Be a Supporter!

Will Obama win or lose the election

  • 18,189 Views
  • 514 Replies
New Topic
DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 07:44 PM

At 9/6/12 05:29 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 9/5/12 07:30 PM, Warforger wrote: Ok? The RNC was open to people who wanted to come in while the DNC is closed because it's too packed. The DNC is bigger than the RNC and the delegates at the DNC are more motivated for Obama than the RNC's are for Mitt Romney. I still fail to see how these make a difference.
1) The DNC has a very arcane and complex rules system that require more delegates from each state than the RNC. As such the DNC rules call for about 6,000 delegates while the Republican rules call for under 2,300 (with under 2,200 alternate delegates). So talking about delegates does not prove your point because it is a number derived by party rules and not some measure of popular support.

2) I think your point about the delegate's degree of motivation (ie: enthusiasm) is filtered through your own ideological lense. Obama has major problems with his base. A) For those in his base who know how politics run; he is a poor leader and governor. He could not accomplish much when he enjoyed having his party in control of both houses of congress by a greater margin than any modern president since maybe FDR. B) While there are conservatives who do not think Romney is conservative (much less conservative enough), there are leftists who do not think Obama is left enough. In the end the base on both sides are going to hold their noses and vote for their party's nominee.

3) You are dancing around the issue. You have three major political turn-out events where people who hold positions opposite from Obama turned-out in huge numbers. Meanwhile, Obama's acceptance speech has been downsized now three times.

4) "...the DNC is closed because it's too packed..." Sorry...it does not count when you get only 25K ppl agree to show up for a 74K seat arena so you downsize to a 20K seat venue and suddenly claim you don't have enough seats.

The Repub's move to the right because the delegates won't allow a shift left or a compromise on anything. Not because the country is.
*sigh* Sorry...the US is a center-right country.

The problem is that Romney is embracing the policies that everyone is blaming for the recession. He's claiming that he and Ryan are a new team but at the end of the day they're still the same people the GOP has been running ever since 1980, and it's showing. There's a reason why they didn't work in the 2000's, and that's because while trickle down does create jobs it sends them overseas. It worked in the 80's because Businesses hadn't developed that practice yet.
1) The main cause of the recession is a Clinton-era policy decision. Clinton is the president who authorized FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC to buy sub-prime mortgages so that minorities could get home loans (even though trends were going up in regards to this w/o government intervention). Also during this time Obama was on at least one legal team suing CitiBank over this very issue. So I'm so sorry...but the recession is due to more Democratic ideas than traditional Republican ones.

2) In '08 I seriously thought about voting for Obama. He seemed smart and level headed enough to triangulate like Clinton did and govern from the center and partner with business. Instead he turned out to be a blind ideologue without a clue as to how to actually govern. The reason I wanted to vote for Obama? Bush fatigue. Bush was the worst of both worlds: cut taxes while raising spending. This is the same as his father. Both Bushs come from different schools of thought than Reagan (lumping them in together is a sign of your lack of knowledge). The Bushs take a big government approach to governing...not unlike Obama. In essence, Obama's first term has been like a third Bush term...only with a different flavor on the surface.

The difference was that they were able to at least restore those payments. The GOP policy of both Bush's and Reagan has annihilated any balance the budget had. If the budget was even at Carter levels it wouldn't be so bad, but it's much worse; it's far worse than that.
And considering Obama has cut the SSA's withholding tax...it's going to get even worse. Too bad your graph stops at Bush...

The liberal economic philosophy is a combination of Keynsian and Marxist economic theory.
Um or maybe it's perhaps Conservative economics have actually not done disadvantaged minorities very well and have actually made them poorer. Thus when somebody tries to argue trickle down with them it isn't very popular. Maybe that's why minorities tend follow Liberal economics rather than Conservative. This isn't even mentioning the negative stigma those economics have now since Bush Jr.
Maybe its also because Democrats since FDR have made economic promises to the minority communities with NO intention of keeping them. We've had Dems in power in the Congress more years than not since FDR. We've also had about 50% of the presidents be Democrats. And yet we have not made any significant strides towards better education and economic conditions in minority areas. Instead Democrats are more concerned with romanticized notions of 'social justice' (and their Union powerbase) so they oppose companies like Walmart coming into their districts and bringing jobs.

Although I don't get where the "Marxist" part comes from, considering they haven't proposed nationalizing industries, banning economic classes or overthrowing the Bourguise.
I've read alot of Marxist thought...and its not all about the Revolution of the Proletariate. Marx also introduced and talked about the impact of class divisions on politics and the economy. We saw it at the DNC when Elizabeth Warren spoke about wealth being generated from the Middle Class. This is a Marxist economic principle, and a dangerous one to a flailing economy.

Like I said, 4 years in the future. Obama may reform it by then or Romney may have if they take office. Chances are they'll wait till the last minute to do it. There is alot that can happen in 4 years.
Obama: highly doubtful. He doesn't have the capability nor the political guts/nerve to do what is necessary.
Romney: probably try something...but get smacked down my AARP & Democratic fearmongering.
... Otherwise unemployment was going down, the GDP was growing and the economy was picking up throughout his term.
Revise history much? There was a temporary drop in unemployment and then it picked right back up within a year. When things got better was when we entered WWII and put men to work in the military (draft) and women to work on the assembly line.

All I can say at this point, is "source please". So far, it looks like Obama has had quite a great service record. For one, he fights for the Middle Class, as he had been middle class all his life, and all the wealth he had ever earned came from his book and his years in office, serving the public, and helping communities. Look at it this way: Obama could have been a rich, and successful lawyer, but he chose to serve his country instead.

When the Affordable Health Care Act passed, Obama immediately cut out subsidies within Medicare that were either little use, or hurting customers. That ended up strengthening Medicare and landed Obama $716 billion with which to fund the Affordable Health Care Act. Private insurers before this could deny someone just because of a pre-existing condition. Now, with required regulation, companies can no longer deny someone, and those who don't have healthcare who get sick or hurt won't end up jacking up others' premiums. I view the individual mandate (which doesn't take effect until 2014) will help insure many millions of people. If you have to be dragged into a better society under Obama kicking and screaming, well you'd better start kicking and screaming now, because Bill Clinton answered more tough questions in one night than Republicans could answer in 3 DAYS at their convention.

Looks like our futures are all secured.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 08:36 PM

At 9/6/12 05:29 PM, TheMason wrote: 2) I think your point about the delegate's degree of motivation (ie: enthusiasm) is filtered through your own ideological lense.

You're the one who said that Democrats only have control over minorities because of fear-mongering and you're saying I'm seeing something through an ideologue lense? Maybe you mean I'm biased? Maybe it's because everyone is.

Obama has major problems with his base. A) For those in his base who know how politics run; he is a poor leader and governor. He could not accomplish much when he enjoyed having his party in control of both houses of congress by a greater margin than any modern president since maybe FDR.

He passed equal pay for women, he bailed out the auto industry, he reformed the credit industry, he reformed wall street etc. etc.

B) While there are conservatives who do not think Romney is conservative (much less conservative enough), there are leftists who do not think Obama is left enough. In the end the base on both sides are going to hold their noses and vote for their party's nominee.

The difference was that going into the election all Democrats were already behind Obama, whereas the Republicans were split. Thus alot of delegates want another candidate but are supporting Romney for the illusion of party solidarity. Thus whereas the DNC is actually done pretty well with people throwing in their support for Obama, the RNC was a complete mess with most of the speakers promoting themselves rather than Romney(just count how many times Chris Christie says something about how he is a good governor) and constant discordination (such as Clint Eastwood).

3) You are dancing around the issue. You have three major political turn-out events where people who hold positions opposite from Obama turned-out in huge numbers. Meanwhile, Obama's acceptance speech has been downsized now three times.

I'm not dancing around anything. What I'm saying is that those people were going to vote Republican even if there wasn't a turn-out event. There isn't as much incentive to protest when you already have control of the White House.

*sigh* Sorry...the US is a center-right country.

Ah but it's not a far-right country. Which is the main problem.

1) The main cause of the recession is a Clinton-era policy decision. Clinton is the president who authorized FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC to buy sub-prime mortgages so that minorities could get home loans (even though trends were going up in regards to this w/o government intervention). Also during this time Obama was on at least one legal team suing CitiBank over this very issue. So I'm so sorry...but the recession is due to more Democratic ideas than traditional Republican ones.

The economy had been stagnating ever since Clinton had left office, Republican policies did roughly nothing and in fact things got progressively worse under them. Hence why they're not very popular. Otherwise if you really want to get technical people blame Bush jr., sr. and Clinton for a whole mix of bad choices, the one that really kicked off the crisis was Bush jr. setting interest rates at 1%. But my point was that the policies are often blamed for it and they have become unpopular, thus Democrats can quite easily exploit that.

2) In '08 I seriously thought about voting for Obama. He seemed smart and level headed enough to triangulate like Clinton did and govern from the center and partner with business. Instead he turned out to be a blind ideologue without a clue as to how to actually govern.

When he was making his healthcare bill he went up to the Republicans and called for a conference to work with them. He accepted their idea's and they still were against it. I don't think Obama is the "blind ideologue" there or in this election.

The reason I wanted to vote for Obama? Bush fatigue. Bush was the worst of both worlds: cut taxes while raising spending. This is the same as his father. Both Bushs come from different schools of thought than Reagan (lumping them in together is a sign of your lack of knowledge). The Bushs take a big government approach to governing...not unlike Obama. In essence, Obama's first term has been like a third Bush term...only with a different flavor on the surface.

I lumped them in together because they both destroyed the balance in the budget, Reagan had a chance to considering he was in a similar position to Clinton, Bush sr. perhaps should be treated more fairly considering he went through a recession and no one really needs to mention Bush jr.

And considering Obama has cut the SSA's withholding tax...it's going to get even worse.

A 2% reduction. Which Congress is now diverting funds to make up for that 2% reduction. So it's roughly changing nothing.

Too bad your graph stops at Bush...

It's not fair because it's not possible to go into a surplus when your revenue is going down. Clinton was able to do it because the country was experiencing the biggest boom in history, Reagan was able to do it because the country had been experiencing the biggest boom up to that point, Obama is not able to do it because he's presiding over one of the biggest recessions in history.

Maybe its also because Democrats since FDR have made economic promises to the minority communities with NO intention of keeping them. We've had Dems in power in the Congress more years than not since FDR. We've also had about 50% of the presidents be Democrats. And yet we have not made any significant strides towards better education and economic conditions in minority areas. Instead Democrats are more concerned with romanticized notions of 'social justice' (and their Union powerbase) so they oppose companies like Walmart coming into their districts and bringing jobs.

Under FDR yah, back then the Southern Conservatives were still part of the Democratic party and they effectively would've bolted the party had he tried anything serious (and they eventually did). Otherwise Truman de-segregated the military and created low-income housing but was unable to do much more. And Kennedy/Johnson? You're insane if you think they didn't do anything, under them the poverty rate dropped from ~20% to ~10% due to job training programs, welfare, medicaid etc. etc. as well as the booming economy. It's stayed at roughly 10% ever since.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 08:47 PM

I've read alot of Marxist thought...and its not all about the Revolution of the Proletariate. Marx also introduced and talked about the impact of class divisions on politics and the economy. We saw it at the DNC when Elizabeth Warren spoke about wealth being generated from the Middle Class. This is a Marxist economic principle, and a dangerous one to a flailing economy.

I've read Marxist though too, and that's NOT a Marxist economic principle. Karl Marx spoke in broad terms and only had roughly two categories, but he never finished analyzing and defining what makes up an economic class thus anything with a "Middle class" is outside anything Karl Marx wrote about. And such notions of blaming the rich were around when Marx was still alive in the US, since it's with other Socialist thought (which is also where it gets confusing because many of those people back then would be considering Socialists today their descendants now support the Republican party). Even then to say that the bulk of the wealth is being generated from the Middle class doesn't have anything to do with Marxism, that's just saying an idea that could be true for any economic theory from Adam Smith to Keynes to Hayak.

Now the Democrats believe that because we have such a large Middle class, businesses have it easier. Its this difference in perception which they address actually, the Democrats view it from the consumer's point of view, giving them more money should mean that they go out and support businesses, whereas the Republicans view in the business point of view that if you give them more money they'll create more jobs who'll do the aforementioned. The main problem is that neither are doing much. The government give money to the average person, they put it into a savings account rather than buy a TV, the government cuts taxes for the Rich they save it up and hire offshore workers.

Obama: highly doubtful. He doesn't have the capability nor the political guts/nerve to do what is necessary.

How is Obama weak? He's been even more aggressive in foreign policy than Bush was, what he ultimately lacks is any ability to create bipartisanship but that doesn't appear to be his fault. Well perhaps the only way it could be is that he chose to be a Democrat.

Romney: probably try something...but get smacked down my AARP & Democratic fearmongering.

We can't tell for Romney, but I'm seeing it like the debt-ceiling, they'll only do something only at the last minute. It's more in Congress's hands.

Revise history much? There was a temporary drop in unemployment and then it picked right back up within a year. When things got better was when we entered WWII and put men to work in the military (draft) and women to work on the assembly line.

Revising what? I said that unemployment was going down throughout his term and I said that there was a drop in 37-38 because FDR cut his work programs, this seems to be the case.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
RydiaLockheart
RydiaLockheart
  • Member since: Nov. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 31
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 09:34 PM

I think Obamacare is going to be a huge double-edged sword for Obama. Sure, lots of people like it...but lots of people don't. I agree with Romney's assertion that jobs and the economy, not Obamacare, should have been Obama's first priority upon taking office. Instead, there was squabbling over Obamacare for 18 months and the Democrats managed to waste a supermajority.

What makes me think of Obamacare? Going to the pharmacy tonight. I mentioned this in another thread before, but I'm on birth control for a preexisting condition and have been since I was 16. I went to get my prescription tonight, but the place I normally go to had the stuff on backorder and sent me elsewhere. Since I was going to a new place, I got to see all the paperwork I normally wouldn't see since the first place knows me. My prescription for three months would cost $75 out of pocket. Once they processed my insurance, it was free.

Now I know what you people are thinking: "YAY FREE BIRTH CONTROL!" Not quite. If I hadn't had insurance, I still would have been paying the $75. So I guess Obamacare hasn't kicked in quite the way people thought. While I care about accessibility to birth control (if not for keeping the population down and not having to pay taxes for unwanted children), I can also see the bigger picture. Why should my taxes go up to pay for other people's birth control/Pap smears/mammograms/other women's services I'm forgetting? Why should other programs, like Medicare, suffer for Obamacare.

The question I always ask people is this: If I have to go to the doctor, why should I wait longer so some poor person can get free healthcare? To this day, no one has been able to give me a good answer. Sure, it sounds callous, but if I had to go to the doctor, I could have something very wrong and not know it.

ZJ
ZJ
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 11:21 PM

At 9/6/12 09:34 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:
The question I always ask people is this: If I have to go to the doctor, why should I wait longer so some poor person can get free healthcare? To this day, no one has been able to give me a good answer. Sure, it sounds callous, but if I had to go to the doctor, I could have something very wrong and not know it.

I like the idea of a safety for poor people so that they're not all dying of easily treatable diseases that the insurance company won't shell out for, but I think the issue is that people want that safety net to be for everything, when that's just not realistic.

But I do agree with you about the money thing. As a person with money, you should be entitled to better treatment. Yeah, I'm a dick for saying it, but let's face it, money makes the world goes round and it isn't fair to have people suffer through long lines for every ailment. I'd honestly say we need to dial Obamacare back and focus on jobs, though, like you said.


Sig by FB - AMA
Formerly PuddinN64 - Portal, BBS, Icon, & Chat Mod
"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out WhatTheDo.com & Guinea Something Good!

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 11:27 PM

At 9/6/12 09:34 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: The question I always ask people is this: If I have to go to the doctor, why should I wait longer so some poor person can get free healthcare?

Let me guess, you have never been to an emergency room...

Frankly, I'd rather have there be a wait at the doctor's office than at the Mergency room, which now absorbs the bulk of ALL indigent healthcare, even that which is not even close to ER worthy.

To this day, no one has been able to give me a good answer. Sure, it sounds callous, but if I had to go to the doctor, I could have something very wrong and not know it.

Again, I'd rather have someone wait at the doctor's office when they have a minor headache, than have someone who has turned entirely pink out of an allergic reaction and has shown up to the ER have to wait. It's all about perspective. From the perspective of a person who has been to the emergency room for a very serious problem in the past year, I can say that waiting at the doctor is akin to "First World Problems" (i.e. How dare my butler have to feed huimself before he feeds me?!)

Mushraven
Mushraven
  • Member since: Sep. 26, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Musician
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 8th, 2012 @ 08:24 PM

Obama will be re-elected. If somehow he loses, there will be a revolution in these United States. Believe it.


BBS Signature
BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Melancholy
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 8th, 2012 @ 11:27 PM

At 9/8/12 08:24 PM, MuffDiver wrote: Obama will be re-elected. If somehow he loses, there will be a revolution in these United States. Believe it.

If he doesnt get re-elected then there probably wont be a revolution, because obviously the majority of american voters would be too braindead to even know what a revolution even is.

Sentio
Sentio
  • Member since: Nov. 7, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 52
Writer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 9th, 2012 @ 06:21 AM

I'm no expert on American politics, but the British perspective seems to consider the Republicans to be a bunch of nutjobs (Bush did a lot to damage the Republican image, and every candidate since has furthered this opinion), and that Obama should win in a landslide.

Granted, he has his problems, but at least he is trying to do something about the economy, while Romney seems to have no idea what to do to fix it and is relying heavily on attacking Obama. Should it come down to 'which candidate has more money' and Romney wins then that would be a sad statement about American politics.


Buy the Newgrounds Writing Anthology
Sig by lebastic

BBS Signature
Pride
Pride
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 9th, 2012 @ 02:31 PM

I would not be shocked if Obama lost this election.

Mainly because Obama hasn't really delivered upon his promises of change and hope, and if he has it certainly doesn't seem like a great direction for the country to be headed in. During his 2008 campaign Obama promised us a new type of bipartisan politics and said that he would have a Lincoln-esque team of rivals who would challenge his views........Clearly he did not deliver and his rhetoric is still the same as numerous other politicians. Also his idea of balancing the budget by placing higher taxes on the wealthy is absurd, the tax rate on the top 2% of Americans who earn more than 300k a year is already at 29% and they pay it. In order to balance the budget they would have to apply an 88% tax rate to about roughly 9 million American households. Banning Capital profits and imposing Capital losses is another terrible idea that has brought up by the Obama administration and Obama's solution of printing more money to solve the U.S.'s debt downgrade could result in hyper-inflation.

Overall, I feel Obama may lose this election because he simply focused on policy making rather than job creation. Just look at the Job Reports that were released after the DNC, it is quite evident that the American people are dissatisfied with this President.

Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 9th, 2012 @ 03:16 PM

At 9/9/12 02:31 PM, Pride wrote: I would not be shocked if Obama lost this election.

Mainly because Obama hasn't really delivered upon his promises of change and hope,

Affordable Care Act, repeal of Don't ask, Don't Tell, cuts in defense spending, creation of consumer protection bureau

It's not entirely true that he "hasn't really delivered upon his promises of change and hope."

and if he has it certainly doesn't seem like a great direction for the country to be headed in.

Why do you say that?

During his 2008 campaign Obama promised us a new type of bipartisan politics and said that he would have a Lincoln-esque team of rivals who would challenge his views........Clearly he did not deliver

Blame the Republicans for refusing to work with him and almost taking pleasure in frustrating his efforts to promote bipartisanship.

and his rhetoric is still the same as numerous other politicians. Also his idea of balancing the budget by placing higher taxes on the wealthy is absurd, the tax rate on the top 2% of Americans who earn more than 300k a year is already at 29% and they pay it.

Wait. When did he ever say that in order to balance the budget, we only have to increase taxes on the wealthy?

Also, the top income tax bracket in 35%, not 29%. Furthermore, most of the wealthy don't pay the 35% income tax because most of the wealthy don't make that money through income but through investments or something, which is taxed at lower rates.

In order to balance the budget they would have to apply an 88% tax rate to about roughly 9 million American households.

They don't have to do that and they don't intend to do that.

Obama's solution of printing more money to solve the U.S.'s debt downgrade could result in hyper-inflation.

Sources?

Overall, I feel Obama may lose this election because he simply focused on policy making rather than job creation.

That policy making is intended to promote the creation of jobs.

Just look at the Job Reports that were released after the DNC, it is quite evident that the American people are dissatisfied with this President.

As Clinton said at the DNC, no president has been able to fully recuperate the economy in just 4 years.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 9th, 2012 @ 04:34 PM

At 9/9/12 04:31 PM, 24901miles wrote:
At 9/9/12 03:16 PM, Light wrote: As Clinton said at the DNC, no president has been able to fully recuperate the economy in just 4 years.
That doesn't matter in American Elections. The majority of votes come from people who do absolutely no research on the election and just choose the candidate they like the most or have heard the most about from whatever biased media they're tuned into. That's why spin and paraphrasing out of context is dominant in politics.

It'd be great if Americans were more knowledgeable about politics and the way our government works.

A disturbingly large segment of the American population doesn't know how many branches of government there are.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
Pride
Pride
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 9th, 2012 @ 05:15 PM

At 9/9/12 03:16 PM, Light wrote: Affordable Care Act, repeal of Don't ask, Don't Tell, cuts in defense spending, creation of consumer protection bureau

I strongly disagree that the Affordable care act was a "good thing" for America. Under the new legislation the government will most certainly be able to limit medical diagnosis that it does not feel necessary. It is quite evident that the government will be able to do this because they are funding the Affordable Care Act. The quality of Obama-care will invariably go down simply because there are higher limitations in Socialized systems and Government Regulated Healthcare. Various government agencies have already suggested limiting screenings of breast and prostate cancer; something which the majority of the medical community is highly against. Many cancer patients already cannot receive the treatment they so desperately need through Medi-Cal (an established government-run program) and have been put on long wait lists. The Obama administration has already proved unreliable and shown it's wiliness to break promises to fulfill it's agenda. President Obama already violated his agreement with Former Congressman Bart Stupak to sign an Executive Order protecting the Hyde Amendment, preventing the public funding of abortion and the Conscience Clause, and instead promoted the HHS's controversial mandate for taxpayer-funded contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs.

Whether or not you are in favor of the Affordable Care Act, it is important to recognize that it still violates The Constitution and is a threat to both individual liberty and the idea of limited government. Obamacare imposes an unapportioned direct tax on US citizens who do not buy into the plan. The government does not have the right to coerce an unconstitutional contract with the American people.

His administration has also significantly limited our nuclear stockpile through START and plans on further reducing our ABMs', has done barely anything to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment program (Stuxnet was a disaster), is spending money like the deficit doesn't matter.

It's not entirely true that he "hasn't really delivered upon his promises of change and hope."
and if he has it certainly doesn't seem like a great direction for the country to be headed in.
Why do you say that?

President Obama's administration is neglecting our traditional allies, breaching security on private government matters, and is limiting the US's chances of maintaining it's status as a regional hegemon.

During his 2008 campaign Obama promised us a new type of bipartisan politics and said that he would have a Lincoln-esque team of rivals who would challenge his views........Clearly he did not deliver
Blame the Republicans for refusing to work with him and almost taking pleasure in frustrating his efforts to promote bipartisanship.

He had both the senate and the house for two years (lest we forget) and gave us onerous, massive bills meant to "make" things better.

and his rhetoric is still the same as numerous other politicians. Also his idea of balancing the budget by placing higher taxes on the wealthy is absurd, the tax rate on the top 2% of Americans who earn more than 300k a year is already at 29% and they pay it.
Wait. When did he ever say that in order to balance the budget, we only have to increase taxes on the wealthy?

It's stated within nearly every one of the advertisements (i.e. Obama: The Choice; it's on Youtube) he has released and in almost all of his speeches he directly alludes to the fact that Corporations and the wealthy are not paying their fair share, which is simply not true.

In order to balance the budget they would have to apply an 88% tax rate to about roughly 9 million American households.
They don't have to do that and they don't intend to do that.

As I stated earlier, Obama alludes to dramatically raising taxes in many of speeches. Whether or not you choose to believe otherwise is entirely your opinion.

Obama's solution of printing more money to solve the U.S.'s debt downgrade could result in hyper-inflation.
Sources?

Are you asking why printing more money is a bad idea or where is the evidence that his administration has printed more money? You can find the first answer in a history book and the second online or in past news articles.

Overall, I feel Obama may lose this election because he simply focused on policy making rather than job creation.
That policy making is intended to promote the creation of jobs.
Just look at the Job Reports that were released after the DNC, it is quite evident that the American people are dissatisfied with this President.
As Clinton said at the DNC, no president has been able to fully recuperate the economy in just 4 years.

I don't believe that is justification to give him another four years if you disagree with course of action he has taken so far. I don't necessarily believe that Mitt Romeny is the savior of America, but he has a far better track record and has produced record employment levels during his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts. His work at Bain Capital also pays testament to his experience in the economic zone.

Could go either way, but my inclination is that Mitt will most likely win.

Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 9th, 2012 @ 10:15 PM

At 9/9/12 05:15 PM, Pride wrote:
At 9/9/12 03:16 PM, Light wrote: Affordable Care Act, repeal of Don't ask, Don't Tell, cuts in defense spending, creation of consumer protection bureau
I strongly disagree that the Affordable care act was a "good thing" for America. Under the new legislation the government will most certainly be able to limit medical diagnosis that it does not feel necessary. It is quite evident that the government will be able to do this because they are funding the Affordable Care Act. The quality of Obama-care will invariably go down simply because there are higher limitations in Socialized systems and Government Regulated Healthcare. Various government agencies have already suggested limiting screenings of breast and prostate cancer; something which the majority of the medical community is highly against. Many cancer patients already cannot receive the treatment they so desperately need through Medi-Cal (an established government-run program) and have been put on long wait lists.

I don't want to derail this thread and debate the merits of the Affordable Care Act, so I'll just leave this part of your post alone.

Whether or not you are in favor of the Affordable Care Act, it is important to recognize that it still violates The Constitution and is a threat to both individual liberty and the idea of limited government.

The idea of limited government in the U.S. died a long time ago. More specifically, after the Great Depression occurred.

And it doesn't violate the Constitution in my opinion.

And by the way, sometimes, individual freedom must be curtailed slightly for the greater good.

Obamacare imposes an unapportioned direct tax on US citizens who do not buy into the plan. The government does not have the right to coerce an unconstitutional contract with the American people.

But it does have the power to levy taxes. This is why the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional.

His administration has also significantly limited our nuclear stockpile through START and plans on further reducing our ABMs',

This is a good thing. Besides, we don't need so many nuclear weapons.

has done barely anything to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment program (Stuxnet was a disaster),

Iran should have a nuclear weapon. In the field of international relations, the acquisition of a nuclear weapon by Iran would be seen by some as a balancing of power. Iran most likely wants the weapon as a deterrent against a preemptive strike from Israel or the U.S.

I couldn't give less of a shit if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

is spending money like the deficit doesn't matter.

That seems to be the norm among presidents in recent memory.

It's not entirely true that he "hasn't really delivered upon his promises of change and hope."
and if he has it certainly doesn't seem like a great direction for the country to be headed in.
Why do you say that?
President Obama's administration is neglecting our traditional allies,

How?

breaching security on private government matters,

Source?

and is limiting the US's chances of maintaining it's status as a regional hegemon.

Why should the maintenance of the hegemony of the U.S. be a priority to us?

During his 2008 campaign Obama promised us a new type of bipartisan politics and said that he would have a Lincoln-esque team of rivals who would challenge his views........Clearly he did not deliver
Blame the Republicans for refusing to work with him and almost taking pleasure in frustrating his efforts to promote bipartisanship.
He had both the senate and the house for two years (lest we forget) and gave us onerous, massive bills meant to "make" things better.

OK then.

I disagree but that doesn't matter as we'll inevitably disagree on a number of issues.

and his rhetoric is still the same as numerous other politicians. Also his idea of balancing the budget by placing higher taxes on the wealthy is absurd, the tax rate on the top 2% of Americans who earn more than 300k a year is already at 29% and they pay it.
Wait. When did he ever say that in order to balance the budget, we only have to increase taxes on the wealthy?
It's stated within nearly every one of the advertisements (i.e. Obama: The Choice; it's on Youtube)

I just watched the video on Youtube and nowhere in it does he say that all we have to do in order to balance the budget is to increase taxes on the wealthy.

Looks like you're wrong here.

he has released and in almost all of his speeches he directly alludes to the fact that Corporations and the wealthy are not paying their fair share, which is simply not true.

Most corporations don't pay the corporate income tax, and if they do, they probably don't pay it in full.

And I noticed that you didn't respond to what I said regarding the fact that many, if not most, wealthy people don't pay the 35% income tax because they don't make that money through income but through investments or through other methods.

In order to balance the budget they would have to apply an 88% tax rate to about roughly 9 million American households.
They don't have to do that and they don't intend to do that.
As I stated earlier, Obama alludes to dramatically raising taxes in many of speeches.

But you claimed that Obama wants to balance the budget only by raising taxes on the wealthy, which is a demonstrably false claim.

Prove me wrong. Cite a quote by Barack Obama or the White House that confirms what you said, because the evidence you've provided so far gas strengthened my argument and weakened yours.

Whether or not you choose to believe otherwise is entirely your opinion.

I've decided not to assume and to instead rely on the president's exact words to make arguments here.

Obama's solution of printing more money to solve the U.S.'s debt downgrade could result in hyper-inflation.
Sources?
Are you asking why printing more money is a bad idea or where is the evidence that his administration has printed more money? You can find the first answer in a history book and the second online or in past news articles.

I'm asking for a source that states that the increased production of physical currency is the White House's attempt to "solve" the U.S.'s debt downgrade.

I know why inflation is harmful and that more money is being printed now.

Overall, I feel Obama may lose this election because he simply focused on policy making rather than job creation.
That policy making is intended to promote the creation of jobs.
Just look at the Job Reports that were released after the DNC, it is quite evident that the American people are dissatisfied with this President.
As Clinton said at the DNC, no president has been able to fully recuperate the economy in just 4 years.
I don't believe that is justification to give him another four years if you disagree with course of action he has taken so far. I don't necessarily believe that Mitt Romeny is the savior of America, but he has a far better track record

Mitt Romney was a mediocre governor. Although he is also a businessman, running a country is nothing like running a business.

I don't know why people accept Mitt Romney's background in business is considered to be legitimate experience for a presidential candidate.

and has produced record employment levels during his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts.

That seems to be contentious.

His work at Bain Capital also pays testament to his experience in the economic zone.

So does this mean that every businessman in America would make a great president?

Could go either way, but my inclination is that Mitt will most win.

Even if I supported Romney, I'd be the first to admit that Obama will probably defeat him because of his poor public image, perceived connection to Bush, his status as the challenger, etc. etc.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
Pride
Pride
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 10th, 2012 @ 01:17 AM

It appears we have radically different views on what issues the US should prioritize, judging by your statement that Iran should attain nuclear weapons, so I will not endeavor to go into full detail on some of our ideological differences .

Instead I will rebut you on some of the economic/constitutional points in which I feel you are incorrect and offer sources as you have asked.

At 9/9/12 10:15 PM, Light wrote: And it doesn't violate the Constitution in my opinion.

This article explains that the constitution requires direct taxes must be apportioned and explains the adaption of the 16th amendment. A quality which the affordable care act violates.

But it does have the power to levy taxes. This is why the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional.

What is the purpose of the tax though? To raise revenue for the government or modify human behavior. In the case of the 18th amendment the government chose to prohibit the sale of alcohol instead of making the sales tax so high that no one could afford to buy it. Why? Because it would be a violation of the constitution.

This is a good thing. Besides, we don't need so many nuclear weapons.

If you believe in the concept of nuclear superiority in International relations theory, then limiting our stockpile to put us at a disadvantage is not a great idea.

Iran should have a nuclear weapon. In the field of international relations, the acquisition of a nuclear weapon by Iran would be seen by some as a balancing of power. Iran most likely wants the weapon as a deterrent against a preemptive strike from Israel or the U.S.

Of course Iran wants and should desire nuclear weapons. Realism dictates that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest. The question is, as a citizen of the US do we want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons to level against us (as you suggested)? No. Even Obama in his efforts to welcome the Middle East and dispel our differences is ultimately afraid of Iran's nuclear capabilities, otherwise he would not have implemented the use of Stuxnet. Problem is that he has been ineffective in preventing their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

I couldn't give less of a shit if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

Obama disagrees and believes in the danger of this happening (though as I said, he is ineffective).

President Obama's administration is neglecting our traditional allies,
How?

He did not support England in the dispute over the Falkland Isles (it may seem trivial, but insuring England's interests help), he has paid little attention to helping Israel (just look at the neglect and division in the DNC over the recognition of Israel), and damaged our relationship with Canada (source).

breaching security on private government matters,
Source?

Source. This should suffice.

Why should the maintenance of the hegemony of the U.S. be a priority to us?

If you believe in American exceptional-ism and value the status we have held since the end of the Cold War, then yes.

It's stated within nearly every one of the advertisements (i.e. Obama: The Choice; it's on Youtube)
I just watched the video on Youtube and nowhere in it does he say that all we have to do in order to balance the budget is to increase taxes on the wealthy.
Looks like you're wrong here.

Click on 0:33 of the video. Obama suggests that to strengthen the middle class the wealthy must pay a "little" more to bring down our debt.....Exact words. He mentions this constantly and devises that increased taxation is a strong part of the solution. Problem is the wealthy would have to pay a lot more to bring down our debt and it would hurt many businesses.

he has released and in almost all of his speeches he directly alludes to the fact that Corporations and the wealthy are not paying their fair share, which is simply not true.
Most corporations don't pay the corporate income tax, and if they do, they probably don't pay it in full.

We could debate this, but it would be a fruitless endeavor.

And I noticed that you didn't respond to what I said regarding the fact that many, if not most, wealthy people don't pay the 35% income tax because they don't make that money through income but through investments or through other methods.
In order to balance the budget they would have to apply an 88% tax rate to about roughly 9 million American households.
They don't have to do that and they don't intend to do that.

Who knows? I would hope/think not, yet Obama's own father believed and wrote in thesis papers that citizens of the state could be taxed to the fullest extent as long as they are given some service (however menial).

As I stated earlier, Obama alludes to dramatically raising taxes in many of speeches.
But you claimed that Obama wants to balance the budget only by raising taxes on the wealthy, which is a demonstrably false claim.

I never said that he will balance the budget "only" by raising taxes on the wealthy, I said that his idea of balancing the budget through placing more taxes on the wealthy is absurd and I gave an example of how much he would have to impose to reduce the total budget significantly. I agree, raising taxes astronomically on the wealthy and corporations is insane.

Prove me wrong. Cite a quote by Barack Obama or the White House that confirms what you said, because the evidence you've provided so far *has* strengthened my argument and weakened yours.

Source. Clearly shows the increase in the tax bracket.

Obama's solution of printing more money to solve the U.S.'s debt downgrade could result in hyper-inflation.
Sources?

Here

Are you asking why printing more money is a bad idea or where is the evidence that his administration has printed more money? You can find the first answer in a history book and the second online or in past news articles.
I'm asking for a source that states that the increased production of physical currency is the White House's attempt to "solve" the U.S.'s debt downgrade.

The above source I gave already shows what has occurred during his time in office and is "quick fix" from the white house.

I don't know why people accept Mitt Romney's background in business is considered to be legitimate experience for a presidential candidate.

Obama was a community organizer. I'm not sure if that is legitimate experience.....

and has produced record employment levels during his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts.
That seems to be contentious.

So is everything about Obama's record.

His work at Bain Capital also pays testament to his experience in the economic zone.
So does this mean that every businessman in America would make a great president?

It's far better experience in my eyes then Obama has. Does every community organizer have what it takes?

Even if I supported Romney, I'd be the first to admit that Obama will probably defeat him because of his poor public image, perceived connection to Bush, his status as the challenger, etc. etc.

The polls essentially show that they are nearly neck and neck, I am incredulous to believe that Obama has soared above Romeny and has a strong lead.

We both have made our points, the debates will most likely bring certainty to whom will be our next commander-in-chief.
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 10th, 2012 @ 02:19 AM

At 9/10/12 01:17 AM, Pride wrote:
This article explains that the constitution requires direct taxes must be apportioned and explains the adaption of the 16th amendment. A quality which the affordable care act violates.

How does the Affordable Care Act violate the Constitution?

But it does have the power to levy taxes. This is why the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional.
What is the purpose of the tax though? To raise revenue for the government or modify human behavior.

Modify human behavior. That tax acts as a penalty which coerces certain people to get health care.


This is a good thing. Besides, we don't need so many nuclear weapons.
If you believe in the concept of nuclear superiority in International relations theory, then limiting our stockpile to put us at a disadvantage is not a great idea.

If you believe in the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, then it doesn't matter.

For example, a state with 100 nuclear weapons won't use those weapons against a state with 50 nuclear weapons because the attacked state can retaliate with devastating force.

By your logic, the U.S. would've found some excuse to destroy the Soviet Union years ago when we had more nuclear weapons.


Of course Iran wants and should desire nuclear weapons. Realism dictates that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest. The question is, as a citizen of the US do we want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons to level against us (as you suggested)?

Iran doesn't have the resources to deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. Even if it did, it wouldn't dare to do so, as the U.S. would annihilate them within seconds. Iran knows that.



Obama disagrees and believes in the danger of this happening (though as I said, he is ineffective).

Who cares if he disagrees?

President Obama's administration is neglecting our traditional allies,
How?
He did not support England in the dispute over the Falkland Isles (it may seem trivial, but insuring England's interests help), he has paid little attention to helping Israel (just look at the neglect and division in the DNC over the recognition of Israel), and damaged our relationship with Canada (source).

OK then.

Not like it matters much.

breaching security on private government matters,
Source?

It was never proven that Obama was responsible. Let's not speculate on the matter.

Source. This should suffice.

Why should the maintenance of the hegemony of the U.S. be a priority to us?
If you believe in American exceptional-ism and value the status we have held since the end of the Cold War, then yes.

I don't believe in it and I don't know what "values" you're talking about.

Actually, I'd prefer the dominance of the U.S. to be divided between it and several other nations. I've seen the results of American hegemony and I can't say I like most of them. If the U.S. didn't hold unparalleled dominance over global affairs, it would no longer act as a bully.

He mentions this constantly and devises that increased taxation is a strong part of the solution. Problem is the wealthy would have to pay a lot more to bring down our debt and it would hurt many businesses.

I thought you implied that Obama said that to balance the budget, we must tax the wealthy a little more. That would be wrong.

Do you believe that is what Obama wants?


And I noticed that you didn't respond to what I said regarding the fact that many, if not most, wealthy people don't pay the 35% income tax because they don't make that money through income but through investments or through other methods.
In order to balance the budget they would have to apply an 88% tax rate to about roughly 9 million American households.
They don't have to do that and they don't intend to do that.
Who knows? I would hope/think not, yet Obama's own father believed and wrote in thesis papers that citizens of the state could be taxed to the fullest extent as long as they are given some service (however menial).

So because Obama Sr. expresses a certain opinion, Obama Jr. probably advocates the same opinion.

Nice logic there.

As I stated earlier, Obama alludes to dramatically raising taxes in many of speeches.
But you claimed that Obama wants to balance the budget only by raising taxes on the wealthy, which is a demonstrably false claim.
I never said that he will balance the budget "only" by raising taxes on the wealthy,

That's what you seemed to imply. I can quote you if you don't believe me.

I said that his idea of balancing the budget through placing more taxes on the wealthy is absurd

So you are saying that he will try to balance the budget entirely by taxing the wealthy more, then?

and I gave an example of how much he would have to impose to reduce the total budget significantly. I agree, raising taxes astronomically on the wealthy and corporations is insane.

A quote from the article you linked to me later in your post about Obama's supposed attempts to astronomically raise the taxes on the wealthy:

Obama wants to keep tax rates at their current levels for most Americans, but raise rates on income above $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The top tax bracket would rise from 35% to 39.6%.

Do you read these sources before linking them to other people in arguments?

Source. Clearly shows the increase in the tax bracket.

Yeah, 39.6% will crush the wealthy, even though they can easily afford it and don't fully pay that tax anyway, but you seem to ignore that.

Obama's solution of printing more money to solve the U.S.'s debt downgrade could result in hyper-inflation.
Sources?

That video was uploaded in 2009. The credit downgrade occurred in 2011.

It's as if you're not even trying to make sure your sources can be taken seriously.

Here

Are you asking why printing more money is a bad idea or where is the evidence that his administration has printed more money? You can find the first answer in a history book and the second online or in past news articles.
I'm asking for a source that states that the increased production of physical currency is the White House's attempt to "solve" the U.S.'s debt downgrade.
The above source I gave already shows what has occurred during his time in office and is "quick fix" from the white house.

And again, that video was uploaded in 2009, before the credit downgrade even occurred.

I don't know why people accept Mitt Romney's background in business is considered to be legitimate experience for a presidential candidate.
Obama was a community organizer. I'm not sure if that is legitimate experience.....

Obama didn't seem to run on his experience as a community organizer, though.

and has produced record employment levels during his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts.
That seems to be contentious.
So is everything about Obama's record.

OK then.

His work at Bain Capital also pays testament to his experience in the economic zone.
So does this mean that every businessman in America would make a great president?
It's far better experience in my eyes then Obama has. Does every community organizer have what it takes?

Probably not, but I don't recall Obama boasting that his experience in that occupation alone qualified him for the presidency.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, barely discusses his record as Governor of Massachusetts.

Even if I supported Romney, I'd be the first to admit that Obama will probably defeat him because of his poor public image, perceived connection to Bush, his status as the challenger, etc. etc.
The polls essentially show that they are nearly neck and neck,

The polls don't tell the whole story, though. Just look at what I said earlier. Mitt Romney has several significant disadvantages that he has yet to overcome.

I am incredulous to believe that Obama has soared above Romeny and has a strong lead.

OK then.

We both have made our points, the debates will most likely bring certainty to whom will be our next commander-in-chief.

OK then.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Melancholy
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 10th, 2012 @ 06:26 AM

I love that people go "Why should I pay for other peoples healthcare?", youre paying more now than you would if everyone paid, and if you arent insured then you can wave goodbye to your money, so paying for other people is an incredibly weak and irrelevent argument. I really cant believe people are stupid enough to ask that.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 10th, 2012 @ 04:37 PM

I'm sure Obama will win, however a more effective campaign strategy would be to focus on his own accomplishments and strengths, not mud throwing. The thing I'm most pleased with Obama is the approval and campaigning he and congress did for the American auto industry bailouts. After Chevrolet was bailed out and regulated by the government, they have been posting amazing profits along with paying off the bailout money. While Chrysler, after having most of their shares bought by Fiat, has payed off its government debt and posted record profits. Although these recoveries don't directly impact the individual consumer, it shows that Obama's policies, or at least the ones he's in favor for have shown a full economic turnaround in America's once most troubled car companies.

Also out of pure scientifically backed logical research, I think Americans are fucking sick of the Republican coined term "Obamacare" and will vote against Romney for dragging along that whining, crying conservative cliche'.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 10:21 AM

At 9/9/12 04:31 PM, 24901miles wrote:
At 9/9/12 03:16 PM, Light wrote: As Clinton said at the DNC, no president has been able to fully recuperate the economy in just 4 years.
That doesn't matter in American Elections. The majority of votes come from people who do absolutely no research on the election and just choose the candidate they like the most or have heard the most about from whatever biased media they're tuned into. That's why spin and paraphrasing out of context is dominant in politics.

What is too bad is that if people did the research they would find out that Bill Clinton either lied through his teeth or does not know much about history.

1) There have been 6 recessions/depressions (they are pretty much the same thing) that have lasted over three years.
2) There have been 47 recessions/depressions in US history. This means that only 13% of
3) One of the worst was in 1920-1921; it was the single most deflationary year in US history. Calvin Coolidge (R) essentially doubled down on trickle down and the rest of the 20s were known as the 'roaring 20s' despite a minor recession in 1923.
4) President Herbert Hoover (R) responded to the initial stages of the Great Depression using Keynesian principles that FDR called 'socialist' when he ran against Hoover. FDR would later package these 'socialist' solutions as the New Deal. This would go on to be one of the longest times of economic pain in US history.
5) Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980 with an economy wrecked by bad policy making from Nixon to Carter and got hit with a second recession one year after the first one ended. By the end of the term he was able to claim recoveries for two recessions.
6) Bill Clinton did not discuss his role in the 2008 economic collapse.
7) Nor did Barack Obama did not discuss Buycks-Robeson v Citibank. In this class-action lawsuit Obama did background legal work and charged 138 billable hours for $23,000. Now I'm sure to be attacked since, as Snopes.com points out: there are emails out there saying Obama forced banks to make bad loans. These emails take a truth and make it sound like Obama had the power and influence to make these things happen...all by himself. That is not true, nor is it what I'm saying. What his involvement in this case (and his work as a community organizer) shows is that he supported the public policy that caused the financial collapse of 2008. Furthermore, had he been more of a player in 2000 he would have supported the very policies that Bush executed in regards to the banking sector. In fact he would most likely have pushed for more deregulation.

So in the end it is a choice between how fast we get to the financial cliff, since Romney is only slightly less fiscally irresponsible than Obama. Do we go fast with Obama aka Thelma & Louise style or take our time a la Driving Miss Daisey?

SOURCE


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 05:38 PM

No matter the last name of the guy who wins, the policies will be the same.

More corporate handouts at the expense of the taxpayer. Government will still waste money. America will still be a terror nation. Civil rights still won't be equal. The dollar will still be worth nothing. The government will still continue to operate above the law. Politicians will still continue to see taxpayers hard work as a bank.

Who cares about all that freedom and rights jazz anyway?

Otto
Otto
  • Member since: Mar. 31, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Animator
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 07:20 PM

At 9/6/12 11:21 PM, ZJ wrote: As a person with money, you should be entitled to better treatment. Yeah, I'm a dick for saying it

Yeah, you really, really are.

I come here for 2 minutes but I can't stay a second longer after the bollocks I've read.

I swear American left wingers are more hardcore right than British right wingers.


This is a song about cum on hotel walls.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 08:56 PM

Wow, I can't believe someone in this thread said "conservative economics put minorities at a disadvantage"

Jesus Christ the public school system is a travesty.

Bolo
Bolo
  • Member since: Nov. 29, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 48
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 10:08 PM

Quite frankly, I see almost no scenario in which Obama loses this election. His record is sterling, he's an incumbent, the Supreme Court validated his healthcare initiative, he presided over the death of bin Laden, Romney is a lame opponent who only generates lukewarm enthusiasm from the Republican base, the demographics are shifting as hispanic voters enter the US (think about this: in 10-15 years, Texas will probably be a toss up state), and Republicans have effectively stated that their intentions to make Obama lose re-election outweigh their responsibilities to pass laws for the good of the American people.

Intrade, and nearly all swing state polls favor Obama. The Democratic convention was a rousing success. I'm willing to call it now as a 50+ margin electoral college victory for Obama, barring major catastrophe.


BBS Signature
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 11:07 PM

At 9/11/12 10:08 PM, Bolo wrote: Quite frankly, I see almost no scenario in which Obama loses this election. His record is sterling, he's an incumbent, the Supreme Court validated his healthcare initiative, he presided over the death of bin Laden, Romney is a lame opponent who only generates lukewarm enthusiasm from the Republican base, the demographics are shifting as hispanic voters enter the US (think about this: in 10-15 years, Texas will probably be a toss up state), and Republicans have effectively stated that their intentions to make Obama lose re-election outweigh their responsibilities to pass laws for the good of the American people.

Intrade, and nearly all swing state polls favor Obama. The Democratic convention was a rousing success. I'm willing to call it now as a 50+ margin electoral college victory for Obama, barring major catastrophe.

Although I strongly believe that Obama's record is an excellent enough reason to reelect him, many would disagree because they have forgotten some of his underrated accomplishments, vote Republican no matter what, happen to be a member of the Tea Party, etc.

I don't disagree with your reasoning, but I know that many, many Americans will either ignore it or come up with a foolish reason to vote for Romney.

In any case, I've noticed that Romney isn't great at debating. Neither is Obama, but he isn't bad at it. From what I remember of his debates during his time as a Democratic presidential candidate, he was a mediocre debater. Hillary seemed better.

Romney, on the other hand, sucks. He has had at least one great performance, but in most of the Republican presidential debates, he was considered weak by pundits. I didn't think any differently.

I seriously don't anticipate Romney to do well in the upcoming presidential debates.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 12:30 AM

At 9/11/12 11:07 PM, Light wrote: I seriously don't anticipate Romney to do well in the upcoming presidential debates.

Don't underestimate the ego and mental gymnastics of the very selfish among us.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 02:22 AM

At 9/12/12 12:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9/11/12 11:07 PM, Light wrote: I seriously don't anticipate Romney to do well in the upcoming presidential debates.
Don't underestimate the ego and mental gymnastics of the very selfish among us.

Most of us were conscience for Obama's campaign and presidency

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 10:38 AM

At 9/11/12 10:08 PM, Bolo wrote: Quite frankly, I see almost no scenario in which Obama loses this election.

* Record: First of all, linking to a pro-Obama site is not proof of a 'sterling' record. Secondly, some of the stuff on there are not necessarily good things or very minor things. Expanding hate crime legislation comes to mind; its junk-food legislation. Thirdly, those are not really Obama's accomplishments but rather Congress'. Obama has been an exceptionally weak governor when it comes to pushing through major legislation. He stumps for it and is a figure head, but the real work has fallen to Congressional Democrats with little to no White House support. He spent all of his political capital (which in '08 was measured by the shit-ton) stumping for healthcare reform all the while loosing middle America and throwing blue dog Democrats under the bus and loosing a greater majority in Congress than any president in modern times has enjoyed. Finally, his economic numbers are shit. FDR was the last president to run with such dismal economic numbers and win.

* Incumbency: ALL presidential elections have an incumbent to some degree. There are three types of incumbency: president, vice-president and party. 1996, 2004 and 2012 are all presidential incumbency elections (the guy running is the president). 1988 and 2000 were vice-presidential incumbency where the sitting VP is running for the top slot. 2008 was a party incumbency year where voter's are deciding on which party to put in office; these are the years where each candidate's qualities are most equally important.

* SCOTUS & Healthcare: 1) SCOTUS upheld it by declaring it a tax...something the administration and Democrats said it was no. 2) That it was upheld does not translate into it being popular.

* bin-Laden is not going to be a reason someone does or does not vote for Obama. It was an easy call to make that took no political capital and extremely low political risk. Obama has enjoyed his bounce over this and it is over.

* This election is about Obama and the economy. The quality of Romney as a candidate is of very little importance. As long as the challenger is not too radical or a PR nightmare (read: Sarah Palin), the challenger will win or loose based on the preception of the incumbent president, vice-president or party.


Intrade, and nearly all swing state polls favor Obama. The Democratic convention was a rousing success. I'm willing to call it now as a 50+ margin electoral college victory for Obama, barring major catastrophe.

* Intrade, polls, etc: I trust polls. When I was in grad school I taught students why polls could be trusted and the science behind them. So when I say the following I am not some polling ludite who does not like the numbers and so dismisses them out of ignorance. Something seems off this year. I'm not sure why Obama is polling so well when historical trends say he should be trailing and secondary polls (ie: questions about who will do better on the economy are often tied or favoring Romney) seem to be going against him. I think there are three possible answers:
1) The Bradley Effect
Yes Camaro, I understand it was NOT present in 2008 and 'everyone' were looking for it everywhere. I talked to the election gurus in my political science department (hell most of them were at my watch party that night) and no one really expected it to be a factor back then. I didn't think it was in play. However, media outlets looking for sensational stories gave the fears of it rearing its ugly head legs.

But 2012 is different. I think we are more racially polarized now than we were back then. The professor Gates incident, DoJ dismissing charges against NBPP members in a slam-dunk voter intimidation case, congressmen saying they were called 'N****r' when the entire event was filmed and no one can corroberate his story and defining opposition to Obama's policies as being inheriently racist...I think makes some people very hesitant about expressing any desire (no matter how ideologically motivated and how racially NOT motivated that person may be) to vote Obama out.

So on election night...those swing states might not go Obama.

2) Modeling/construction error: many pollsters base their polls over the demographics of the last election. So the demographics of '08 strongly favored Obama. This year, not so much. Quite simply, pollsters may be asking more people in demographics where his support is iron-clad (ie: women, blacks) and underpolling the demographics that historically have swung elections (ie: white males). So the polls may just be wrong.

3) People may be sensitive to the historical nature of this election and my simply vote for him because he is black and they do not want the first black president to loose re-election.

* Conventions: I don't really watch them anymore. I find myself looking for Republican strengths and good sound bites and Democrat weaknesses and good sound bites to use against them. I usually come out thinking my side had a convention that was a 'rousing success' (just like you and the rest of the Democrat leaning posters thought about the DNC). Instead I prefer to look at the polls about two weeks after the last convention. Were the bounce each candidate got a 'bounce' (went up...then back down) or a 'trend' (either continues getting better or levels out higher). So we'll see who (if anyone) won the convention contest.

====

It would be foolish to try and predict the outcome of this election at this time.

I wish I could find it, but Nate Silver on his 538 blog for The New York Times put up a chart showing the different models. Basically the predictive models for this presidential election are split by type and there are three types:

1) Economic based models: all show an Obama loss with a high degree of certainty (highest was 85% chance of him loosing).

2) Polling based models: all show an Obama victory with a respectable degree of certainty (highest was in the mid 70s for him winning).

3) Mixed: tend to favor an Obama victory with his chances improving the more the model relies on polls.

Things may change in October, especially if October's job numbers are released and they are good or bad (or if the press buzz indicates they will be).

I'm an economic model kind of guy, they are objective and free of some of the bias issues of polling based models. So I'm thinking a Romney victory...within the margin of error. Which is essentially to reiterate that this is most likely going to be a horse race to the finish.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 11:09 AM

Romney apparently has a zero percent rating with black people. I'm going to say right now that it's impossible to get elected with a zero percent approval rating from any large group, especially when the current President belongs to that group. Of course, we on the Internet supported Ron Paul, and he never really went anywhere, so what we say might not mean anything.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 01:22 PM

At 9/12/12 11:09 AM, Ericho wrote: Romney apparently has a zero percent rating with black people. I'm going to say right now that it's impossible to get elected with a zero percent approval rating from any large group,...

Sorry...not true at all. The black vote goes Democratic between 95-98% of the time in presidential elections. So no...this is not dire news for Romney at all.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 02:26 PM

At 9/11/12 08:56 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Wow, I can't believe someone in this thread said "conservative economics put minorities at a disadvantage"

Jesus Christ the public school system is a travesty.

I know right? They shouldn't teach that there were any negative effects of the Reagan economic policy and keep the facts from contradicting our wet dream of Reagan because that's the truth.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature