EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 274
| 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 | ||
|
PhillyWild
United States59 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
The guy achieved so much in his corporate career. Obama never achieved annything in that area, he is a politician. America now has the change to finally vote for a candidate with real talents to manage and turn around difficult situations , but instead they all seem to dislike him because he worked so hard and efficient that he is rich. Isnt becomming rich the american dream? How can you not vote for romney?  | ||
|
PhillyWild
United States59 Posts
On August 12 2012 02:12 Rassy wrote: How is mit romney not an auto vote for every working american? The guy achieved so much in his corporate career. Obama never achieved annything in that area, he is a politician. America now has the change to finally vote for a candidate with real talents to manage and turn around difficult situations , but instead they all seem to dislike him because he worked so hard and efficient that he is rich. Isnt becomming rich the american dream? How can you not vote for romney? Those are becoming an endangered species in this country. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 12 2012 02:12 Rassy wrote: How is mit romney not an auto vote for every working american? The guy achieved so much in his corporate career. Obama never achieved annything in that area, he is a politician. America now has the change to finally vote for a candidate with real talents to manage and turn around difficult situations , but instead they all seem to dislike him because he worked so hard and efficient that he is rich. Isnt becomming rich the american dream? How can you not vote for romney? Idk, Obama did win the Presidency once. I would assume that trumps any achievement Romney has ever had, otherwise he wouldn't be running for President. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On August 12 2012 02:12 Rassy wrote: How is mit romney not an auto vote for every working american? The guy achieved so much in his corporate career. Obama never achieved annything in that area, he is a politician. America now has the change to finally vote for a candidate with real talents to manage and turn around difficult situations , but instead they all seem to dislike him because he worked so hard and efficient that he is rich. Isnt becomming rich the american dream? How can you not vote for romney? Because you'll pay more taxes under Romney? | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
i have a feeling this is gonna be a breeze for Romney. On August 12 2012 02:17 aksfjh wrote: Idk, Obama did win the Presidency once. I would assume that trumps any achievement Romney has ever had, otherwise he wouldn't be running for President. i don't know if you can say that just winning the election is an "achievement" | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On August 12 2012 02:12 Rassy wrote: How is mit romney not an auto vote for every working american? The guy achieved so much in his corporate career. Obama never achieved annything in that area, he is a politician. America now has the change to finally vote for a candidate with real talents to manage and turn around difficult situations , but instead they all seem to dislike him because he worked so hard and efficient that he is rich. Isnt becomming rich the american dream? How can you not vote for romney? At the most basic lvl i'd rather have a Politician than a Wall street business man running the country. Romney is literally trying to buy the Presidency. Short of a genocidal maniac, there isn't anybody on the planet who cares less about the average person than a CEO like Romney in the business he was in. Might as well get the CEO of Goldman Sachs or BoA. | ||
|
Edlina
Denmark28 Posts
On August 12 2012 02:04 PhillyWild wrote: My state will go Obama in November, it has gone Democrat the last 5 election cycles. So it doesn't really matter who I vote for in the end. (Bravo Electoral College for boiling down an entire Presidential election to only the residents of six or seven states.) My point exactly. The system makes so many million votes (and thereby voters) indifferent and outside any form of or hope for influence. It seems pretty damned stupid - at least if you want to promote democracy, the peoples interests in politics and in voting as well as voting percentages cross country. Multiply the 'delegates' (i.e. number of 'votes' in the total tally of Presidential election based on results from each State) from each State by a lot and then split each States' delegates according to what's actually voted in that State, not 'the winner takes it all'. And make this change to all States - obviously. Seems like a much (much much much) better choice. On August 12 2012 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: i don't know if you can say that just winning the election is an "achievement" "Just" winning a presidential election in the US? Seems like an achievement to me - what that achievement shows is another matter. | ||
|
Nacl(Draq)
United States302 Posts
So I want to bring up the point that the President has little power to control what is actually done as far as the economy goes. He can talk with the branch that actually has control of taxes and regulation but the President himself doesn't really have the ability to set up an executive order stating, "This tax will happen." or "Get rid of this bill." The first falls into Legislative and the second falls into finding it unconstitutional in the supreme court. The running on "I will make the economy better so remove me from the senate or congress so I can be removed from the ability to directly affect the voting on laws that may make the economy better" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The positions on wars matter more when it comes to the president as he is the person ahead of the generals and commands all of it. Course the president is seen more as a legislative power from the people instead of the fact that he is actually a military power with the ability to suggest things to people. | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On August 11 2012 22:46 coverpunch wrote: Yeah, but all of the discussion seemed to have it narrowed down to Pawlenty, Portman, and Ryan, with virtually no discussion about the rest in recent days. Media says the short list was Ryan, Rubio, Pawlenty, Christie, Portman and one unnamed wild card (probably Petraeus). Ryan is supposed to be a pick that tries to combine both the GOP establishment and Tea Party conservatives, which hopefully means the Republican Party is looking to go more towards its fiscally conservative, small government roots while doing the absolute bare minimum to keep social conservatives in the loop. Rubio is a good pick but I think they're saving him in the bullpen for a national campaign later (rather than risk burning him out like Palin). It's worth pointing out that Hispanics have been pretty much not caught any traction at all with Romney. Even though they're a socially conservative group, their overriding concerns are social policy and immigration, and they hate Romney's positions on those. Obama is going to win 60+% of the Hispanic vote and Rubio can't make a big enough difference in the less than 90 days left. If we're talking signals, I think this means Romney is very serious about dealing almost entirely with tax policy, budgets, and economics. Which I personally think is a good idea. The GOP can't get any good angles to attack Obama on foreign policy (Romney wouldn't do anything differently) and social policies like gay marriage are a losing argument for Romney, who isn't conservative enough for social conservatives and isn't liberal enough for liberals (or even if he is, those liberals will never vote GOP and just criticize him). I've read a bunch of good comments that this pick represents a fundamental change in how Romney is orienting his campaign. I agree with that. Romney until now has been trying to make this race a referendum on Obama, but the huge issue is that Obama, his surrogates, Priorities, and Romney himself have been extremely successful in casting doubt as to whether Romney would be any better, to say nothing of drastically worse. In picking Ryan, Romney seems determined to shift gears and to instead present and aggressively defend his own vision. That could totally backfire, the 2011 loss in upstate New York was largely blamed on the Ryan budget, which is tremendously unpopular. I think Laura Ingrahm said yesterday that when you run on conservatism, you win, but I think it's the opposite; historically, when you run on defending entitlements, you win. So ultimately, I do think this signals a shift for Romney, but I'm not sure it's one that will work out in the end. It will make the base happy though, and sometimes it seems like that's all that matters. | ||
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
On August 12 2012 02:17 aksfjh wrote: Idk, Obama did win the Presidency once. I would assume that trumps any achievement Romney has ever had, otherwise he wouldn't be running for President. So being for a certain side qualifies you more than actual business experience? My job didn't hire me because I like the Atlanta Falcons as much as I promised I did. | ||
Falling
Canada11439 Posts
On August 12 2012 00:29 biology]major wrote: Ryan vs Biden is going to be interesting.... Ryan = all numbers Biden = all yelling/passion Pretty sure Biden will get outclassed in debates Edit: On a side note Ryan is much firmer on his principles than Romney, but I guess anyone would qualify for that Aw, I rather like old man Biden  I don't think he's just all yelling and passion though. He has a tendency to put his foot on his mouth, but at the same time when he ran for nominee last time, he struck me as a bit of a pragmatist. If I recall correctly, there was some behind the scenes things that pegged Biden as the one who plays devil's advocate for the administration. So his true role isn't as public as Cheney, but very important. It'll be interesting with Paul Ryan. He's the sort of conservative I hope to never see in our Conservative party, but it'll matches the economic focus of Romney. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 12 2012 02:17 koreasilver wrote: Because you'll pay more taxes under Romney? Already been debunked. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
By nobody... | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
By nobody from Huffington Post or Media Matters. Thats true. Just read the article or any other article about it. 1 not-so-non-partisan liberal think tank that is against tax cuts in general decides to analyze something that isn't even part of his plan and ignore other parts of it. What they claim about his plan isn't even in it. | ||
|
mambar
United States841 Posts
On August 12 2012 03:15 Savio wrote: By nobody from Huffington Post or Media Matters. Thats true. Just read the article or any other article about it. 1 not-so-non-partisan liberal think tank that is against tax cuts in general decides to analyze something that isn't even part of his plan and ignore other parts of it. What they claim about his plan isn't even in it. I love you | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Romney picking Paul Ryan is the biggest development of the campaign by far and may end up being the single biggest determinant of the shape of the election: 1. Now that Paul Ryan is on the ticket, that implies that Romney has signed on completely to the plan , not just passively but such that you could now consider it the Romney/Ryan plan 2. The Ryan plan is the first serious budget put out by either party to address the long term problem of entitlements in our country. It cannot be easily set aside and must be debated on its merits against Obama's plan (which has no permament fix to the entitlement plan) 3. This ensures that this campaign is NOT going to be about petty issues as Obama has tried to make it out to be. Nobody cares how much taxes Romney paid when there is a real debate to be had. How much taxes he paid or the closing of 1 steel plant are NOT big issues. They are sideshow issues that have been good to Obama. But I think from now on, this is going to be a debate about priciples and plans rather than character assassinations. 4. Its been shown throughout this campaign that when the discussion is about the economy, Romney fairs better. When it is about anything else, Obama fairs better. This choice puts the economy and the deficit front and center. Obama's 2 biggest failures will be what this election are gonna be about. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 12 2012 03:15 Savio wrote: By nobody from Huffington Post or Media Matters. Thats true. Just read the article or any other article about it. 1 not-so-non-partisan liberal think tank that is against tax cuts in general decides to analyze something that isn't even part of his plan and ignore other parts of it. What they claim about his plan isn't even in it. So, you think Romney will increase taxes on capital gains and other investment-favoring policies? | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 12 2012 03:18 aksfjh wrote: So, you think Romney will increase taxes on capital gains and other investment-favoring policies? From the article. Just read it. The heart of Mr. Romney's actual proposal is a 20% rate cut for anyone who pays income taxes. This means, for example, that the 10% rate would fall to 8%, the 35% rate would fall to 28% and all the brackets in between would fall as well. The corporate tax would fall to 25% from 35%. The plan says these cuts would be financed in a revenue-neutral way. First, by "broadening the tax base," which means reducing or eliminating tax deductions and loopholes as in the tax reform of 1986. The Romney campaign doesn't specify which deductions—no campaign ever does—but it has been explicit in saying that the burden would fall most on higher tax brackets. So in return for paying lower rates, the wealthy get fewer deductions. Second, the Romney campaign says it expects to increase revenues by increasing the rate of economic growth to 4%, up from less than 2% this year and in 2011. (Separately from tax reform, but clearly relevant to budget deficits, Mr. Romney says he'd gradually reduce spending to 20% of the economy from the Obama heights of 24%-25%.) The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 12 2012 03:18 Savio wrote: About Paul Ryan... Romney picking Paul Ryan is the biggest development of the campaign by far and may end up being the single biggest determinant of the shape of the election: 1. Now that Paul Ryan is on the ticket, that implies that Romney has signed on completely to the plan , not just passively but such that you could now consider it the Romney/Ryan plan 2. The Ryan plan is the first serious budget put out by either party to address the long term problem of entitlements in our country. It cannot be easily set aside and must be debated on its merits against Obama's plan (which has no permament fix to the entitlement plan) 3. This ensures that this campaign is NOT going to be about petty issues as Obama has tried to make it out to be. Nobody cares how much taxes Romney paid when there is a real debate to be had. How much taxes he paid or the closing of 1 steel plant are NOT big issues. They are sideshow issues that have been good to Obama. But I think from now on, this is going to be a debate about priciples and plans rather than character assassinations. 4. Its been shown throughout this campaign that when the discussion is about the economy, Romney fairs better. When it is about anything else, Obama fairs better. This choice puts the economy and the deficit front and center. Obama's 2 biggest failures will be what this election are gonna be about. Those issues are symptoms of a larger problem in America. Obama is attempting to paint a picture across the entire election, one that highlights the flaws in the system which seemingly disproportionately favors people like Romney. You can't run a campaign directly talking about 1 or 2 issues, because you're just going to start sounding like Ron Paul. | ||
| ||
