General Election 2012 Thread

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I get sick thinking about the now... Screw Johnson, screw Ron Paul.. I just want to see some sort of candidate up there that isn't your normal, run of the mill puppet. The system is such a load of shit... UGH

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

I get sick thinking about the now... Screw Johnson, screw Ron Paul.. I just want to see some sort of candidate up there that isn't your normal, run of the mill puppet. The system is such a load of shit... UGH

 

Uhhh... how are Johnson or Paul your normal, run of the mill puppet? These guys have like zero chance to get elected BECAUSE they aren't your run of the mill puppet. Obama and Romney are, they're basically paid for by the financial giants that run this country. But yes, the system is a load of shit.

Edited October 1, 2012 by CampinWithGoatSampson

[OSUViking 505]

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.

 

This post-Cold War mentality of "we will never fight a war against a legitimate power!" will hurt us in the long run. I in no way endorse warmongering or even war, and in fact I think with how interdependent China and the US are it's unlikely we will fight. However, it's still a legitimate concern. They are developing technology that directly puts our interests in the area (i.e., Taiwan, Japan, ROK, Philippines, Carrier Groups) at risk with projects such as the J-20 (the J-20 only poses a threat if it's used as a missile bus for base hitting and carrier killing - it'd be absolute ass as a dedicated air superiority fighter. Also, I don't buy into the effectiveness of AShBMs like the DF-21). I personally believe that it's incredibly important that, no matter how likely conflict is with China, we develop ways of counter their own developments. Right now, that would probably be best achieved with sped up procurement of new submarines to deploy to the area (especially to deal with any Boomers, nuke subs, or carriers they might develop), F-35, and maybe even the reopening of F-22 lines.

 

Tl;dr - If we are content with being able to blow up insurgencies armed with rusty tech and no organized armed forces, we are going to face a tough reality if we ever have to face a foe that has been developing its military as we let ours sit idle.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

We hold far too much economic leverage over China for them to ever put our trade relations in jeopardy imo.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Uhhh... how are Johnson or Paul your normal, run of the mill puppet? These guys have like zero chance to get elected BECAUSE they aren't your run of the mill puppet. Obama and Romney are, they're basically paid for by the financial giants that run this country. But yes, the system is a load of shit.

 

That's what I am saying, but I want to think about the future... Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are great, but shit.. How is change supposed to be ignited when they aren't allowed to be represented fairly? I want them at the debates, I want them at the conventions, I want them on the front pages of newspapers.

 

UGUSHISH. Frustration.

[OSUViking 505]

We hold far too much economic leverage over China for them to ever put our trade relations in jeopardy imo.

 

Yeah, I had to force myself to say interdependent when really we could pack up and go to any of the various (developed) cheap labor sources. China is way more dependent on our market, which is unrivaled throughout the world, than we are on their cheap labor that we could frankly get from India.

 

I guess I'm just a bit paranoid with the military, but I strongly support constant technological advancement. Besides, military tech is taking longer and longer to develop. If we wait until the other nations catch up, we will pretty much lose our advantage forever.

[Conshy 36]

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.

 

You realize that each F-22 cost over $360 million to produce and $175 million to procure?

At 181 jets produced, that is over $95 billion dollars (excluding the cost of the R&D, I believe) gone into the F-22. How many times has this jet been used in actual combat? Zero.

 

The F-22 program is exactly the kind of program we need to cut. Reallocate that money, if you desire, but it is being used very inefficiently by funding programs like the F-22 program.

Edited October 3, 2012 by CrazyConshy

[Vin+ 3,121]

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I am so sick of hearing Obama claim victory over Bin Laden and bringing our troops home on an agreement W. made with the foreign governments. So ridiculous.

 

Likewise, I am sick of all these fake conservatives proclaiming themselves as the nest Ronald Reagan. Way to tarnish his name, jackass.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

You realize that each F-22 cost over $360 million to produce and $175 million to procure?

At 181 jets produced, that is over $95 billion dollars (excluding the cost of the R&D, I believe) gone into the F-22. How many times has this jet been used in actual combat? Zero.

 

The F-22 program is exactly the kind of program we need to cut. Reallocate that money, if you desire, but it is being used very inefficiently by funding programs like the F-22 program.

 

Cutting this program would be the stupidest and most inept thing we have done in the military in a long while. And you are wrong about the flyaway cost. And there is 187 operational and 8 test aircraft.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Ngata_Chance

[Conshy 36]

Cutting this program would be the stupidest and most inept thing we have done in the military in a long while. And you are wrong about the flyaway cost. And there is 187 operational and 8 test aircraft.

 

You were right. I misspoke (mistyped?). The program unit cost is over $360 million per aircraft, not the production cost.

What I'm more curious about, though, is how cutting the F-22 program was the stupidest and most inept thing we have done in the military in a long time. How is this the case?

Edited October 4, 2012 by CrazyConshy

[OSUViking 505]

You realize that each F-22 cost over $360 million to produce and $175 million to procure?

At 181 jets produced, that is over $95 billion dollars (excluding the cost of the R&D, I believe) gone into the F-22. How many times has this jet been used in actual combat? Zero.

 

The F-22 program is exactly the kind of program we need to cut. Reallocate that money, if you desire, but it is being used very inefficiently by funding programs like the F-22 program.

 

You realize that the fact that we only purchased 195 F-22s is the reason why the cost appears so high?

Edited October 4, 2012 by Vikingfan465

[OSUViking 505]

Cutting this program would be the stupidest and most inept thing we have done in the military in a long while. And you are wrong about the flyaway cost. And there is 187 operational and 8 test aircraft.

 

I think it's already been cut, which was one of the most retarded things we ever did. The Pentagon officials, despite what their positions say, are terrible when it comes to procurement and R&D. I think I heard that they even cut the ArcLight, which was really dumb.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

You were write. I misspoke (mistyped?). The program unit cost is over $360 million per aircraft, not the production cost.

What I'm more curious about, though, is how cutting the F-22 program was the stupidest and most inept thing we have done in the military in a long time. How is this the case?

 

Because at full operational capacity half of these planes can attain GLOBAL air superiority. Why would you give that advantage up ? That is just stupid.

[Conshy 36]

You realize that the fact that we only purchased 195 F-22s is the reason why the cost appears so high?

 

Yes, I know about the economies of scale. I still don't see any benefit to the program. They have never been used in combat and I don't see how they would have been used in the near future.

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

Obama was stuttering like a bitch and had trouble finding a place on the stage, yet Romney was not any better. Romney spoke with vigor and arrogance, which automatically means that Romney was definitely specific in all of his promises and he definitely didn't make many fact-speaking errors. Lemmings unite! Tip those polls!

[Thanatos 2,847]

Obama was stuttering like a bitch and had trouble finding a place on the stage, yet Romney was not any better. Romney spoke with vigor and arrogance, which automatically means that Romney was definitely specific in all of his promises and he definitely didn't make many fact-speaking errors. Lemmings unite! Tip those polls!

 

Romney didn't come off as arrogant to me, simply on the attack.

 

He absolutely crushed Obama in that one, that's for sure.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I think Romney won, but only slightly. It scared me that Obama was afraid to talk about the role and size of government. He completely ignored the question (which I realize happens in these things) and went on a rant about education.

 

I don't think I heard a Reagan comment out of Romney. And I don't believe we heard a 47% comment from Obama. I approve of both.

 

Also both men were extremely disrespectful to moderator Jim Lehrer. Completely childish, petty, and flat out disrespectful.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I didn't catch a whole lot of the debate as I was doing homework and just half paying attention, but here are some of my observations:

-Romney won the debate, no question. Obama didn't carry much energy until the finals minutes of the debate and too often took the high road. Most definitely should have hit Romney on his 47% comments but didn't.

-Obama should have attacked Romney on his tax policy. Romney said in the same breath that he'd reduce the deficit, cut taxes, but wouldn't lower funding for public education. That's mathematically impossible.

-Romney got away relatively scot-free on the healthcare debate. Basically said Romneycare is OK at the state level and every state should implement it, but it's bad at the national level? Doesn't make much sense but Obama didn't call him on it.

-Obama did a great job explaining Dodd-Frank. GREAT job.

-Romney was very much on the attack tonight and is obviously a much better debater. Obama wasn't a great debater back in 2008 either but he appeared rusty tonight. Romney was ready. Nice job there.

-Romney's comment about every (or almost every) green firm the federal government invested in with stimulus money failing is one of the biggest lies of the campaign season. Numbers say less than 2% failed.

-Romney brought up "death panels" again in the healthcare debate. That was Politifact's "Lie of the Year" back in 2008 or 2009.

-Romney said his fiscal policy (which he has yet to give any specifics on) will create 12 million jobs over the next 4 years. Economic forecasts already predict 12 million jobs will be created.

 

My observations obviously are biased as I had a rooting interest but...yeah. That's how I felt the debate went.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

I think that Obama is saving the 47% debate for the tail end of the race so that it will be the prevailing idea in the minds of the downtrodden voters.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

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.

 

I agree with this. I heard someone say something about this earlier and it made no sense to me. I'm not sure why people think taxing the crap out of the rich would somehow make things better for the middle class. I would honestly think making sure rich people had money would be more beneficial to the middle class, most rich people are business owners and giving them extra money likely creates more jobs and opportunities for the middle class to make money. I'm not going to pretend to be an economical expert, but with the economy being so bad, I don't think trying to take money away from the people who sign your checks is going to help anything. I think high income people should pay their fair taxes, but I'm not sure how raising their taxes really helps anything. But maybe someone with more knowledge with this can correct me or expand on it, I just thought it sounded stupid earlier.

[WindyCitySports 407]

I don't even want to declare a winner for the debate tonight. The loser? America. Both of these candidates are so wound up in their own little worlds and are so disconnected from the American people. Regardless of who wins, nothing is going to get better. America needs to either wake up or watch as we decline economically and socially.

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

I agree with this. I heard someone say something about this earlier and it made no sense to me. I'm not sure why people think taxing the crap out of the rich would somehow make things better for the middle class. I would honestly think making sure rich people had money would be more beneficial to the middle class, most rich people are business owners and giving them extra money likely creates more jobs and opportunities for the middle class to make money. I'm not going to pretend to be an economical expert, but with the economy being so bad, I don't think trying to take money away from the people who sign your checks is going to help anything. I think high income people should pay their fair taxes, but I'm not sure how raising their taxes really helps anything. But maybe someone with more knowledge with this can correct me or expand on it, I just thought it sounded stupid earlier.

 

It helps the government get richer. It's a money grab, plain and simple. The only logical thing is the gov would use it to pay down the deficit. But then again, that's like giving the kid who just charged an Aston Martin and twelve mansions more money so he can pay off his credit card bill. Will they actually do it? Or continue to use it how they please? As our government has shown in the past, they'll likely use it how they want, not how it should be. But again, this does absolutely nothing to help out specifically the middle class. When I first heard Obama say that months back I just had to hit him with the:

 

[Thanatos 2,847]

-Obama should have attacked Romney on his tax policy. Romney said in the same breath that he'd reduce the deficit, cut taxes, but wouldn't lower funding for public education. That's mathematically impossible.

-Romney got away relatively scot-free on the healthcare debate. Basically said Romneycare is OK at the state level and every state should implement it, but it's bad at the national level? Doesn't make much sense but Obama didn't call him on it.

-Romney's comment about every (or almost every) green firm the federal government invested in with stimulus money failing is one of the biggest lies of the campaign season. Numbers say less than 2% failed.

 

Just grabbing these three, as two of them, I believe, are objectively wrong, whereas the 3rd might be skewed.

 

1. There are other ways to get the money for reducing the deficit and lowering taxes besides lowering funds on public education, no? He needs to be more specific in the debate, but I believe he has this answer up on his site.

2. It makes perfect sense. I don't understand why the libs keep trying to use this. A program on the state level is entirely different than one on the national level, especially when the one on the state level wasn't shoved down party lines. Obama honestly sounded weak here, because he just kept coming back and saying Romney was wrong without really explaining why. Romney is saying that each state should come up with its own idea of how to deal with the problem, as Massachusetts did. Whether or not you believe that's a good idea is where Obama should have hit him. Just because a state government has one type of program doesn't mean the federal government can also take that program and implement it.

3. Numbers say less than 2% failed, and Romney said nearly all of them are failing- source, first off, for the numbers. Secondly, there's a crucial difference between failing and failed. Perhaps 2% have actually failed, but many more are on the way there. This may or may not be the case here, I don't know, I simply wanted to point that out. Romney's point was that Obama has dumped 90 billion, (if that is the truth), into green energy that isn't showing dividends, and yet is complaining about 2.8 billion, (Mitt needs his math checked, btw, 2.8x50 isn't 90), in breaks being given to... big oil, I suppose. He wasn't really clear on that.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Thanatos19

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]