|
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 23 2012 23:58 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 23:35 Jibba wrote:On April 23 2012 22:59 TheToast wrote:On April 23 2012 18:54 screamingpalm wrote:On April 23 2012 18:23 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2012 17:18 screamingpalm wrote:On April 23 2012 16:48 Velocirapture wrote:On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle. I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically. We should encourage more debate and allow Congress to take time to deliberate. NDAA had what... a whole 30 mins for consideration? We should not expect abuses of checks and balances and accept that the executive branch extend its influence. If the citizenry wants to become impatient and expect maximum expediency and efficiency... well, I suppose totalitarianism can do do that for them. The problem lies in the nature of the US goverment. By seperating the president and congress you can get a situation like there is currently where there goals are divided. The republicans have stopped everything that can from getting through. What they cannot vote down they filibuster into obsurity. what they cannot put away they tack stupid amendents on. Controversial things like the NDAA had veteran pensions attached to it so that shutting it down by Obama would become political suicide. The American goverment is structured in such a way that if both parties control 1 piece of it they can shut eachother down and deny either from functioning. Add to that an unwillingness to work together for the great good of the country and chaos follows. If Obama wants to get anything done he HAS to work around congress. There is a reason a lot of european contrys work different. If our "president" has no control of congress and fails to pass a bill new elections are held because without cooperation between both a country cannot function. Those Republicans were sent there by the American people though. You have to assume that voters are civically responsible and represent what they want. I'm sure the public knew this would happen when they sent them there. If they wanted Obama to have an easier time pushing his agenda through, they would have sent more Dems to Congress. To add some creedence to this argument, I'd like to point out that the 2010 election was the largest gain of House congressional seats for any party since 1938. Republicans gained 64 seats in the chamber of 435, meaning almost 15% of democrats were replaced with Republicans. Given the American system of direct representation, that large of a swing is almost unheard of; especially in a non-presidential election year. Obviously the American public was not happy with the democrat's agenda. It will be interesting to see how much of that is carried over into 2012. They were unhappy with the state of the economy, not necessarily unhappy with the agenda. The economy is in a completely different place right now, and we're going to see a 1984 Reagan type victory for Obama. I'd also like to point out that the majority of executive privilege that Obama's working under was taken by Bush, and one of his first acts in office was to eliminate some executive orders (thus reducing his own power.) Executive privilege is just not something that'll ever be eliminated. The last president to turn down a significant amount of power was George Washington. Yes and no. While the economy was listed as the most important issue by voters in 2010, the healthcare issue was a very close second, with 49% of likely voters listing it as "extremely important" in a poll done by Gallup, and by 47% percent of independents. sourceFurther, I would argue that if voters are concerned about the economy and as a result vote out the democrat party in the biggest change of seats in the US House since 1938, obviously there was something about their agenda concerning the economy and jobs that voters rejected. It should be noted that in that same Gallup poll, the Federal Budget deficit was listed "extremely important" by 52% of independent voters. It's impossible to tell for sure without the raw data, but I would venture a guess that there is a strong overlap in voters concerned with the economy and those concerned with healthcare and deficit spending. If the 2010 election wasn't a rejection of the Democrat agenda by independent and swing voters, I'd be interested to hear your thearies as to why we saw a democrat majority voted out in an historic number.
I already gave it to you. Look at the very Gallup poll you linked, the state of the economy was far and away the number one issue, ESPECIALLY for independents. The politics of the health care bill take a back seat when things are improving.
|
On April 24 2012 01:17 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 23:58 TheToast wrote:On April 23 2012 23:35 Jibba wrote:On April 23 2012 22:59 TheToast wrote:On April 23 2012 18:54 screamingpalm wrote:On April 23 2012 18:23 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2012 17:18 screamingpalm wrote:On April 23 2012 16:48 Velocirapture wrote:On April 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Obama's future strategy?
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obama’s increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power in Congress.
Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obama’s new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago political science professor and author of “Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” said Mr. Obama’s use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable.
“What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency,” Mr. Howell said. “Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”
The bipartisan history of executive aggrandizement in recent decades complicates Republican criticism. In February, two conservative advocacy groups — Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network — sponsored a symposium to discuss what they called “the unprecedented expansion of executive power during the past three years.” It reached an awkward moment during a talk with a former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, and a former White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray.
“It’s kind of ironic you have Boyden and me here because when we were with the executive branch, we were probably the principal proponents of executive power under President Reagan and then President George H. W. Bush,” Mr. Meese said, quickly adding that the presidential prerogatives they sought to protect, unlike Mr. Obama’s, were valid.
SourceI don't like it. Make the case to the public and show some leadership. Don't create precedents that the next right wing administration can abuse. I don't want to see this type of executive power from either side of the aisle. I see a lot of this as the fault of the media and how people buy into the images they sell. Somehow we have cultivated this perception that literally every problem, domestic and abroad, is the President's fault. As a result, as one should expect, the presidency has extended its influence to try and manage... everything. We as a country need to correct our perception of politics and the politicians will conform automatically. We should encourage more debate and allow Congress to take time to deliberate. NDAA had what... a whole 30 mins for consideration? We should not expect abuses of checks and balances and accept that the executive branch extend its influence. If the citizenry wants to become impatient and expect maximum expediency and efficiency... well, I suppose totalitarianism can do do that for them. The problem lies in the nature of the US goverment. By seperating the president and congress you can get a situation like there is currently where there goals are divided. The republicans have stopped everything that can from getting through. What they cannot vote down they filibuster into obsurity. what they cannot put away they tack stupid amendents on. Controversial things like the NDAA had veteran pensions attached to it so that shutting it down by Obama would become political suicide. The American goverment is structured in such a way that if both parties control 1 piece of it they can shut eachother down and deny either from functioning. Add to that an unwillingness to work together for the great good of the country and chaos follows. If Obama wants to get anything done he HAS to work around congress. There is a reason a lot of european contrys work different. If our "president" has no control of congress and fails to pass a bill new elections are held because without cooperation between both a country cannot function. Those Republicans were sent there by the American people though. You have to assume that voters are civically responsible and represent what they want. I'm sure the public knew this would happen when they sent them there. If they wanted Obama to have an easier time pushing his agenda through, they would have sent more Dems to Congress. To add some creedence to this argument, I'd like to point out that the 2010 election was the largest gain of House congressional seats for any party since 1938. Republicans gained 64 seats in the chamber of 435, meaning almost 15% of democrats were replaced with Republicans. Given the American system of direct representation, that large of a swing is almost unheard of; especially in a non-presidential election year. Obviously the American public was not happy with the democrat's agenda. It will be interesting to see how much of that is carried over into 2012. They were unhappy with the state of the economy, not necessarily unhappy with the agenda. The economy is in a completely different place right now, and we're going to see a 1984 Reagan type victory for Obama. I'd also like to point out that the majority of executive privilege that Obama's working under was taken by Bush, and one of his first acts in office was to eliminate some executive orders (thus reducing his own power.) Executive privilege is just not something that'll ever be eliminated. The last president to turn down a significant amount of power was George Washington. Yes and no. While the economy was listed as the most important issue by voters in 2010, the healthcare issue was a very close second, with 49% of likely voters listing it as "extremely important" in a poll done by Gallup, and by 47% percent of independents. sourceFurther, I would argue that if voters are concerned about the economy and as a result vote out the democrat party in the biggest change of seats in the US House since 1938, obviously there was something about their agenda concerning the economy and jobs that voters rejected. It should be noted that in that same Gallup poll, the Federal Budget deficit was listed "extremely important" by 52% of independent voters. It's impossible to tell for sure without the raw data, but I would venture a guess that there is a strong overlap in voters concerned with the economy and those concerned with healthcare and deficit spending. If the 2010 election wasn't a rejection of the Democrat agenda by independent and swing voters, I'd be interested to hear your thearies as to why we saw a democrat majority voted out in an historic number. I already gave it to you. Look at the very Gallup poll you linked, the state of the economy was far and away the number one issue, ESPECIALLY for independents. The politics of the health care bill take a back seat when things are improving.
But why would concerns about the economy lead independent voters to largely reject Democratic candidates in 2010?
|
United States22883 Posts
Because the economy was shit and the vast majority of voters, regardless of affiliation, are idiots and can only blame what's in front of them.
|
On April 24 2012 02:26 Jibba wrote:
Because the economy was shit and the vast majority of voters, regardless of affiliation, are idiots and can only blame what's in front of them.
So your argument is that American voters are uninformed, and as such whenever the economy is bad will vote against whichever party is in power? That's an interesting idea.
But I still argue there's a link between economic concerns and specific items within the Democrat legislative platform. Here's something interesting, Rasmussen poll from November 2010 shows that 55% of voters on the East Coast "describe the views of most congressional Democrats as extreme" and 59% of voters said they "favor repeal of the national health care bill". source source2. Going back to the Gallup polls I linked before, 52% of independents listed the Federal Budget deficit as an important issue, and 48% listed Healthcare as an important issue. To me, those don't sound like opinions of people who are blindly voting against a party based on poor economic conditions.
A key excerpt from that Gallup article:
And among those who say the deficit is extremely important to their vote, 56% would vote for the Republican candidate and 36% for the Democrat.
source
That is a clear indication that a large number of independent voters were rejecting the Democrat's agenda in terms of spending and the US budget. While certainly there are irrational individuals who will vote against a party based solely on the current economic conditions, I think there's a good amount of evidence that the historic % of seats which changed parties was due at least in part to a rejection of the Democrat's agenda and legislative actions.
|
On April 24 2012 03:49 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 02:26 Jibba wrote:
Because the economy was shit and the vast majority of voters, regardless of affiliation, are idiots and can only blame what's in front of them. So your argument is that American voters are uninformed, and as such whenever the economy is bad will vote against whichever party is in power? That's an interesting idea.
and it's 100% true
|
52 pages of meaningless arguments....the candidates are nearly similar in almost every facet. Obamney for 2012! Wooo, the State wins, you lose. Just another election between two similar candidates. Fight amongst yourselves some more while you get looted and enslaved.
|
On April 24 2012 03:49 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 02:26 Jibba wrote:
Because the economy was shit and the vast majority of voters, regardless of affiliation, are idiots and can only blame what's in front of them. So your argument is that American voters are uninformed, and as such whenever the economy is bad will vote against whichever party is in power? That's an interesting idea. But I still argue there's a link between economic concerns and specific items within the Democrat legislative platform. Here's something interesting, Rasmussen poll from November 2010 shows that 55% of voters on the East Coast "describe the views of most congressional Democrats as extreme" and 59% of voters said they "favor repeal of the national health care bill". source source2. Going back to the Gallup polls I linked before, 52% of independents listed the Federal Budget deficit as an important issue, and 48% listed Healthcare as an important issue. To me, those don't sound like opinions of people who are blindly voting against a party based on poor economic conditions. A key excerpt from that Gallup article: Show nested quote +
And among those who say the deficit is extremely important to their vote, 56% would vote for the Republican candidate and 36% for the Democrat.
sourceThat is a clear indication that a large number of independent voters were rejecting the Democrat's agenda in terms of spending and the US budget. While certainly there are irrational individuals who will vote against a party based solely on the current economic conditions, I think there's a good amount of evidence that the historic % of seats which changed parties was due at least in part to a rejection of the Democrat's agenda and legislative actions.
It does not follow therefore that the GOP are any better, since it's known the GOP like to spend and regulate even more than the Democrats. If anyone had any serious concerns with these matters they would vote Independent or Third Party and break the duopoly. You have to be insane to keep voting in the same fools and expecting something different.
|
On April 24 2012 03:49 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 02:26 Jibba wrote:
Because the economy was shit and the vast majority of voters, regardless of affiliation, are idiots and can only blame what's in front of them. So your argument is that American voters are uninformed, and as such whenever the economy is bad will vote against whichever party is in power? That's an interesting idea.
Yes, and it's completely true. If you look at history, every time the economy is doing bad, the party that was in power loses it and the other party gains it. (FDR, Reagan, etc.)
|
On April 23 2012 23:42 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
Romney will win. You heard it here first.
I really hate it when people say "You heard it here first", especially when they're like the ten thousandth person to say it.
Also, why do you think this? You're not even backing up your statement. Half of the party isn't even backing up Romney yet, and it seems like it'll come down to how Obama's performing over the next few months, rather than what Romney does. It's Obama's election to lose.
Romney also has no personality whatsoever; he just feels like a watered-down version of Obama... which isn't really anything special, but people might just vote for a change if they think Obama has overall done a poor-to-bad job instead of a decent-to-good job running the country during his first term.
|
On April 24 2012 05:58 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 03:49 TheToast wrote:On April 24 2012 02:26 Jibba wrote:
Because the economy was shit and the vast majority of voters, regardless of affiliation, are idiots and can only blame what's in front of them. So your argument is that American voters are uninformed, and as such whenever the economy is bad will vote against whichever party is in power? That's an interesting idea. But I still argue there's a link between economic concerns and specific items within the Democrat legislative platform. Here's something interesting, Rasmussen poll from November 2010 shows that 55% of voters on the East Coast "describe the views of most congressional Democrats as extreme" and 59% of voters said they "favor repeal of the national health care bill". source source2. Going back to the Gallup polls I linked before, 52% of independents listed the Federal Budget deficit as an important issue, and 48% listed Healthcare as an important issue. To me, those don't sound like opinions of people who are blindly voting against a party based on poor economic conditions. A key excerpt from that Gallup article:
And among those who say the deficit is extremely important to their vote, 56% would vote for the Republican candidate and 36% for the Democrat.
sourceThat is a clear indication that a large number of independent voters were rejecting the Democrat's agenda in terms of spending and the US budget. While certainly there are irrational individuals who will vote against a party based solely on the current economic conditions, I think there's a good amount of evidence that the historic % of seats which changed parties was due at least in part to a rejection of the Democrat's agenda and legislative actions. It does not follow therefore that the GOP are any better, since it's known the GOP like to spend and regulate even more than the Democrats. If anyone had any serious concerns with these matters they would vote Independent or Third Party and break the duopoly. You have to be insane to keep voting in the same fools and expecting something different.
Yeah, the GOP track record on spending from roughly 2002 to 2008 was pretty horrendous, (which interestingly has in some ways provided motivation for the Tea Party to target "moderate" republicans). How voters viewed that in 2010 is an interesting issue. It should be noted that from 2008 to 2010 the Democrats decided to operate without a budget and authorized one of the largest single spending bills of all time, raising the US deficit to record levels. I would venture a guess that those things especially had an impact on the opinions of independent voters, given the promises of GOP leaders like Paul Ryan to tackle the US deficit. How voters will view the job they've done in 2012 will be quite interesting.
|
please americans dont vote for Romney
|
On April 24 2012 06:31 Skilledblob wrote:
please americans dont vote for Romney
Why? You have raised no reasons why he should be elected.
My guess is that you are uninformed.
|
On April 24 2012 06:29 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 05:58 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2012 03:49 TheToast wrote:On April 24 2012 02:26 Jibba wrote:
Because the economy was shit and the vast majority of voters, regardless of affiliation, are idiots and can only blame what's in front of them. So your argument is that American voters are uninformed, and as such whenever the economy is bad will vote against whichever party is in power? That's an interesting idea. But I still argue there's a link between economic concerns and specific items within the Democrat legislative platform. Here's something interesting, Rasmussen poll from November 2010 shows that 55% of voters on the East Coast "describe the views of most congressional Democrats as extreme" and 59% of voters said they "favor repeal of the national health care bill". source source2. Going back to the Gallup polls I linked before, 52% of independents listed the Federal Budget deficit as an important issue, and 48% listed Healthcare as an important issue. To me, those don't sound like opinions of people who are blindly voting against a party based on poor economic conditions. A key excerpt from that Gallup article:
And among those who say the deficit is extremely important to their vote, 56% would vote for the Republican candidate and 36% for the Democrat.
sourceThat is a clear indication that a large number of independent voters were rejecting the Democrat's agenda in terms of spending and the US budget. While certainly there are irrational individuals who will vote against a party based solely on the current economic conditions, I think there's a good amount of evidence that the historic % of seats which changed parties was due at least in part to a rejection of the Democrat's agenda and legislative actions. It does not follow therefore that the GOP are any better, since it's known the GOP like to spend and regulate even more than the Democrats. If anyone had any serious concerns with these matters they would vote Independent or Third Party and break the duopoly. You have to be insane to keep voting in the same fools and expecting something different. Yeah, the GOP track record on spending from roughly 2002 to 2008 was pretty horrendous, (which interestingly has in some ways provided motivation for the Tea Party to target "moderate" republicans). How voters viewed that in 2010 is an interesting issue. It should be noted that from 2008 to 2010 the Democrats decided to operate without a budget and authorized one of the largest single spending bills of all time, raising the US deficit to record levels. I would venture a guess that those things especially had an impact on the opinions of independent voters, given the promises of GOP leaders like Paul Ryan to tackle the US deficit. How voters will view the job they've done in 2012 will be quite interesting.
Paul Ryan the same bailout (auto & bank) supporting, Medicare D supporting, Iraq War supporting, NCLB supporting, Patriot Act / Sarbanes Oxley supporting, etc.etc. fraudster. How anyone can believe anything he says is beyond reproach. The guy is even more big government than most Democrats. I'm always amused by Democrats who dislike him. They should be in love with the guy.
|
Out of the two choices, I'd probably go with Obama.
|
On April 24 2012 06:31 Skilledblob wrote:
please americans dont vote for Romney
It's interesting seeing Europeans asking Americans to vote Obama. You are aware that foriegn issues are pretty low on American's radars, right? A lot of Americans are exceedingly worried about the economy, healthcare, and the $15 trillion dollar US deficit. Rassmussen lists the economy as by far the top issue Americans are concerned with in 2012. source
Personally, I don't give half a crap what the rest of the world thinks. I'm far more worried about the crushing debt our nation has.
-edit:
On April 24 2012 06:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 06:29 TheToast wrote:On April 24 2012 05:58 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2012 03:49 TheToast wrote:On April 24 2012 02:26 Jibba wrote:
Because the economy was shit and the vast majority of voters, regardless of affiliation, are idiots and can only blame what's in front of them. So your argument is that American voters are uninformed, and as such whenever the economy is bad will vote against whichever party is in power? That's an interesting idea. But I still argue there's a link between economic concerns and specific items within the Democrat legislative platform. Here's something interesting, Rasmussen poll from November 2010 shows that 55% of voters on the East Coast "describe the views of most congressional Democrats as extreme" and 59% of voters said they "favor repeal of the national health care bill". source source2. Going back to the Gallup polls I linked before, 52% of independents listed the Federal Budget deficit as an important issue, and 48% listed Healthcare as an important issue. To me, those don't sound like opinions of people who are blindly voting against a party based on poor economic conditions. A key excerpt from that Gallup article:
And among those who say the deficit is extremely important to their vote, 56% would vote for the Republican candidate and 36% for the Democrat.
sourceThat is a clear indication that a large number of independent voters were rejecting the Democrat's agenda in terms of spending and the US budget. While certainly there are irrational individuals who will vote against a party based solely on the current economic conditions, I think there's a good amount of evidence that the historic % of seats which changed parties was due at least in part to a rejection of the Democrat's agenda and legislative actions. It does not follow therefore that the GOP are any better, since it's known the GOP like to spend and regulate even more than the Democrats. If anyone had any serious concerns with these matters they would vote Independent or Third Party and break the duopoly. You have to be insane to keep voting in the same fools and expecting something different. Yeah, the GOP track record on spending from roughly 2002 to 2008 was pretty horrendous, (which interestingly has in some ways provided motivation for the Tea Party to target "moderate" republicans). How voters viewed that in 2010 is an interesting issue. It should be noted that from 2008 to 2010 the Democrats decided to operate without a budget and authorized one of the largest single spending bills of all time, raising the US deficit to record levels. I would venture a guess that those things especially had an impact on the opinions of independent voters, given the promises of GOP leaders like Paul Ryan to tackle the US deficit. How voters will view the job they've done in 2012 will be quite interesting. Paul Ryan the same bailout (auto & bank) supporting, Medicare D supporting, Iraq War supporting, NCLB supporting, Patriot Act / Sarbanes Oxley supporting, etc.etc. fraudster. How anyone can believe anything he says is beyond reproach. The guy is even more big government than most Democrats. I'm always amused by Democrats who dislike him. They should be in love with the guy.
Not sure how the Patriot Act or the Iraq War has anything to do with his record on spending.
He's consistantly championed reponsible government spending and curtailing of large scale entitlement programs. IMO (read: opinion) he's got far and away the best plan to reform the fraud riddled government boondoggle that is medicare.
-edit2: Actually, it's also the only plan...
|
On April 24 2012 06:38 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 06:31 Skilledblob wrote:
please americans dont vote for Romney It's interesting seeing Europeans asking Americans to vote Obama. You are aware that foriegn issues are pretty low on American's radars, right? A lot of Americans are exceedingly worried about the economy, healthcare, and the $15 trillion dollar US deficit. Rassmussen lists the economy as by far the top issue Americans are concerned with in 2012. sourcePersonally, I don't give half a crap what the rest of the world thinks. I'm far more worried about the crushing debt our nation has. -edit: Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 06:36 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2012 06:29 TheToast wrote:On April 24 2012 05:58 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2012 03:49 TheToast wrote:On April 24 2012 02:26 Jibba wrote:
Because the economy was shit and the vast majority of voters, regardless of affiliation, are idiots and can only blame what's in front of them. So your argument is that American voters are uninformed, and as such whenever the economy is bad will vote against whichever party is in power? That's an interesting idea. But I still argue there's a link between economic concerns and specific items within the Democrat legislative platform. Here's something interesting, Rasmussen poll from November 2010 shows that 55% of voters on the East Coast "describe the views of most congressional Democrats as extreme" and 59% of voters said they "favor repeal of the national health care bill". source source2. Going back to the Gallup polls I linked before, 52% of independents listed the Federal Budget deficit as an important issue, and 48% listed Healthcare as an important issue. To me, those don't sound like opinions of people who are blindly voting against a party based on poor economic conditions. A key excerpt from that Gallup article:
And among those who say the deficit is extremely important to their vote, 56% would vote for the Republican candidate and 36% for the Democrat.
sourceThat is a clear indication that a large number of independent voters were rejecting the Democrat's agenda in terms of spending and the US budget. While certainly there are irrational individuals who will vote against a party based solely on the current economic conditions, I think there's a good amount of evidence that the historic % of seats which changed parties was due at least in part to a rejection of the Democrat's agenda and legislative actions. It does not follow therefore that the GOP are any better, since it's known the GOP like to spend and regulate even more than the Democrats. If anyone had any serious concerns with these matters they would vote Independent or Third Party and break the duopoly. You have to be insane to keep voting in the same fools and expecting something different. Yeah, the GOP track record on spending from roughly 2002 to 2008 was pretty horrendous, (which interestingly has in some ways provided motivation for the Tea Party to target "moderate" republicans). How voters viewed that in 2010 is an interesting issue. It should be noted that from 2008 to 2010 the Democrats decided to operate without a budget and authorized one of the largest single spending bills of all time, raising the US deficit to record levels. I would venture a guess that those things especially had an impact on the opinions of independent voters, given the promises of GOP leaders like Paul Ryan to tackle the US deficit. How voters will view the job they've done in 2012 will be quite interesting. Paul Ryan the same bailout (auto & bank) supporting, Medicare D supporting, Iraq War supporting, NCLB supporting, Patriot Act / Sarbanes Oxley supporting, etc.etc. fraudster. How anyone can believe anything he says is beyond reproach. The guy is even more big government than most Democrats. I'm always amused by Democrats who dislike him. They should be in love with the guy. Not sure how the Patriot Act or the Iraq War has anything to do with his record on spending. He's consistantly championed reponsible government spending and curtailing of large scale entitlement programs. IMO (read: opinion) he's got far and away the best plan to reform the fraud riddled government boondoggle that is medicare. -edit2: Actually, it's also the only plan...
No he hasn't. He consistenly champions more Government. You are talking about the same guy who voted for a new Medicare entitlement program, who somehow is now going to reform it? LOL. The Iraq war was a massive trillion++ dollar boondoggle that added to our debt as well as destroyed many of our cherished civil liberties (Read: Patriot Act), which is another increase in the power of the Government and a decrease of the liberties of the individual. The same with NCLB which doubled the Education department as well as partly nationalized education in this country. He's a joke.
The only Republicans I trust are Justin Amash and Ron Paul on a Federal level. Ryan is a Bushian Neo-Conservative Republican, championing large Government in nearly every sector of society with a massive Police State and a massive interventionist State in the economy.
PS: So responsible that he voted for the Bank and Auto Bailouts. You can't be serious right now.
|
Here's what I posted in the Republican Nominations thread as an explanation for why Obama is going to lose the election (I've updated the post a bit):
1) Bad economy. This is the big one. The economy is not improving fast enough such that Obama can claim credit for a turnaround this fall. Unemployment is high and will remain high because of the sheer number of people that left the workforce and will eventually return. Moreover, Republicans have some very easy lines of attack on Obama on the economy that include: 1) Obama's stimulus package failed to keep unemployment below 8% despite Obama's promise, 2) Obama's administration has obstructed private enterprise that would create jobs (XL pipeline, Boeing plant in SC), 3) Obama has wasted government resources and intervention on a failed and corrupt green energy industry (Solyndra and the three or four other green energy companies that received federal funding and went belly up. These are big vulnerabilities.
2) Obamacare. It was a bad idea when it was passed, and it is looking like an even worse idea now. Obamacare has always been unpopular and it singlehandedly drove voters overwhelmingly to republicans in 2010. I don't know if you all have been following the recent news, but Obamacare, to no one's surprise, is turning out to be twice as expensive as initially pitched to Americans. Oh, and in case anyone forgot, the Supreme Court will be ruling on Obamacare in June. This issue will be coming up again this fall, even if Romney is the nominee.
3) High gas prices. Does anyone really believe Obama and his administration when they say that they are doing everything that they can to put downward pressure on gas prices? Of course not. Obama has a bad optics problem here. Because he obstructs drilling on federal lands, continuously demonizes "big oil," refers to oil "as the energy of the past," and pushes green energy polices that fail (see Solyndra and all the other green companies that received federal money and went belly up), people are going to see him as being an impediment to domestic energy production and lower gas prices. Argue all you want that global markets drive oil prices -- it's not going to fly with the American people. Hell, in the same breath Obama has floated that excuse while simultaneously releasing oil from the strategic reserves to help ease prices. That should tell you all you need to know about how this issue works.
4) High debt. Biggest spender in American history. If this issue is communicated clearly to the American people by the republican nominee, this may be the most devastating issue of all. The numbers are incredibly stark. Moreover, the problems in Europe are only going to draw more attention to America's own debt issues.
5) Afghanistan. Anyone paying attention sees imminent disaster looming in Afghanistan. Things aren't going well over there. The democrats and Obama own this war. In 2006 when they were arguing against the surge in Iraq, their point was that Afghanistan was the "good war" that we should be fighting. The irony is that it is highly unlikely that they meant what they said and had any interest in continuing the fight over there. The democrats were merely playing politics, and it trapped them into assuming responsibility for the war.
6) Lack of achievement. What can Obama point to as a positive achievement? Sure, Bin Laden was killed on his watch, but that's about it. Domestically, the only thing that comes to mind is saving GM and Chrysler, but even then, that achievement is marred by selling the auto industry to the UAW, forcing GM to make a car that no one wants (the volt), and the fact that a managed bankruptcy that slashed union pensions (not government intervention) is what ultimately allowed these companies to be profitable again. As I mentioned above, Obamacare is unpopular. The stimulus package is a dirty word as well. What else does Obama have to stand on? The answer is nothing. He's not going to be able to get by on preaching about hope and change this time around. His campaign pitch is going to go like this: "Ignore what I have done over the past 4 years. I'm still better than those crazy republicans." Is this really going to sell well when the election is ultimately going to be a referendum on him? Probably not.
So what evidence is out there suggesting that I am right in arguing that Obama has problems? First, Obama's approval rating is low. Of course, this will always fluctuate. More importantly though, all you have to do is look at how elections have gone since 2009. In short, democrats have been getting pummeled -- often times on their own turf (like the Ted Kennedy's senate seat and NY-9). The 2010 elections were disastrous for democrats on national and state levels. Hell, just look at all of the democrat incumbents that have decided not to run for reelection such as Barney Frank and Ben Nelson. They see what's coming. The obvious counterargument is that 2012 is not 2010, thus it will be different. That might ultimately be the case. Then again, pigs may fly in 2012 as well. I'll believe it when I see it.
|
^ All that sounds good. Then you realize he's running against Mitt Romney, so alot of it doesn't matter.
|
Well,
He stopped SOPA
He killed Osama
and I am pretty sure he stopped the libya government problems
and,, well that's all I can think of
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
