney has forced himself way too far to the right during the primaries, and some of his "positions" that he took are way too extreme. I liked Huntsman though. Didn't agree with him on a lot of things, but he was someone who was conservative, yet wasn't afraid to break party lines and put country above politics when he took Obama's ambassador appointment. In addition, he seems like a nice guy. Hopefully he can run again in 2016 and be more successful then. Agreed on Huntsman, he was my original pick, but his chances were almost non-existant considering how far right this primary jumped. I don't think he'll have much of a shot in 2016 either, assuming Romney loses, I'd be willing to bet that Christie or Daniels takes it pretty easily. (Both would be better than Romney though) As for this current election...oh well, third party it is. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On June 08 2012 09:16 xDaunt wrote: Keep in mind that those same exit polls also showed that the recall was close to a 50/50 dead heat when Walker won by 7 points. I don't think that Obams should feel particularly encouraged by those polls. Obama will crush Romney in Wisconsin. Five points minimum. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
Here's what Obama said: The truth of the matter is that … we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone... The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. To which Romney responds: Is he really that out of touch? I think he’s defining what it means to be detached and out of touch with the American people. Has there ever been an American president who is so far from reality? And what Obama said is completely true. The private sector is pretty much fine. The private sector has recovered to pre-crisis employment levels, while the public sector continues to lose jobs. I've said that back as early as May, in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=71#1406 Private sector: ![[image loading]](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/bobwright/JobsPriv.JPG) Public sector (the spike are temporary jobs for the Census): ![[image loading]](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/bobwright/JobsUSGovt.JPG) http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/maybe-the-private-sector-is-doing-fine/258311/ So it seems Romney is the one who is out of touch with economic reality. Romney needs to get a clue about the economy. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
| ||
| ||
