|
|
I will vote for Vermin Supreme
|
On April 24 2012 05:54 Wegandi wrote:
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.
The problem is that people have forgotten that democracy means "rule of the people", but now it is just "elections".
So the financial and corporate elite presents two almost identical candidates that serve for them and have no real power and rule forever.
|
On April 24 2012 08:25 DannyJ wrote:
^ All that sounds good. Then you realize he's running against Mitt Romney, so alot of it doesn't matter.
A lot of people want to compare this election to 2004. However, there's a big difference between the two in that Bush had a pretty good track record to run on at the time, whereas Obama does not. Because things were generally going well in the country, Bush could easily make the election about Kerry and his faults and flaws. Obviously, Obama is going to want to do the same here. However, because of his bad track record, this election is inevitably going to be a referendum on Obama. As such, Romney's perceived flaws are going to play a lesser role than democrats would like.
|
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy.
|
|
|
On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy.
The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto.
In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics.
|
On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics.
I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader.
|
On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics.
I'm actually curious to see which way Congress will swing. Democrats in the Senate, Republicans in the House, both sides aren't getting anything done. Personally I'm doing away with my Democratic Senator and Republican Representative.
I think Obama's enough of a conservative and Romney's enough of a liberal that it wouldn't shake foreign affairs up TOO much if one were picked over the other.
|
On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader.
Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless.
|
On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless.
The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him.
|
On April 24 2012 21:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless. The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him.
Can either of you be more partisan? The downgrade was a result of BOTH parties incompetance (or not, if you look at it as buying votes with the voters own money...). Not that I put much stock in these ratings agencies since they are pretty much crap. Most of the world should be rated F. I wouldn't buy a Euro Zone or US bond if you put a gun to my head. Might as well throw your money down the toilet as you would at least get a little entertainment for those few brief seconds. Look swirls of green! :p
PS: If your momma told you money don't grow on trees, she was lying to you, at least for those well enough connected. Mmmmm, freshly minted paper notes. Smell the redistribution of wealth to the politically connected all ready.
|
On April 24 2012 21:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless. The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him.
It happened again, and I'd love to hear either candidate mention it without political meme's.
A small credit ratings agency downgraded the United States' credit rating for a second time, arguing the country was no closer to solving its runaway debt problem.
In a move that could foreshadow decisions from larger agencies, Egan-Jones downgraded the US to AA from AA+.
The company on Thursday cited "the lack of any tangible progress on addressing the problems and the continued rise in debt to GDP."
"For the first time since WWII, US debt exceeds 100 percent," analysts said, predicting that would rise to 106 percent by the end of the year, calling that an "inflection point."
Egan-Jones -- which is much smaller than its rivals -- scrapped the United States' top-level AAA rating in July, one month before Standard & Poor's.
Part of the reason cited then and now was the continued political gridlock in Washington.
"We'd like to see some progress towards reducing the fiscal deficit in the next six to twelve months," said managing director Sean Egan.
|
I sincerily hope that Obama gets re-elected. He has done very little to piss off the rest of the world, a remarkable achievement indeed. The past years have been blissfully quiet in comparison to your previous president. Four more years of that would be great. Please vote Obama, the rest of the world would sleep easier. Don't be a dick, America, we need our sleep.
|
On April 24 2012 22:04 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 21:59 kwizach wrote:On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless. The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him. Can either of you be more partisan? The downgrade was a result of BOTH parties incompetance (or not, if you look at it as buying votes with the voters own money...). Not that I put much stock in these ratings agencies since they are pretty much crap. Most of the world should be rated F. I wouldn't buy a Euro Zone or US bond if you put a gun to my head. Might as well throw your money down the toilet as you would at least get a little entertainment for those few brief seconds. Look swirls of green! :p PS: If your momma told you money don't grow on trees, she was lying to you, at least for those well enough connected. Mmmmm, freshly minted paper notes. Smell the redistribution of wealth to the politically connected all ready.
In fairness, the parties aren't equally bad on fiscal issues. Republicans do try and have tried to reduce the deficit and debt, albeit none of them other than Ron Paul are actively promoting the magnitude of cuts that is necessary. Democrats, on the other hand, have zero credibility on the issue because they won't address spending problems at all and demonize republicans who do (see Paul Ryan).
|
On April 24 2012 08:53 Bill Murray wrote:
I always vote for Nader
Is Nader even running this year?
|
It's remarkable how people pick up on the portrayed differences between the parties when there is so little to discriminate them.
Healthcare: Obama's plan is Romney's plan, a health insurance industry boon (if the SCOTUS doesn't knock it down).
Foreign Policy: Obama's cabinet hasn't differed from longstanding US policy. Prolonged Afghanistan war, still in Iraq, illegal campaign in Libya, aggression in S. China, aggression with Iran, etc.
Civil Rights: Obama continued and expanded the Bush legacy of illegal spying & clandestine operations, torture.
Economy: Banks got bailed out, we got sold out. Biggest offenders get off with slaps on the wrist. Refusal to prioritize universal healthcare (good for budget and income security) and diminished defense spending (which the majority of Americans believe should be cut).
Ecology/Climate: lol who the fuck cares? Let's cave to public pressure on KXL and then promise to approve the project after the election is won. Global warming? Pollution? Who gives a fuck?
If a Republican incumbent had this record, Democrats would be frothing at the mouth.
But for propaganda sake you have:
- A black guy, who deep down is a progressive guy (even if he hasn't overseen a single progressive change besides overturning DADT (to which the LGBT activist movement deserves credit, not Obama))... he just needs more experience with negotiation. Maybe 4 more years will give him the time he needs. How can you not vote for this guy, he's awesome?
- The complete opposite of Obama. He's a white guy for starters, calls himself a conservative (even though he's a finance tycoon who got elected in Massachusetts... come on he's a dime-a-dozen businessman from the liberal elite), and probably hates women and dogs.
Oh, and if you want to really talk about differences you can wank for hours about the ideological differences between liberals and conservatives. Fiscally, socially, whatever. You see, propaganda wants you to think that Democrats want a planned socialist economy and that Republicans want to lynch abortion doctors. That's what they're planning in those secret rooms. Bullshit. They're both honest capitalists. They get elected by big money. Their job is to make big money for their backers. They don't give a shit about your fetus or your views on normative economic justice. They just want money and they'll say and do whatever they need to do to make you feel safe with them.
Romney's problem is that he's the worse liar.
---
Synopsis: Waste of your time.
Vote for whomever the fuck you want, it doesn't make a difference. Your congress[man/woman] is already bought too.
|
|
|
Don't blame me, I voted for kodos.
|
From what I've heard the american politics and government is such a partisan monstrosity that it doesn't really matter who wins
|
On April 24 2012 21:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 18:13 justinpal wrote:On April 24 2012 09:18 xDaunt wrote:On April 24 2012 09:12 liberal wrote:On April 24 2012 08:48 coverpunch wrote:
This might sound like hyperbole but I think this is true. The 2012 election is critically important. Beyond the fact that pretty much every major country is also holding elections so the entire landscape of leadership could change (China does not have elections but is rotating the Politburo), the developed countries have to deal with the big issues behind the debt, mostly health care and retirement.
The US has maybe 5 years to do something about it or it will be too late. If our leaders botch this, then our society will suffer for decades. As mostly young people, that's basically your future income at stake here because we're the ones that will be living under a high tax regime at the moment when we're trying to build families and homes and the jig will be up just as we're up for retirement.
Everything else is just window dressing. If Obama and Romney don't have a plan to close the deficit and do something about the debt without strangling the economy, then we have a very serious problem. You look at the rest of the OECD wrestling with this problem, from Japan to Greece, and you aren't going to find anyone whose homework we want to copy. The debt is a problem Congress created and only Congress can solve. The president has almost nothing to do with it unless they choose to veto. In the grand scheme of things the president isn't nearly as important as Congress, but the people put nearly all of their attention on presidential politics. I think that you're underestimating the influence that the president can exert on the legislative process. The president has tremendous power to be a leader in the political process. Bush was particularly good at this, even though I disagree with much of what he promoted. Clinton was also very good. Obama, in contrast, has been remarkably bad as a political leader. Yep. Obama has zero executive experience. Clinton had around 20 years executive experience and Bush worked with his father and as a governor for 4-5 years. Comparing that to Obama's position as a state senator and then 3 years as Illinois senator, during about half of which he was campaigning. I just remember when S&P downgraded America and Obama looked utterly powerless. The downgrade of the US by S&P was based on the climate of political uncertainty created by the refusal of Republicans to compromise. They have made it their goal since day one to oppose Obama at every corner. They're responsible for the downgrade, not him.
There has never been anything in the past decade more inconsequential than S&P's downgrade of US debt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
