|
|
Also, just curious on what people think of how the debates will play out:
Poll: How will the debates go?I believe Obama will consistently win. (23) 55% I believe Obama will have the edge slightly. (9) 21% I believe Romney will consistently win. (8) 19% I believe Romney will have the edge slightly. (2) 5% I believe it will be too close too call (0) 0% Not sure. (0) 0% 42 total votes Your vote: How will the debates go? (Vote): I believe Romney will consistently win.
(Vote): I believe Romney will have the edge slightly.
(Vote): I believe Obama will have the edge slightly.
(Vote): I believe Obama will consistently win.
(Vote): I believe it will be too close too call
(Vote): Not sure.
|
On April 25 2012 03:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 03:45 mmp wrote:On April 25 2012 03:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 25 2012 03:33 mmp wrote:On April 25 2012 01:34 TheFish7 wrote:On April 25 2012 00:52 mmp wrote:
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).
Vote for whomever the fuck you want, it doesn't make a difference. Your congress[man/woman] is already bought too. I would like to counter some of these points Healthcare - The Obama plan is a boom to the health insurance industry? Not sure where you get this idea, The Obama plan will force the industry to give more people coverage and help to keep costs down for consumers. The plan is similar to the Romney plan, which was a good one imo. Foreign Policy - We are finally out of Iraq - thanks to Obama. Yes, we are still in Afghanistan, but this is I believe to prevent the Taliban from taking it back over or starting a very bad civil war. "illegal campaign in Libya" - I believe the Libya campaign was a huge success for democracy. Who cares if it was "illegal"? Aggression with China - The Obama administration has been doing a lot to bridge the gaps with china. Keep in mind that this is a country that routinely commits cyber attacks against American intelligence and corporate secrets. Aggression with Iran - Last time I checked, the republicans were the only ones advocating attacking Iran. Obama can't come outright and condemn Isreal, or he would lose all his jewish voters. Civil Rights - As far as I know, America is no longer torturing prisoners. As far as illegal spying and rights being infringed upon, I will agree that I am disappointed in the US government in that they seem to wish to erode the rights of their own citizens. Economy - BUSH bailed out the banks, and Obama bailed out Detroit. big difference - Obama was acting to save the auto industry, while Bushy boy was saving his Yale buddies from losing their cushy jobs. Congress is at fault for refusing to cut spending or create universal healthcare, not Obama, so it is fair to make the comparison. The healthcare "plan" doesn't address either of the crises: cost and under/un-insured. It has a medley of good ideas designed to relieve some of the stresses people are feeling (recent college graduates, elderly, people with preexisting conditions), but these ideas work under the framework of the bloated for-profit health insurance companies. It's a "feel-good" piece of legislation the way "No Child Left Behind" was a fix for education. It's a bunch of hot air. Don't blame congress for failing to enact universal healthcare, the Dems flat out rejected the idea in planning because it's bad for the insurance industry (who help fund election cycles). We're not "out of Iraq." We're as much out of it now by declaring an end to "Combat Missions" as when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." Most of our troops have come home or gone elsewhere (Afghanistan), but we're still running the show in Iraq. We're not going anywhere anytime soon. Regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban is in control of the country. It is known. Libya had nothing to do with democracy, nor was it legal under US Constitutional law. Check yo' facts. Iran: our sanction regime is unwarranted and provocative, and hypocrisy any way you look at it. More countries regard USA as a threat to stability than Iran. Check yo' bias. You're correct that TARP was on Bush's watch. Civil rights: As far as you know? That's not far enough, I'm afraid. We don't just torture our citizens, we assassinate them too. We also record and analyze the citizenry's email & phone conversations. Habeas corpus is dead. Obama's accelerated the Bush legacy of expanded executive military power, becoming judge jury and executioner at his whim. Scahill, Greenwald, and others have written extensively on the subject. It is not safe to be a political dissident in America (which is why a handful of people are trying to get NDAA knocked down before it gets out of control). I don't know where you get your rosy picture of this administration's record, but the facts are damning. The Libya stuff wasn't part of Constitutional law. It was a violation of the War Powers Resolution, which has been violated by all the past 3 Presidents at least once. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Obama went to Congress. Congress said, "We'll give you the money to do what you want to do, but we don't give approval." And that's what the War Powers Resolution is about. Being the commander-in-chief, he can send the armed forces anywhere he wants to do whatever he wants. Congress passed the law to limit that, attempting to make a declaration of war a prerequisite to U.S. armed "intervention." There's no where in the Constitution that says that the President has to go to Congress for approval to direct armed forces, just that Congress has the ability to fund them and confirm appointments. Until the WPR is held up or struck down in the SCOTUS, the President didn't violate Constitutional Law.
I don't quite understand your reading.
...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
...
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541
(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1544
|
On April 25 2012 05:01 Mazer wrote:
Also, just curious on what people think of how the debates will play out:
Obama is overall a better and more relatable speaker, but Romney will be well prepared and well-armed, and a fair better opponent than McCain. Romney is much better an a podium-head-to-head debate.
|
On April 25 2012 06:37 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 05:01 Mazer wrote:
Also, just curious on what people think of how the debates will play out:
Obama is overall a better and more relatable speaker, but Romney will be well prepared and well-armed, and a fair better opponent than McCain. Romney is much better an a podium-head-to-head debate.
As long as he does not make 10k dollar bets on TV again he should do ok vs Obama^^
I am quite interested how the Obama Campaign will attack Romney though. Also at what Romney specifically will aim for will be interesting, that Obama is the worst President in the history of ever is getting kinda old as well...
|
|
|
On April 25 2012 06:02 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 03:55 aksfjh wrote:On April 25 2012 03:45 mmp wrote:On April 25 2012 03:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 25 2012 03:33 mmp wrote:On April 25 2012 01:34 TheFish7 wrote:On April 25 2012 00:52 mmp wrote:
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).
Vote for whomever the fuck you want, it doesn't make a difference. Your congress[man/woman] is already bought too. I would like to counter some of these points Healthcare - The Obama plan is a boom to the health insurance industry? Not sure where you get this idea, The Obama plan will force the industry to give more people coverage and help to keep costs down for consumers. The plan is similar to the Romney plan, which was a good one imo. Foreign Policy - We are finally out of Iraq - thanks to Obama. Yes, we are still in Afghanistan, but this is I believe to prevent the Taliban from taking it back over or starting a very bad civil war. "illegal campaign in Libya" - I believe the Libya campaign was a huge success for democracy. Who cares if it was "illegal"? Aggression with China - The Obama administration has been doing a lot to bridge the gaps with china. Keep in mind that this is a country that routinely commits cyber attacks against American intelligence and corporate secrets. Aggression with Iran - Last time I checked, the republicans were the only ones advocating attacking Iran. Obama can't come outright and condemn Isreal, or he would lose all his jewish voters. Civil Rights - As far as I know, America is no longer torturing prisoners. As far as illegal spying and rights being infringed upon, I will agree that I am disappointed in the US government in that they seem to wish to erode the rights of their own citizens. Economy - BUSH bailed out the banks, and Obama bailed out Detroit. big difference - Obama was acting to save the auto industry, while Bushy boy was saving his Yale buddies from losing their cushy jobs. Congress is at fault for refusing to cut spending or create universal healthcare, not Obama, so it is fair to make the comparison. The healthcare "plan" doesn't address either of the crises: cost and under/un-insured. It has a medley of good ideas designed to relieve some of the stresses people are feeling (recent college graduates, elderly, people with preexisting conditions), but these ideas work under the framework of the bloated for-profit health insurance companies. It's a "feel-good" piece of legislation the way "No Child Left Behind" was a fix for education. It's a bunch of hot air. Don't blame congress for failing to enact universal healthcare, the Dems flat out rejected the idea in planning because it's bad for the insurance industry (who help fund election cycles). We're not "out of Iraq." We're as much out of it now by declaring an end to "Combat Missions" as when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." Most of our troops have come home or gone elsewhere (Afghanistan), but we're still running the show in Iraq. We're not going anywhere anytime soon. Regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban is in control of the country. It is known. Libya had nothing to do with democracy, nor was it legal under US Constitutional law. Check yo' facts. Iran: our sanction regime is unwarranted and provocative, and hypocrisy any way you look at it. More countries regard USA as a threat to stability than Iran. Check yo' bias. You're correct that TARP was on Bush's watch. Civil rights: As far as you know? That's not far enough, I'm afraid. We don't just torture our citizens, we assassinate them too. We also record and analyze the citizenry's email & phone conversations. Habeas corpus is dead. Obama's accelerated the Bush legacy of expanded executive military power, becoming judge jury and executioner at his whim. Scahill, Greenwald, and others have written extensively on the subject. It is not safe to be a political dissident in America (which is why a handful of people are trying to get NDAA knocked down before it gets out of control). I don't know where you get your rosy picture of this administration's record, but the facts are damning. The Libya stuff wasn't part of Constitutional law. It was a violation of the War Powers Resolution, which has been violated by all the past 3 Presidents at least once. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Obama went to Congress. Congress said, "We'll give you the money to do what you want to do, but we don't give approval." And that's what the War Powers Resolution is about. Being the commander-in-chief, he can send the armed forces anywhere he wants to do whatever he wants. Congress passed the law to limit that, attempting to make a declaration of war a prerequisite to U.S. armed "intervention." There's no where in the Constitution that says that the President has to go to Congress for approval to direct armed forces, just that Congress has the ability to fund them and confirm appointments. Until the WPR is held up or struck down in the SCOTUS, the President didn't violate Constitutional Law. I don't quite understand your reading. Show nested quote +
...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
...
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8Show nested quote +
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541Show nested quote +
(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1544
You can argue until you're blue in the face but whether you, or me or a federal judge for that matter can determine whether Obama was truly in a war or a small "hostility" is avoided at best, subjective at worst. No one is going to challenge presidential prerogative in "small" scale wars like Grenada or Libya in a serious manner.
I'm secretly hoping Romney picks up Rubio, then the margin hits 55%~ and I'll sink a couple K into it for Obama.
|
Romney will do fine in the debates. Unfortunately, the presidential debates are likely to be less interesting than the republican debates because they will be more canned. That is how it typically is, anyway.
|
I myself am I minority and Obama is closer to that category than Romney. Therefore with my personal bias, I sure hope that the southern neighbors shall be governed by someone who have similar sentiment as myself. So yes, Obama better deliver some of his good stuff once again in the upcoming debates.
|
Yeah presidential debates are usually pretty boring, at least compared to party primary ones.
At least the Vice Pres debate HAS to be better this time, whoever it is. Last time it was just Biden trying to not look mean and Palin regurgitating her memorized statements.
|
I'm still undecided on who I'll vote for but can we please get the election back on track and have them start talking about the important matters and not who is the bigger threat to dogs?
|
On April 25 2012 09:16 NotSorry wrote:
I'm still undecided on who I'll vote for but can we please get the election back on track and have them start talking about the important matters and not who is the bigger threat to dogs?
I'm undecided if I'm even going to vote for President, but I'm definitely with you on the latter statement. It is just ridiculous. Has the media discussed any serious issues yet since Romney was basically declared the nominee?
|
Yeah it's pretty obvious to me that if the election was today Obama would win, but the GOP has a LOT of money in different organizations that are waiting for the right time to start their propaganda against Obama. They have not yet started in earnest. Once that gets started who knows who will win.
|
On April 25 2012 09:26 Chytilova wrote:Yeah it's pretty obvious to me that if the election was today Obama would win, but the GOP has a LOT of money in different organizations that are waiting for the right time to start their propaganda against Obama. They have not yet started in earnest. Once that gets started who knows who will win.
Yup. Grassroots support for Obama has to come up huge. And a little help from Buffet wouldn't hurt either XD
|
On April 25 2012 09:14 DannyJ wrote:
Yeah presidential debates are usually pretty boring, at least compared to party primary ones.
At least the Vice Pres debate HAS to be better this time, whoever it is. Last time it was just Biden trying to not look mean and Palin regurgitating her memorized statements.
Hey, don't speak too soon. I'm still holding out on Romney picking Palin as VP running mate (again). That would make this election really amazing to watch.
|
On April 25 2012 09:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 09:14 DannyJ wrote:
Yeah presidential debates are usually pretty boring, at least compared to party primary ones.
At least the Vice Pres debate HAS to be better this time, whoever it is. Last time it was just Biden trying to not look mean and Palin regurgitating her memorized statements. Hey, don't speak too soon. I'm still holding out on Romney picking Palin as VP running mate (again). That would make this election really amazing to watch.
It would make it even worse. Everyone I have ever talked to (Republican or Democrat) has said how much they despise Palin as being our president, and Im sure it wouldn't be any different for VP.
Romney will give it a run because of all the money millionares/billionres are going to throw at him. Anyone who votes for him is either rich or has no idea what he wants to actually do taxation wise. I fail to understand how anyone aside from the rich would want to elect romney.
|
Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
|
Another great line: "It's still about the economy, and we're not stupid."
|
On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote:
Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
Yeah, America should have known better than to vote the Republicans into office in 2010.
|
For anybody talking about how one candidate or the other has an advantage because of one rich supporter or another, I would like to point out that, historically speaking, there is little reason to believe that campaign spending increases the chances of victory. Rather, large donors give money to the person most likely to pay off, i.e., the person who is most likely to win. Therefore, while winning candidates often have more money, they do not win because they have money, they have money because they are expected to win.
And to speak to the topic of the thread: I would prefer Romney over Obama because I very much dislike Obama's economic policies. I am a libertarian myself, and I very much detest the kind of massive government economic intervention that Obama seems to like. I hate the individual mandate of Obamacare. I know that Romneycare did something somewhat similar, but if my research is correct, that was passed because Massachusetts has an extremely liberal state senate.
That said, I think Obama will win. The economy tends to be the primary determiner of election outcomes, and if the economy shows growth it will be attributed to Obama, regardless of whether his policies have delayed/stunted the growth or caused it.
|
On April 25 2012 00:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 22:04 Wegandi wrote: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).
Since this is a Obama / Romney thread, I have no idea what you are getting at there. Obama promoted removing the Bush era tax cuts. Granted this isn't really going to do much of anything. That said Romney has SAID he will promote big spending cuts, but never says what they are. He has also said he would increase defense spending by a fairly large amount. So basically no cuts he would push for would ever be politically viable enough to really make a difference either.
The main republican angle on spending since Regan has been to 'choke it' by just increasing debt. I.e. that if we get enough debt it will stop. It has always been a stupid idea and it has never worked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
