Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SteVo

General Election 2012 Thread

Recommended Posts

Paul Ryan said at a rally today, "Do you want Barack Obama to be re-elected? Then don't vote for Ron Paul." So much underlying meaning in that statement.

I'm not voting for Ron Paul because he isn't on the ballot and my state doesn't count write-ins. Not voting for that jackass Mitt "Massachusetts Liberal" Romney, though. Gary Johnson for me. Hopefully Paul "Wisconsin Progressive" Ryan is happy about my choice since I am not voting for Ron Paul.

Edited by WindyCitySports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

I suppose I'll outline why I'm voting for Obama rather than Romney this year:

-I'm a huge advocate of health care reform and I've made no secret of that here. Romney/Ryan will surely repeal it or, if they can't do that, find other ways to block funding or some such bullshit. If Obama is elected to a 2nd term, Obamacare will be almost in full effect by the time his term ends and virtually a permanent fixture. Me gusta.

 

-I want the Bush tax cuts to expire. Obama has run up the deficit and will likely to continue to do so. That's probably inevitable regardless of who wins in November. However, the economic policies Romney/Ryan have vaguely hinted leading up to this point (and let's be real for a minute: They haven't actually said shit regarding economic policy, and it's kind of terrifying that anyone just automatically believes they can "fix" the economy without even hearing any specific policy proposals, but I digress...) that they'll continue to cut taxes to generate economic growth. Problem is, they haven't come up with any plausible solutions to lowering the deficit. Tax cuts ALWAYS lead to lower government revenue, meaning they have to make some serious spending cuts to offset the lower revenues from the tax cuts. Romney says he'll make up those revenues by fixing the tax code but that's not nearly enough. Not even close. I don't have any reason to believe Romney/Ryan can reduce the deficit anymore than Obama can, and actually believe they'll create a larger increase to the deficit.

 

-Romney says he wants to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act, a bill that implements new regulations as well as revives some old regulations on the financial system. People argue it lowers profits for these institutions, but after the debacle Wall Street created in 2007-2008 I think lower profits is a much more preferable end than allowing them to crash our economy again.

 

-Romney has hinted strongly (but to be fair, hasn't come out right and said) that he would go to war with Iran. Fuck all of that. That's the last thing we need right now.

 

-Romney and Ryan have both criticized the Fed recently, mostly regarding QE3. For two guys running on the economy, their lack of knowledge of the nation's central banking system and it's responsibilities is pretty scary.

 

-Romney/Ryan want to cut Pell Grant funding and in general have had a pretty shitty attitude towards students. Romney even said at one town hall meeting that we should just borrow that money from our parents. Really, dude? My parents don't have $20k/year to loan me. The expansion of Pell Grant funding under the Obama administration has cut my school costs by 50% per year...a HUGE chunk of change. This was the most glaringly obvious statement by Romney showing how out of touch he is with the middle class.

 

There are a few more reasons but this is pretty much the gist of it. My reasoning for voting for Obama leans more towards allowing the few things I actually like that he's done to not be repealed. And policy stuff aside, there's just something I don't trust about a guy worth $250 million running for President. Why would he want to subject himself to the worst job on the planet if he's living comfortably on hundreds of millions of dollars? It doesn't sit well with me.

Edited by Phailadelphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am waiting for you to tell us all the awesome things Obama has done for us and why he deserves my vote in a mere few months. Every opportunity I give you is nothing but excuse after excuse.

 

Do YOU even know why you are (seemingly) going to be voting for him?

 

-I support Obamacare.

-I don't believe in tax cuts for the wealthy. Matter of fact, I agree with the idea of taxing them more. They make bank off of the lower classes in this country. They can give more back.

-Phail has already outlined what the stimulus and bailouts actually did, regardless of how much they're mocked.

-I do not believe in strengthening our already "strong beyond necessity" military.

-I don't believe in a candidate who makes blatant generalizations about the less fortunate in this country, not to mention the fact that Romney thinks he's earned every dime he's ever made. He's your typical, naive 50-60 something year old white man. He doesn't know ANYTHING about struggle, and has no idea what lower classes and different races have gone through. He has no empathy.

 

I've got my reasons. It just so happens that a significantly more passionate poster (Phail) writes books for posts that basically align with my beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Ryan said at a rally today, "Do you want Barack Obama to be re-elected? Then don't vote for Ron Paul." So much underlying meaning in that statement.

 

Wait what? Are you sure that's what he said?

 

So he's telling us that if we don't want Obama to be re-elected, we should vote for Ron Paul?

 

I'm confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I'll outline why I'm voting for Obama rather than Romney this year:

-I'm a huge advocate of health care reform and I've made no secret of that here. Romney/Ryan will surely repeal it or, if they can't do that, find other ways to block funding or some such bullshit. If Obama is elected to a 2nd term, Obamacare will be almost in full effect by the time his term ends and virtually a permanent fixture. Me gusta.

 

-I want the Bush tax cuts to expire. Obama has run up the deficit and will likely to continue to do so. That's probably inevitable regardless of who wins in November. However, the economic policies Romney/Ryan have vaguely hinted leading up to this point (and let's be real for a minute: They haven't actually said shit regarding economic policy, and it's kind of terrifying that anyone just automatically believes they can "fix" the economy without even hearing any specific policy proposals, but I digress...) that they'll continue to cut taxes to generate economic growth. Problem is, they haven't come up with any plausible solutions to lowering the deficit. Tax cuts ALWAYS lead to lower government revenue, meaning they have to make some serious spending cuts to offset the lower revenues from the tax cuts. Romney says he'll make up those revenues by fixing the tax code but that's not nearly enough. Not even close. I don't have any reason to believe Romney/Ryan can reduce the deficit anymore than Obama can, and actually believe they'll create a larger increase to the deficit.

 

-Romney says he wants to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act, a bill that implements new regulations as well as revives some old regulations on the financial system. People argue it lowers profits for these institutions, but after the debacle Wall Street created in 2007-2008 I think lower profits is a much more preferable end than allowing them to crash our economy again.

 

-Romney has hinted strongly (but to be fair, hasn't come out right and said) that he would go to war with Iran. Fuck all of that. That's the last thing we need right now.

 

-Romney and Ryan have both criticized the Fed recently, mostly regarding QE3. For two guys running on the economy, their lack of knowledge of the nation's central banking system and it's responsibilities is pretty scary.

 

-Romney/Ryan want to cut Pell Grant funding and in general have had a pretty shitty attitude towards students. Romney even said at one town hall meeting that we should just borrow that money from our parents. Really, dude? My parents don't have $20k/year to loan me. The expansion of Pell Grant funding under the Obama administration has cut my school costs by 50% per year...a HUGE chunk of change. This was the most glaringly obvious statement by Romney showing how out of touch he is with the middle class.

 

There are a few more reasons but this is pretty much the gist of it. My reasoning for voting for Obama leans more towards allowing the few things I actually like that he's done to not be repealed. And policy stuff aside, there's just something I don't trust about a guy worth $250 million running for President. Why would he want to subject himself to the worst job on the planet if he's living comfortably on hundreds of millions of dollars? It doesn't sit well with me.

 

 

I have a few questions here. Not so much in your reasons for voting, because in all truth I am just happy educated people vote. I thought that was almost impossible today.

 

With the healthcare reform thing, even with another 4 years in office I am not really sure how much Obama can get done. While I think it wont be from a lack of trying do you really think that the people who are making billions of this country are going to sit idly by and watch them lose their billions. As much as I hate to say it he is going to have to persuade the people with money it is a good idea because of the whole "Golden Rule" thing. I am not saying it is not a great idea in concept but I think he is banging his head against the wall with this. His healthcare has more than anything made me question his leadership. I understand that I just outlined a perfect counter argument to this with the billionaire thing. However as a leader it is your JOB to get people on board with things that are going to overall benefit the country and the welfare of its citizens. Almost every president in history who has been in a crisis that he is and is on the verge of perpetuating has been able to rally men to his side and we have came through. I just don't see that in Obama. And I know you like to use table to support your points which in most circumstances I would admire, however in politics there is no unbiased resource. Now there are certainly ones that are more biased then the others but all share bias. I said that because I had a feeling a filibuster chart was coming up. While those are probably accurate I dont want to hear that excuse. You are the most powerful man in the country if you can not get fellow Americans on board to help better the country than you may very well be a good person but a terrible leader. Is that unfair ? In theory I think I should expect my president to be a good leader. In practice it is a bit harder bu the fact remains he signed up for this job got the majority of Americans to believe in him and now it is time to deliver on some MAJOR levels.

 

AS to the deficit spending thing, I will concede that Obama tried a bring jobs home act and it failed because of greedy billionaires. However with that said lets not act like he has made marvelous strides in reducing the deficit or even attempted to cut deficit spending. So let us not pretend he is some economic guru either because if the past 4 years have shown anything it has shown the opposite. The reason most people were not as high on this until the election as the were with Bush is because he was trying to expand and improve social programs and it quelled the masses but it still really did nothing for the deficit. I will say I am an advocate for social programs and putting everybody on an equal footing but that does not negate the fact that the economy has not really improved much and the deficit is worse than it has ever been faster than it has ever been. You cannot use the fact that he has financed two wars because bush did that too during the most expensive parts of the war and still managed to not spend as fast.

 

The lower profits being a good thing by repealing the dodd frank act could go both ways. If banks are making as much then they damn sure wont be lending much so people are still going to struggle getting small business loans and things of that nature. SO I mean I understand what you are saying but lower profits to money lenders hurts everybody, and it wasnt just the banks that bankrupted us but that is a different story.

 

The war with Iran is indeed a terrible idea. However with Ahdminijahed I think it is going to happen eventually, not saying soon but that shit will happen. WE are doing the same thing to Iran that we did to Iraq before we invaded and in the last 3 or 4 wars we have gone into you can see it as clear as day what we are doing and that an invasion is probably a matter of time more than a possibility. Now with that said nothing is certain and we could back off but it is unlikely.

 

So a few questions I have for you.

Do you really think Obama is the leader people think he is ?

 

When ti comes to other countries can we really control the whole war thing anyway?

 

The Dodd Frank act being repealed does not have to be a bad thing. Granted is that the way it is headed....whose to say. However can we really keep the power in banks hands by lowering their profit margins and them keeping everything? That is hurting the middle class as much as anything?

 

And if Obama were to get re-elected do you think that he would be able to control congress any better than what he has and leave a lasting impression that would not just get ripped up to shit when the next president came in ?

 

Well off to work. I am not trying to be pretentious or argumentative just some legitimate concerns I have about the election coming up in the Obama category. And believe me I have just as many for Romney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-I don't believe in tax cuts for the wealthy. Matter of fact, I agree with the idea of taxing them more. They make bank off of the lower classes in this country. They can give more back.

 

Well, this is something of a can of worms, but in terms of taxes, there's a big difference between personal income and capital gains. I'll tackle them one at a time.

 

You want to tax the rich more on personal income? Fine. Whatever. I'm a mathematics major, so I believe the fairest way to tax people is a flat tax; for every dollar you make, you pay Uncle Sam x cents. No matter how many dollars you make. But I also accept the reality that such a plan would never get passed, and that tax increases obviously affect the rich less than the middle class and poor. So I support slight increases for higher income people, but only for millionaires. I think people would be surprised just how high taxes are for people making six figures. If you earn a salary of $200,000, odds are you pay close to $100,000 in taxes when it's all said and done. You're going to tell me that's fair?

 

Okay, now to capital gains. This is a bigger issue for me, and I'm glad Romney finally came out and said something about it. You want to tax the hell out of businesses for income on capital gains? Okay. Good luck stimulating economic growth. It's actually quite simple: lower tax rates on capital gains encourage businesses to invest in America. And remember that sometimes this money has already been taxed at the corporate level at higher rates. A lot of these double/redundant taxes exist within our system, and I'd like to see them gone before anything else happens.

 

-I do not believe in strengthening our already "strong beyond necessity" military.

 

Well I've got bad news for you. No U.S. President, Democrat or Republican, is interested in reducing our military spending. In fact, not reducing our military budget is about the only thing Democrats and Republicans in Congress could agree on during their last group of sessions this past week. I have a feeling we'll have "military operations" in Iran over the next four years, no matter who is President.

 

-I don't believe in a candidate who makes blatant generalizations about the less fortunate in this country...

 

Once again, I've got bad news. If you're looking for a leader who makes constant generalizations and breaks the American people down into groups, look no further than President Obama.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

I love well-thought out responses.

 

I have a few questions here. Not so much in your reasons for voting, because in all truth I am just happy educated people vote. I thought that was almost impossible today.

 

With the healthcare reform thing, even with another 4 years in office I am not really sure how much Obama can get done. While I think it wont be from a lack of trying do you really think that the people who are making billions of this country are going to sit idly by and watch them lose their billions. As much as I hate to say it he is going to have to persuade the people with money it is a good idea because of the whole "Golden Rule" thing. I am not saying it is not a great idea in concept but I think he is banging his head against the wall with this. His healthcare has more than anything made me question his leadership. I understand that I just outlined a perfect counter argument to this with the billionaire thing. However as a leader it is your JOB to get people on board with things that are going to overall benefit the country and the welfare of its citizens. Almost every president in history who has been in a crisis that he is and is on the verge of perpetuating has been able to rally men to his side and we have came through. I just don't see that in Obama. And I know you like to use table to support your points which in most circumstances I would admire, however in politics there is no unbiased resource. Now there are certainly ones that are more biased then the others but all share bias. I said that because I had a feeling a filibuster chart was coming up. While those are probably accurate I dont want to hear that excuse. You are the most powerful man in the country if you can not get fellow Americans on board to help better the country than you may very well be a good person but a terrible leader. Is that unfair ? In theory I think I should expect my president to be a good leader. In practice it is a bit harder bu the fact remains he signed up for this job got the majority of Americans to believe in him and now it is time to deliver on some MAJOR levels.

 

Agree with most of the above. The only caveat with this administration I think is that Republicans, from Day 1, openly admitted they would be totally unwilling to compromise with the President on any issue. We had a similar scenario in the mid-90s with Clinton vs Gingrich and the Republican House. The difference is then they were willing to (and did) compromise on key issues. And not to say that Democrats aren't partly at fault here too, but this stubbornness by GOP representatives is precisely why the US's credit rating was temporarily dropped to AA. Congress couldn't come to an agreement as simple as raising the debt ceiling, and did it on purely ignorant grounds. The debt ceiling allows the federal government to pay on its previously incurred debt. The GOP paraded the debt ceiling debacle around like it was the government wanting to borrow more money. No true.

 

The President is not the typical leader type such as Reagan or Clinton or other of our more famous Presidents. He's never had that in him, likely never will. Probably Obama's biggest fault as President is his lack of executive experience, and that's made him look weak. So this election cycle it's "weak" vs "shoot first, ask questions later." I prefer "weak" in that scenario.

 

AS to the deficit spending thing, I will concede that Obama tried a bring jobs home act and it failed because of greedy billionaires. However with that said lets not act like he has made marvelous strides in reducing the deficit or even attempted to cut deficit spending. So let us not pretend he is some economic guru either because if the past 4 years have shown anything it has shown the opposite. The reason most people were not as high on this until the election as the were with Bush is because he was trying to expand and improve social programs and it quelled the masses but it still really did nothing for the deficit. I will say I am an advocate for social programs and putting everybody on an equal footing but that does not negate the fact that the economy has not really improved much and the deficit is worse than it has ever been faster than it has ever been. You cannot use the fact that he has financed two wars because bush did that too during the most expensive parts of the war and still managed to not spend as fast.

 

Right, but the key difference is financing 2 wars for each administration is it's much easier with the relatively good economy Bush had. Financing two wars with significantly lower revenues and a struggling economy while also being responsible for aiding said struggling economy in recovering is a tall task. I don't really believe anyone else would have handled it any better. FWIW, whether Obama, McCain, or anyone else, the bailout was going to happen and the stimulus was going to happen. That's why I don't think this massive deficit was avoidable.

 

The lower profits being a good thing by repealing the dodd frank act could go both ways. If banks are making as much then they damn sure wont be lending much so people are still going to struggle getting small business loans and things of that nature. SO I mean I understand what you are saying but lower profits to money lenders hurts everybody, and it wasnt just the banks that bankrupted us but that is a different story.

 

No, but they had probably the largest role in bankrupting the country. Anyway, for the 30-someodd years that Glass-Steagall was intact, the economy was booming and anyone could get a loan. I don't have any reason to believe we won't return to that when the economy picks up.

 

The war with Iran is indeed a terrible idea. However with Ahdminijahed I think it is going to happen eventually, not saying soon but that shit will happen. WE are doing the same thing to Iran that we did to Iraq before we invaded and in the last 3 or 4 wars we have gone into you can see it as clear as day what we are doing and that an invasion is probably a matter of time more than a possibility. Now with that said nothing is certain and we could back off but it is unlikely.

 

I'm relatively ignorant on foreign policy but from what I understand Ahdminijehad isn't actually all that powerful in Iran. If that's the case I don't think it's a legitimate threat. You're probably right though. It wouldn't surprise me if we end up at war with them down the road.

 

So a few questions I have for you.

Do you really think Obama is the leader people think he is ?

 

Great orator, very charismatic, but like I said above his lack of executive experience has made him look weak. However the whole "he's apologizing to the rest of the world" is a bunch of horseshit.

 

When ti comes to other countries can we really control the whole war thing anyway?

 

I don't know.

 

The Dodd Frank act being repealed does not have to be a bad thing. Granted is that the way it is headed....whose to say. However can we really keep the power in banks hands by lowering their profit margins and them keeping everything? That is hurting the middle class as much as anything?

 

Well the Dodd-Frank Act doesn't intentionally lower their profits. It's just a side effect. But we had excellent economic growth under the Glass-Steagall Act when bankers didn't make shit. The idea is to stop banks from over-leveraging and taking on so much excess risk. They'll have lower profit margins but they're still going to make absurd amounts of money.

 

And if Obama were to get re-elected do you think that he would be able to control congress any better than what he has and leave a lasting impression that would not just get ripped up to shit when the next president came in ?

 

I feel like he could pass all the greatest legislation in the world, that everyone agreed with, and it wouldn't matter if the economy is still in the dumpster in 2016. And rightfully so. I think the biggest problem with Congress are Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner. Fuck all 3 of those non-compromising assholes.

 

Well off to work. I am not trying to be pretentious or argumentative just some legitimate concerns I have about the election coming up in the Obama category. And believe me I have just as many for Romney.

 

You don't come off pretentious at all (and I hope I don't either). I love a well thought out, civil political debate. One of my professors once told me, "If you can't defend your political beliefs when challenged you don't know what the fuck you actually believe."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love well-thought out responses.

 

 

 

Agree with most of the above. The only caveat with this administration I think is that Republicans, from Day 1, openly admitted they would be totally unwilling to compromise with the President on any issue. We had a similar scenario in the mid-90s with Clinton vs Gingrich and the Republican House. The difference is then they were willing to (and did) compromise on key issues. And not to say that Democrats aren't partly at fault here too, but this stubbornness by GOP representatives is precisely why the US's credit rating was temporarily dropped to AA. Congress couldn't come to an agreement as simple as raising the debt ceiling, and did it on purely ignorant grounds. The debt ceiling allows the federal government to pay on its previously incurred debt. The GOP paraded the debt ceiling debacle around like it was the government wanting to borrow more money. No true.

 

Yeah and while I agree with you about how they have been a total road block on progress, there has to be something that can be done. I am not saying that I am some political expert or anything of the sort and would never be as arrogant to say as such without much further research and a few degrees. However I think that this country could use a little bit of "common sense" politics (yeah, I just coined that phrase.)I remember one of the biggest things that had me thinking Obama would be a great guy and hold people accountable when he was giving us those "reach across party lines" bits was that he said he would tape every congress session. I think that in itself would be a great idea and put it on a public channel for free. And show proposed bills and a brief summation of them and then show people BY STATE who voted how. This would let people see if those people really had a representative who gave a shit about them. That may help weed out some of the assholes or it may not but it would be a start. I really believe in my heart of hearts that the American people by and large want all presidents to succeed so he needs to harness his greatest power and let us start weeding those shit heads out.

 

The President is not the typical leader type such as Reagan or Clinton or other of our more famous Presidents. He's never had that in him, likely never will. Probably Obama's biggest fault as President is his lack of executive experience, and that's made him look weak. So this election cycle it's "weak" vs "shoot first, ask questions later." I prefer "weak" in that scenario.

 

I would not say Clinton was a real leader. And I would not say that Reagan was either. The reason I say Clinton is because just about anybody could have been a great president when the .com boom was taking off. As to REagan the whole "war on drugs" thing just killed him for me. While I am not opposed to ridding the country of hardcore illicit drugs the cloak and dagger shit that crippled metropolitan areas was an asshole move and I can not be convinced he had no idea what he was doing.

 

Right, but the key difference is financing 2 wars for each administration is it's much easier with the relatively good economy Bush had. Financing two wars with significantly lower revenues and a struggling economy while also being responsible for aiding said struggling economy in recovering is a tall task. I don't really believe anyone else would have handled it any better. FWIW, whether Obama, McCain, or anyone else, the bailout was going to happen and the stimulus was going to happen. That's why I don't think this massive deficit was avoidable.

 

It was not all sunshine and Rainbows for Bush either from the way I understand it. This whole housin crisis is convenient to pin on him but the "no-doc" loans are what did it and that started well before him. The housing market was really what set off the chain of events that led to the crash. Although I will not sit here and tell you that he had no hand in it because Bush saw it coming and chose to still stand steadfast in his too big to fail approach. So while it appears we were booming when he took over (which we were, we were also standing on the edge of a cliff and he was just the final nudge. Now how that pertains to the war is in his best guess was well if we make the rich richer than we will boom again. SO Bush was given a surprisingly shitty hand as well. At least Obama knew what he was in for, this is not to pin things on him or absolve Bush of any wrong doing it is just to point out the fact that this is not as cut and dried as a lot of Dems would have us believe.

 

 

No, but they had probably the largest role in bankrupting the country. Anyway, for the 30-someodd years that Glass-Steagall was intact, the economy was booming and anyone could get a loan. I don't have any reason to believe we won't return to that when the economy picks up.

 

As to the GS act and the DF act they are almost the same thing, so what the end game in repealing one is I am not sure. They had the same purpose but going back to the 30's and 40's they had realized what the dangers would be of underwriting securities and one of the bills creators actually said it had created undue harm. Where we fucked this up was when we decided that the Fed could really interpret this and enact things that were un regulated and trying to compensate by over-regulating and causing banks to clam up for short periods of time to show that they were best left alone. and for a number of years they were but when the global marketplace became more complicated it was necessary to evolve and we did not. SO in effect what really happened was that while everybody else was just now creating a free market economy due to the amount of dictatorships and authoritarian style of government were creating more effective methods of money management and trying to adapt them to a changing economy while we were trying to go by economic policies that were effective in their day but had become antiquated. Again this can be pinned in alrge part on the .com boom because that is when the shit hit the fan. With all of the offshore securities and global free market trading our banks were assuming that our system was a one size fits all. this was not the case and is evidenced again by the "no-doc" loans that wall street would package together and sell as a securities package to offshore investors who ended up losing their ass in the 2000's which was why the Euro as a unified currency caught on so strong. Then we crashed and the securities became worthless and then we lost a lot of trust in the global market and in turn the value of the dollar went down. This created a panic and people beginning to pinch pennies.

 

I'm relatively ignorant on foreign policy but from what I understand Ahdminijehad isn't actually all that powerful in Iran. If that's the case I don't think it's a legitimate threat. You're probably right though. It wouldn't surprise me if we end up at war with them down the road.

 

He does not have the power as in the people back him but he has the ear of local religious leaders and the FEAR of the people in his country so he has power but only in the sense that if you beat a dog it will fear you.

 

Great orator, very charismatic, but like I said above his lack of executive experience has made him look weak. However the whole "he's apologizing to the rest of the world" is a bunch of horseshit.

 

Again I dont even need him to have much executive experience but I would like him to finally stand up to republican and the tea party and basically call them out. If you want to play the role of a man of the people and the people are screaming out for help then I think it would not be an inappropriate gesture to come into congress screaming like a banshee and making people be accountable for their words and take a more personal hand in exposing them for their beliefs and why it is not in the best interest of the american people to have these people be their elected representatives. So with that said if he walked in and during one of these republican or tea party filibusters just start taking their asses to school would thrill me beyond belief and ensure he gets at lest one extra vote. However he strikes me of as the guy who says well I am going to take the high road and let other people do it because I dont want to lower myself by becoming entangled in this 6th grade quarrel. Which may be a good approach if we were doing really well but he needs to start showing people he cares about the inner workings of those occupying HIS house. It may be petty to him but in the state we are in I can live with a president going a few rounds with an asshole to prove his points. He is definitely not an imbecile so he could hold his own in a constitutional law and political debate and he needs to start doing it as a gesture of goodwill and caring for the American people imo.

 

 

Well the Dodd-Frank Act doesn't intentionally lower their profits. It's just a side effect. But we had excellent economic growth under the Glass-Steagall Act when bankers didn't make shit. The idea is to stop banks from over-leveraging and taking on so much excess risk. They'll have lower profit margins but they're still going to make absurd amounts of money.

 

See my answer above about these two acts.

 

I feel like he could pass all the greatest legislation in the world, that everyone agreed with, and it wouldn't matter if the economy is still in the dumpster in 2016. And rightfully so. I think the biggest problem with Congress are Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner. Fuck all 3 of those non-compromising assholes.

 

Exactly another thing I have a problem with. All this legislation is good when you can finance it without having to put undo burden on others. He needs to learn how to prioritize and the economy should be at the top of the list in my opinion. If people were bitching but had jobs they would be doing it at the lake because they could afford it and then they would just let it go. however when you have families in a one room shack because daddy got laid off from Boeing they really dont have anything to do other than bitch and him being the figure head he is going to take the blame. While foreign policy is indeed important for the time being domestic policy and the well being of the American citizens should be his sole concern right now and deal with foreign policy when he has a workforce that is content and could handle the burden of curve balls from other nations outside our own.

Edited by Ngata_Chance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

All great points.

 

For the record - Dodd-Frank was passed because Glass-Steagall has been slowly repealed piece by piece, and then finally formally repealed in 1999 I think, over the last 30ish years. That was part of the reason banks have grown so excessively large where during the middle of the last century they weren't all that large nor made so much profit. Or at least half of it. There's been a lot of crazy financial instrument innovation starting in the '70s with derivatives and Glass-Steagall didn't regulate that because it didn't exist when the legislation was initially passed. That's something legislators should have been on top of during the '80s and '90s but Greenspan and Co. convinced Americans what was good for Wall Street was good for America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, the military needs to be constantly progressing. I don't think it should be as large as it is, but we're fucked in the long run if we just grow apathetic to other nations and their technological advances. This isn't a response to China's and Russia's stealth fighters. Hell no... even with those programs, they are virtually decades behind us in stealth. However, we should be progressing ourselves so that we are even further than that.

 

Also, spending money on badly needed projects and then cutting those projects is pissing me off. It almost pisses me off more than when we spend spend spend on useless projects and then cut it at the worst possible time. Fuck defense contractors and our procurement system, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, the military needs to be constantly progressing. I don't think it should be as large as it is, but we're fucked in the long run if we just grow apathetic to other nations and their technological advances.

 

2011-11-29-Presentation1-thumb.jpg

 

Yeah man, I'm concerned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but laugh at the people who fall for the Obama talking point on reducing military spending. Yeah, all of those drone strikes sure are cheap! Do you even know how much money goes into those things? You have the actual drone, the rockets, the people who operate them, the people who maintain them, the people who gather intelligence on where to strike...etc. It's not any cheaper than putting boots on the ground.

 

And with all the bullshit going on in the Middle East, you REALLY believe that we'll be able to just keep status quo? We're going to reeled into all of it, no matter who is President. Don't kid yourself into thinking "Oh Mitt wants to go war again hurf durf" because the reality is, it's probably going to happen with Obama too.

 

Obama's foreign policy might as well be a fucking page by page copy of George W. Bush's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone else hear about Obama's line in his UN speech, about the "future not belonging to those who slander the prophet of Islam?"

 

Said line was completely ignored by most of the major news outlets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia
The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunnis and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. Extremists understand this. And because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They do not build, they only destroy.

 

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. We cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

 

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

 

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

 

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, and those who reject the right of Israel to exist. The road is hard but the destination is clear – a secure, Jewish state of Israel; and an independent, prosperous Palestine. Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

 

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings. And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.

Edited by Phailadelphia
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you much, Phail. Another obvious quote-mine, jeez. I assumed that wouldn't be done on something that could so easily be double-checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

Thank you much, Phail. Another obvious quote-mine, jeez. I assumed that wouldn't be done on something that could so easily be double-checked.

 

Worst part about it is Fox had an editorial column bemoaning the MSM's disregard for the quote. I feel like these are the same people who complain that the MSM has a liberal bias...because they don't take quotes out of context? Kay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I am voting for Gary Johnson and not for Romney or Obama:

 

Taxes: It is clear that Obama doesn't care about how much we pay in taxes. He proposed and signed legislation that was one of the biggest tax increases we've seen in Obamacare, as ruled by the Supremem Court. Romney is the same way. As Governor, he raised taxes, and now calls it "fee increases" when asked (http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/31/news/economy/Romney_tax_record/index.htm). On the Obama side, he has threatened an end to the Bush tax cuts, which would be a massive increase on Americans. Romney, meanwhile, at a debate, stated that he would not like to see much differing in the current tax rate while his opponents were proposing massive tax cuts (http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Tax_Reform.htm). Gary Johnson, on the other hand, has denounced Obamacare from the beginning as an assault on state's rights, personal freedom, and a massive tax increase. He has also proposed the FairTax plan, which is the abolishment of the income tax and the addition of a small sales tax, which he says would be eliminated once government could be shrunk to the necessary level.

 

Healthcare: Do I even have to go through this? Obama put into place a massive health care overhaul that forces Americans to buy health insurance. If they do not, they must pay an expensive tax. Romney, while playing with his party in denouncing this legislation, put it into place as Governor. His plan was used by the President in designing the Affordable Care Act. In addition, he has said that he will "repeal and replace" Obamacare. One cannot help but ask 1) if he will actually repeal it and 2) if he will replace it with Romneycare if it is repealed. Gary Johnson never implemented any kind of universal healthcare as Governor and has made it quite clear that Obamacare will be repealed immediately. I don't think anyone is wasting their time trying to make the case that he is bluffing.

 

Debt: Between the stimulus plan, ACA, the bailouts, massive military spending, etc, our debt is skyrocketing right before our eyes. Is Obama going to do anything about this? Clearly not, since he has created much of it and has not proposed any solution to relieving the debt problem. Meanwhile, the RNC had their big debt clock at their convention. Perhaps it was a celebration? One cannot help but remember how much debt the GOP's own President Bush added to that debt. Let's be honest, would we have really reached %16T had it not been for us spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined. Romney put "debt hawk" Paul Ryan on the ticket. Paul Ryan loves Ayn Rand and is a libertarian at heart...but voted for Medicare Part D, refuses to cut from the military budget, and...wait for it...voted for STIMULUS dollars. And have you seen MA's debt under Romney. A nice climb; very uniform with the liberal governors preceding/succeeding him. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson was one of only four NM Governors to balance the budget. When he left office because of term limits (despite large support), he left his state with a budget SURPLUS, something that Obama and Romney can't begin to imagine. He vetoed bill after bill that would add to the NM deficit.

 

Federal Reserve/Inflation: Obama, the man of "hope and change," kept Bush's buddy Ben Bernanke at the Fed as chairman. He's just doing such a great job! Bernanake continually tries Quantitative Easing because he apparently sincerely believes that lower interest rates are the cure. You know, because it's not like people spending money that they don't have with the guarantee that interest rates were low got us into the housing mess...is it? In addition, Bernanke would like to purchase bonds worth amounts of money that we can not imagine and he will do this by printing money, making us poorer. You know, it's so great that Obama is confident in Bernanke. And Romney? Well, he hasn't given us a position on it. Ryan apparently doesn't like Bernanke, but one of Romney's top campaign members told the media that Bernanke would be on board for a Romney Presidency. Unlike Ron Paul, Gary Johnson does not want an immediate end to the Fed. However, he proposes a complete audit of the Fed. He also has said that he has heard arguments for a commodity-back currency and he "support them."

 

Homeland: President HopeAndChange signed into law NDAA 2012, giving the President the power to INDEFINITELY detain American citizens WITHOUT TRIAL. This means that any American can be imprisoned for indefinite amounts of time if the President decides that they might be "trouble." What does Romney think about this? "Yes I would have," he answered a question over if he would sign NDAA as President. Obama also signed an extension of the Patriot Act into law, something he VOWED not to do during his campaign. Romney? Well, he would like to extend the powers of the Patriot Act. Oh, and Obama also promised to close Gitmo. Um...it's still open. Gary Johnson has proposed the immediate repeal of the Patriot Act and NDAA, calling them assaults on American civil liberties and going against the very principals that we as a country were founded upon.

 

Foreign Policy: Barack Obama - peace candidate! Nope. In the 2008 campaign, Obama promised that he would get the troops out of Iraq "day one." Well, apparently day one means year three, because he showed zero urgency to get them out of there. Now, he is focusing on Afghanistan, where we have now been for almost 12 years, the longest war in American history. He took Bush's very small drone war and made it into one of the military's top strategies. These drones are very inaccurate and have killed many civilians because of missed targets. He also used drones to kill an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist involvement. Moving on, he has threatened war against Iran if they do not stop enriching uranium. While what Iran is doing causes concern, what they are doing right now is legal under international law. Not to mention that if they do get a bomb and try to use it, we have more than enough capability to shoot it down. What does Romney think about all of this? Well, he seems to be pleasantly surprised, still playing the game that President Obama is weak while observing that he is now a war mongering President. Gary Johnson has proposed immediate withdrawl from Afghanistan. He opposes military force against Iran and supports cutting foreign aide. He is only in favor of war when it is in defense or when there are serious humanitarian injustices being done in a country, such as a genocide.

 

Social Issues: While all of the turmoil listed above is going on, what do the "major party" candidates want to talk about? Chicken sandwiches. One of the most notable controversies over the last few months has been Chick-Fil-A's public support for heterosexual marriage only. While our economy is dying, we are gearing up for another war, and serious civil injustices are being done, everyone wants to argue about issues that could very well just be left to the states. Since it is very important to people, it is important for me to inform you of Johnson's stances on social issues. He is pro-choice, which is an issue that I disagree with him on. He is in favor of gay rights. He would like to legalize marijuana and treat other drugs as medical issues rather than criminal issues.

 

Well, that feels good. I hope you enjoyed and I hope you'll be voting Johnson/Gray in November. If for nothing else, at least do it because you are unhappy with the two-party system.

 

I am going to devote about the next four solid hours to researching this guy.

 

However in the mean time, if what you say is true it is truly sad that he stands almost no chance of winning. I would take him over Obama/Romney in a heartbeat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to devote about the next four solid hours to researching this guy.

 

However in the mean time, if what you say is true it is truly sad that he stands almost no chance of winning. I would take him over Obama/Romney in a heartbeat.

You made my day, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish Gary Johnson could get into a presidential debate with one of the two clowns, because then so many ignorant citizens would watch and be like, "Holy crap, this guy makes a lot of sense. Why have I not heard of him before?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish Gary Johnson could get into a presidential debate with one of the two clowns, because then so many ignorant citizens would watch and be like, "Holy crap, this guy makes a lot of sense. Why have I not heard of him before?"

You mean they would then actually be able to fathom the possibility of there being...three choices for President?! It's unthinkable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I am voting for Gary Johnson and not for Romney or Obama:

 

Taxes: It is clear that Obama doesn't care about how much we pay in taxes. He proposed and signed legislation that was one of the biggest tax increases we've seen in Obamacare, as ruled by the Supremem Court. Romney is the same way. As Governor, he raised taxes, and now calls it "fee increases" when asked (http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/31/news/economy/Romney_tax_record/index.htm). On the Obama side, he has threatened an end to the Bush tax cuts, which would be a massive increase on Americans. Romney, meanwhile, at a debate, stated that he would not like to see much differing in the current tax rate while his opponents were proposing massive tax cuts (http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Tax_Reform.htm). Gary Johnson, on the other hand, has denounced Obamacare from the beginning as an assault on state's rights, personal freedom, and a massive tax increase. He has also proposed the FairTax plan, which is the abolishment of the income tax and the addition of a small sales tax, which he says would be eliminated once government could be shrunk to the necessary level.

 

Healthcare: Do I even have to go through this? Obama put into place a massive health care overhaul that forces Americans to buy health insurance. If they do not, they must pay an expensive tax. Romney, while playing with his party in denouncing this legislation, put it into place as Governor. His plan was used by the President in designing the Affordable Care Act. In addition, he has said that he will "repeal and replace" Obamacare. One cannot help but ask 1) if he will actually repeal it and 2) if he will replace it with Romneycare if it is repealed. Gary Johnson never implemented any kind of universal healthcare as Governor and has made it quite clear that Obamacare will be repealed immediately. I don't think anyone is wasting their time trying to make the case that he is bluffing.

 

Debt: Between the stimulus plan, ACA, the bailouts, massive military spending, etc, our debt is skyrocketing right before our eyes. Is Obama going to do anything about this? Clearly not, since he has created much of it and has not proposed any solution to relieving the debt problem. Meanwhile, the RNC had their big debt clock at their convention. Perhaps it was a celebration? One cannot help but remember how much debt the GOP's own President Bush added to that debt. Let's be honest, would we have really reached %16T had it not been for us spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined. Romney put "debt hawk" Paul Ryan on the ticket. Paul Ryan loves Ayn Rand and is a libertarian at heart...but voted for Medicare Part D, refuses to cut from the military budget, and...wait for it...voted for STIMULUS dollars. And have you seen MA's debt under Romney. A nice climb; very uniform with the liberal governors preceding/succeeding him. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson was one of only four NM Governors to balance the budget. When he left office because of term limits (despite large support), he left his state with a budget SURPLUS, something that Obama and Romney can't begin to imagine. He vetoed bill after bill that would add to the NM deficit.

 

Federal Reserve/Inflation: Obama, the man of "hope and change," kept Bush's buddy Ben Bernanke at the Fed as chairman. He's just doing such a great job! Bernanake continually tries Quantitative Easing because he apparently sincerely believes that lower interest rates are the cure. You know, because it's not like people spending money that they don't have with the guarantee that interest rates were low got us into the housing mess...is it? In addition, Bernanke would like to purchase bonds worth amounts of money that we can not imagine and he will do this by printing money, making us poorer. You know, it's so great that Obama is confident in Bernanke. And Romney? Well, he hasn't given us a position on it. Ryan apparently doesn't like Bernanke, but one of Romney's top campaign members told the media that Bernanke would be on board for a Romney Presidency. Unlike Ron Paul, Gary Johnson does not want an immediate end to the Fed. However, he proposes a complete audit of the Fed. He also has said that he has heard arguments for a commodity-back currency and he "support them."

 

Homeland: President HopeAndChange signed into law NDAA 2012, giving the President the power to INDEFINITELY detain American citizens WITHOUT TRIAL. This means that any American can be imprisoned for indefinite amounts of time if the President decides that they might be "trouble." What does Romney think about this? "Yes I would have," he answered a question over if he would sign NDAA as President. Obama also signed an extension of the Patriot Act into law, something he VOWED not to do during his campaign. Romney? Well, he would like to extend the powers of the Patriot Act. Oh, and Obama also promised to close Gitmo. Um...it's still open. Gary Johnson has proposed the immediate repeal of the Patriot Act and NDAA, calling them assaults on American civil liberties and going against the very principals that we as a country were founded upon.

 

Foreign Policy: Barack Obama - peace candidate! Nope. In the 2008 campaign, Obama promised that he would get the troops out of Iraq "day one." Well, apparently day one means year three, because he showed zero urgency to get them out of there. Now, he is focusing on Afghanistan, where we have now been for almost 12 years, the longest war in American history. He took Bush's very small drone war and made it into one of the military's top strategies. These drones are very inaccurate and have killed many civilians because of missed targets. He also used drones to kill an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist involvement. Moving on, he has threatened war against Iran if they do not stop enriching uranium. While what Iran is doing causes concern, what they are doing right now is legal under international law. Not to mention that if they do get a bomb and try to use it, we have more than enough capability to shoot it down. What does Romney think about all of this? Well, he seems to be pleasantly surprised, still playing the game that President Obama is weak while observing that he is now a war mongering President. Gary Johnson has proposed immediate withdrawl from Afghanistan. He opposes military force against Iran and supports cutting foreign aide. He is only in favor of war when it is in defense or when there are serious humanitarian injustices being done in a country, such as a genocide.

 

Social Issues: While all of the turmoil listed above is going on, what do the "major party" candidates want to talk about? Chicken sandwiches. One of the most notable controversies over the last few months has been Chick-Fil-A's public support for heterosexual marriage only. While our economy is dying, we are gearing up for another war, and serious civil injustices are being done, everyone wants to argue about issues that could very well just be left to the states. Since it is very important to people, it is important for me to inform you of Johnson's stances on social issues. He is pro-choice, which is an issue that I disagree with him on. He is in favor of gay rights. He would like to legalize marijuana and treat other drugs as medical issues rather than criminal issues.

 

Well, that feels good. I hope you enjoyed and I hope you'll be voting Johnson/Gray in November. If for nothing else, at least do it because you are unhappy with the two-party system.

 

A-fucking-men brother. He's getting my vote as well. I actually had never registered to vote, and did just to vote for this guy over Obama and Romney (I'm 26 by the way.)

 

In regards to Obama's tax the rich more plan to give everyone a fair shot: How in the world is taxing the rich more going to help the middle class? Seriously, I don't get how that's going to work? All it looks like to me is a cash grab by the government. Some of my friends who are Obama supporters seriously think they're going to be given money by the government that was taxed away from the rich, like the government is some giant monolithic Robin Hood. That shit just blows me away. I always ask them how it's going to help us, the middle class (although I'm more lower middle class.) They can't come up with an answer, and I haven't heard how Obama plans to make that happen either. I'm guessing he'd say they'd use it for more social programs or something? I dunno, sounds like a stupid plan to me, and I'm no rich Republican. Just using common sense here.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2011-11-29-Presentation1-thumb.jpg

 

Yeah man, I'm concerned.

 

 

I wasn't really talking about increasing spending, or even increasing numbers. I just think that we need to be continually advancing. Cutting the F-22 program was an idiotic mistake, and in fact cutting the production order from ~800 Raptors to whatever number we have now increased what the price looks like on paper. I remember reading that defense cuts are going to affect F-35 procurement, force the early retirement of several Ticonderoga class cruisers, and slow the procurement of Virginia class submarines. While the Virginia's aren't as much of a concern, I'm concerned that cutting spending will in the long run affect the development and advancement of our military technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't really talking about increasing spending, or even increasing numbers. I just think that we need to be continually advancing. Cutting the F-22 program was an idiotic mistake, and in fact cutting the production order from ~800 Raptors to whatever number we have now increased what the price looks like on paper. I remember reading that defense cuts are going to affect F-35 procurement, force the early retirement of several Ticonderoga class cruisers, and slow the procurement of Virginia class submarines. While the Virginia's aren't as much of a concern, I'm concerned that cutting spending will in the long run affect the development and advancement of our military technology.

 

I see your point, but I see absolutely no reason to think that war with technologically advanced countries like Great Britain, France--even China or Russia--is something we need to be concerned with right now. The only countries that may pose a threat are those in the Middle East, and I think our military technology is sufficient to bomb them into oblivion should it come to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×