And Obama isn't any of that, right?

Romney is actually a large departure from Bush-bama politics.

How so? With insane right-wing policies that will ultimately hurt the country and slam us INTO A DEPRESSION and with no idea on HOW he will fix the country, I wouldn't vote for Romney even if he saved my life from a giant, man-eating shark! If I get no disability benefits because he decided to cut them, then he can go fuck himself. I am a young college student right now, and I do not want to lose my state given financial aid. I really want to keep my benefits, thank you, and if he cuts my aid, I am moving to Canada. Besides, my father could be out of work in a couple of months, which will fuck us over even FURTHER! You really want to vote Romney now, you right-wing asshole?

At 10/7/12 01:52 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 10/7/12 01:32 PM, Korriken wrote: not gonna refute the rest of my post?

the people running the presidential debates are humans. with an agenda of their own.

It seems like the Republicans point out a lot of conspiracies all year long. BLS conspiracies... media conspiracies... 47% dependency vote-racking conspiracies... this is just from the past week.

But why isn't Obama using this to his advantage! In the next debate, he really needs to call out Romney for the sorry idiot he is.

At 10/7/12 01:47 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:

And Obama isn't any of that, right?

Romney is actually a large departure from Bush-bama politics.

How so? With insane right-wing policies that will ultimately hurt the country and slam us INTO A DEPRESSION and with no idea on HOW he will fix the country, I wouldn't vote for Romney even if he saved my life from a giant, man-eating shark! If I get no disability benefits because he decided to cut them, then he can go fuck himself. I am a young college student right now, and I do not want to lose my state given financial aid. I really want to keep my benefits, thank you, and if he cuts my aid, I am moving to Canada. Besides, my father could be out of work in a couple of months, which will fuck us over even FURTHER! You really want to vote Romney now, you right-wing asshole?

Actually, in the debate, Romney named exact specific ideas on how to fix the nation. Also, Bush was not a conservative. He was a pro-government, pro-spending liberal just like Obama. romney, not so much. Romney has actually commented several times about limiting government power and control over the citizens and economy. Bush and Obama don't agree with that approach, and it's for those reasons he is nothing like them.

Romney has not wanted to cut disability benefits. As for your education, why not pull yourself up by your bootstraps like King Obama did and get a private loan? Why do you need the government to be your nanny? FWIW, Romney hasn't stated anywhere that he would cut financial aid to anyone. Get a private loan and be your person instead of a slave to the government.

Your father could be out of work in a couple months? Well I guess Obama should be creating legislation that is shutting down his workplace :) How is it Romney's fault your dad is losing his job, and why should the government pick up the tab to take care of you/him at others' expense?

At 10/7/12 02:03 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:

But why isn't Obama using this to his advantage! In the next debate, he really needs to call out Romney for the sorry idiot he is.

Because Obama can't compete because his logic is flawed and most of his "points" are based on lies.

At 10/7/12 02:32 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 10/7/12 02:03 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:

But why isn't Obama using this to his advantage! In the next debate, he really needs to call out Romney for the sorry idiot he is.

Because Obama can't compete because his logic is flawed and most of his "points" are based on lies.

Only a fool can not see that all politicians semantics are based upon lies seems like you so seems like personal opinion to me.

At 10/7/12 10:01 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 10/7/12 07:32 AM, TucoM wrote: Obama has a tendency to choke under pressure.

We all would if you had the weight of a crazy ass country on your back.

He wanted that job.

At 10/7/12 06:55 PM, Korriken wrote: then why in the hell would you ever vote for Obama? His insane left wing politics have kept us IN A RECESSION! and with no idea on HOW the economy works!

Insane left wing? So let's see what he did, stimulus package, something right wing Republicans supported under Bush. Healthcare? It's pretty much a replica of what Republicans proposed back during the 90's for healthcare reform. Other than that I guess his massive tax cut for Middle class Americans is an insane left wing idea perhaps inspired by the most liberal President ever; Ronald Reagan. Oh so I guess he's Socialist McStalin now.

move to Canada? great idea! Just what Canada needs, another mouth to suckle the sow of "free money".

It's not free money if it's just tax payer money which he donates. It's only free if you're old.

I doubt student aid or disability are going anywhere. College student eh... I think I have diagnosed your problem. you've been brainwashed by your professors. poor little fella...

Funny you mention that, because there is no evidence that professors effect the political views of their students. People who go to universities just tend to be more liberal, and the more prestigious and difficult to get into universities you go to the more liberal they tend to be.

At 10/7/12 06:55 PM, Korriken wrote: then why in the hell would you ever vote for Obama? His insane left wing politics have kept us IN A RECESSION! and with no idea on HOW the economy works!

Don't tell Korriken, but Obama supports neoliberal economic policies just like Romney, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan.

Well, I finally went and saw that debate a few days ago, and my thoughts are that I think it went pretty well for Obama. It seems like most people would say Romney was the better man, but I have yet to see any information about how he's gotten more popular because of that. It seemed like Romney was interrupting a lot and Obama was being more polite. Of course, time will tell who gets the presidency.

At 10/7/12 10:50 PM, Feoric wrote: Don't tell Korriken, but Obama supports neoliberal economic policies just like Romney, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan.

If a political spectrum actually existed, the Republicans would be hanging on one side by a hair and the Democrats would be around center (alongside Obama). The idea that any of Obama's policies are neoliberal is beyond ridiculous and ignorant. Let me put it this way, if Obama had neoliberal policies I would be rooting him on like the polar opposite of one of those tea bagging idiots.

At 10/8/12 11:46 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

At 10/7/12 10:50 PM, Feoric wrote: Don't tell Korriken, but Obama supports neoliberal economic policies just like Romney, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan.

If a political spectrum actually existed, the Republicans would be hanging on one side by a hair and the Democrats would be around center (alongside Obama). The idea that any of Obama's policies are neoliberal is beyond ridiculous and ignorant. Let me put it this way, if Obama had neoliberal policies I would be rooting him on like the polar opposite of one of those tea bagging idiots.

Well then I guess I'm about to make you a vicious Obama supporter, because the economic policies crafted by his economic team are absolutely neoliberal. Pre-GFC, Obama's economic advisers were relatively progressive/Keynesian, but during and after the GFC Obama has switched to a more neoliberal and Wall Street friendly crowd once he was in office, most notable Larry Summers and Rahm Emmanuel. Some of the current top economists in the nation are products of the Chicago School, a school of economic thought which has been irrefutably demonstrated to be a catastrophic failure literally every time it has been implemented.

Let's have a look at what this absolute shithead Larry Summers has actually said and done:

The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.... I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted.

There are no limits to the carrying capacity of the earth that are likely to bind any time in the foreseeable future. There isn't a risk of an apocalypse due to global warming or anything else. The idea that we should put limits on growth because of some natural limit, is a profound error and one that, were it ever to prove influential, would have staggering social costs

Any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites.

He also gave a speech at Harvard claiming that men are naturally better at math so the discrepancy in the women to men ratio in science and engineering has nothing to do with discrimination, but just the fact that men are better and smarter, or something.

This man was the head of the National Economic Council, appointed by Obama himself. The current shithead director of the NEC, Gene Sperling, was instrumental in the dismantling of the Glass-Stegall Act. Which is pretty fucking funny when you consider that Obama himself went on the record saying that he thought the repeal of Glass-Stegall was instrumental to the subprime mortgage disaster in 2007. It's even funnier when you take into account that Sperling was appointed as the director of the NEC in January of last year. Sperling is also Summers' protoge, so it's not like we're getting two people with different ways of thinking, either.

It's also weird that you would be in support of Obama if he was a neoliberal (which he ostensibly is), as if this is somehow a good thing that didn't bring the global economy to it's knees, no siree.

At 10/5/12 11:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I see some trends here (i.e. parroting).

First: people are saying that Romney sounded great. He did not. Romney had little goal in his words and failed to say much of anything.

Go watch the first 10 minutes again :) The first thing out of his mouth was something

Where is Gary Johnson?

At 10/8/12 11:06 AM, Ericho wrote: ..., but I have yet to see any information about how he's gotten more popular because of that. ...

For the first time in the race Romney has taken the lead in the RCP average.

In the swing states Romney has closed the gap to make it very competitive. Furthermore, more polls are starting to show him in the lead instead of trailing or tied with Obama.

NBC

CBS

The election is not over. We have yet to see how the September jobs report will play out; looking at Rasmussen it may be helping Obama but not enough to allow him more than a 1% lead. Tonight's debate and the remaining two presidential debates will probably determine who wins along with the hearings on Benghazi.

At 10/11/12 11:00 AM, TheMason wrote: For the first time in the race Romney has taken the lead in the RCP average.

It should be noted; The polls mean nothing. What matters are the polices, what is said and done and not how it is said or done. People have been voted into many political positions while be not only down in the polls but far down.

At 10/11/12 11:42 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

"What matters are the polices"

Funny how you never hear anyone speak of Ethics in politics only arbitrary "policy" that voters have absolutely no control over for 4 years.

At 10/8/12 08:09 PM, Feoric wrote: It's also weird that you would be in support of Obama if he was a neoliberal (which he ostensibly is), as if this is somehow a good thing that didn't bring the global economy to it's knees, no siree.

First of all, it wasn't neoliberalism that brought the global economy to its knees. It was basically a Clinton-era policy that led to the subprime fueled housing bubble that burst with a rumor about Bear-Sterns.

Secondly, Obama gets a lot of credit for 'saving us from a second Great Depression'. Unfortunately for him; this is a lie. When the meltdown happened the financial system came within hours of total collapse. It was Bush officials...SecTreas Paulson and Chairman Bernanke...who crafted the response that stabilized the financial sector. In the beginning congressional leaders from both Houses and Parties were consulted...but they were pretty much told that they did not have time to tinker with or debate the response and that there was no time for partisan wrangling. Furthermore:

* This was a financial recession...fundamentally different from supply/demand recessions. As such Obama's performance as president has been sub-par.

* Gains in the economy for the middle and working class has been very poor...in fact Wall Street is doing better under Obama than Main Street. More people are on food stamps now. Low wage jobs have replaced higher paying jobs. Furthermore, despite the hooplah over the 7.8% unemployment rate...job growth...has been pretty flat. Especially when you look at the U6 unemployment rate. People have given up looking for jobs.

* Blaming Bush policies for the bad economy are falsehoods. See my above point that the situation was stabilized by Bush officials. Furthermore, refer to the graph from Investor's Business Daily: Under bush the deficit as % of GDP declined. We had full employment until 2007 (after the Dems took over Congress). 8 million jobs were added between 2003 and 2007. Also, the recession ended before Obama's policies could take effect. The recession ended due to Bush's response (TARP) not Obama's stimulus. Finally, wages have decreased under Obama.

* Rather than Neoliberal in nature; I think Obama operates under an ideological crony-capitalism model. He is severely regulated traditional, cheap energy providers (oil and coal) making it less profitable to be in those businesses. The result is increased prices at the pump and the light switch. On the other hand he squanders stimulus funding on green energy start-ups that put money into his campaign coffers.

In the end, I want to say I'm not blindly defending Bush here. I'm a structuralist, I think these things would've happened even under a Gore presidency. Afterall, the subprime policy was leftover from Clinton-Gore and Clinton did take military action against Iraq throughout his presidency and considered invasion when Saddam considered 'Oil-for-Food' policies that would weaken the dollar. I believe there is a place for regulation...but a correction to over-regulation is just as wrong. So while Obama may have had a policy reversal...oops, my bad: policy evolution...on Wall Street I think his healthcare initiative (bad idea under Republicans too) and energy policies have been harmfull to people in the middle and lower classes.

At 10/11/12 11:42 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

At 10/11/12 11:00 AM, TheMason wrote: For the first time in the race Romney has taken the lead in the RCP average.

It should be noted; The polls mean nothing. What matters are the polices, what is said and done and not how it is said or done. People have been voted into many political positions while be not only down in the polls but far down.

It should be noted that anyone who says "The polls mean nothing." [emphasis mine] is presenting an indicator that they do not understand elections and electoral behavior.

The polls are an indicator of who is going to win an election or ballot initiative. They are highly, highly accurate. Your assertion that people win trailing in the polls is a little thin: 1) it does not happen often...it is actually pretty rare. 2) When it does occur it is either because of a faulty polling model, bias in the poll, or it is a down ticket races (presidential races get polled a lot and a lot of money and effort put into them...while state representative races tend not to be so thouroughly polled). Also, one of the reasons I like the RCP average is: 1) poll averages tend to be more accurate and precise and 2) the RCP average has shown to historically be significantly close to the actual election day result.

There are somethings that I'm looking at with this election that makes me wonder about the polls:
1) There is some talk that the polls are modeled incorrectly and biased towards Obama. (IE: polling more Democrats than are likely to turn-out.)
2) I am thinking there may be some of the Bradley effect at play with this election.

But we won't know until the election. Until then as a political scientist, I need to trust my instruments and what they are telling me. My personal theory is that the Bradley effect is happening and Obama's numbers are inflated by 2-3%, but the only proof I have of that will be to compare actual election results on 8 November to the 7 November RCP average.

So I'm sorry my friend, but polls are important. In fact, they are the measure of how what the candidates say and their policy proposals are accepted (or not) by the voters.

At 10/11/12 11:46 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 10/11/12 11:42 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

"What matters are the polices"

Funny how you never hear anyone speak of Ethics in politics only arbitrary "policy" that voters have absolutely no control over for 4 years.

1) Ethics is a system of moral principles. These moral principles may be applied to professions, individuals, institutions, corporations, etc. Morality is often brought up in campaigns, especially amongst candidates and especially presidential candidates.

2) Arbitrary, used in a political sense, means something that is not confined or based upon law or other rules. Policy, as used in a political sense, is a course of action based upon the law. Therefore, when talking about the policies that a candidate favors in regard to running for an office..."policy" cannot be arbitrary.

3) Let's say you own a company and you're hiring someone. During the interview...aren't you going to be interested in what that person is going to do in your name? With the authority and power you grant them? That is what policy is: how they are going to do the job they are applying for by running for the office. To be so dismissive of "policy" is absurd.

To be honest I think the only reason people say Romney won the debate is because he was much more enthusiastic and passionate then Obama was. Romney said many things that if you don't think about it sound inspiring and catchy. But if you look at alot of the things that Romney said and think about it you find that it doesn't make sense.

Example: When Obama said that "Romney is promising to reduce your taxes, decrease the government debt, increase spending on things like the military, and that his plan for doing so is to close loop holes but he has not told us how he will close those loop hole and even if he did there are economists that did the math and found that even if you closed all of them you still don't have enough money to pay to do what you claim." Romney had 3 responses to that.

1. He claimed I never said I was going to decrease taxes. Your party likes to say that and that we are going to increase the debt because that is good propaganda but its not true. (Now I remember him clearly taking about decreasing taxes in fact here is a video of him during the primary's talking about it. So he lied)

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/mitt-romney-clai ms-he-wants-cut-taxes-midd

2. He said I will never support a bill that will hurt the middle class Americans. You keep saying this but that's not true. (This one doesn't even answer the question he just pushed it aside. He still did not answer how he is going to decrease taxes, decrease the debt, and increase spending at the same time.)

3. Romney's response to the loop hole was. "That is what some economists claim but others say different." (Once again he did not answer the question. He did not say how he was going to close those loop holes.)

If you actually think about what Romney said then you can see that it was Obama that should have been declared the victor. But people don't like to think. They like to be inspired shock and owed. They want some one who is enthusiastic and passionate and in that Romney won.

At 10/11/12 12:39 PM, TheMason wrote:

To be so dismissive of "policy" is absurd.

1) "Ethics" - More specific the lack of ethics in politics today is the issue and as well my preferred branch of which is "secular" and "Secular Ethics" are the basis on which all decisions big or small in government must be made upon and I believe there is no room for debate on this that is unless you are dabbling in the collusion of theistic opinions in politics of which I highly do not recommend as religion & money need to stay out of politics IMO.

2) "Arbitrary" - As in most of the policies created within politics and government.

3) "policy" is absurd. For the most part I must agree that most policies are absurd as policy that is not based upon "secular ethics" is unmoral, Unjust, and just illogical at the very core.

A contract for Government and Politicians to operate and abide by derived on a moral code based in "Secular Ethics" is what I am suggest as one possible corrective step towards a better civilization with more happiness and equality for all people of the world. Therefor with that being said what I am suggesting is that Governmental & Political policy not based upon "Secular ethics" is absurd.

With the two candidates being neck in neck, I can't helped but be reminded of the 2000 election with Gore and Bush. Do you think something like that could happen again? I kind of doubt it would take as long as that, but it would probably be one of our closest races. Of course, nothing could top the Hayes/Tilden election where they agreed to give all the electoral votes to Hayes, making him win by just one vote.

At 10/7/12 06:55 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 10/7/12 01:47 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:

move to Canada? great idea! Just what Canada needs, another mouth to suckle the sow of "free money". I doubt student aid or disability are going anywhere. College student eh... I think I have diagnosed your problem. you've been brainwashed by your professors. poor little fella...

;;;
As a Canadian I would like to point out
We are HUGELY affected by the USA, they are our closest neighbor & are a HUGE market for Canadian raw materials & goods.
Take away the demand for these products & it decimates our economy.
Which is part of the reason a new pipeline is being started to the Pacific Coast.

Canada may be much larger than the USA but we only have about 1/10 ththe population & most of that population lives withing 100 miles of our common border.

Students in University pay large tuitions in this country & go into debt as well to go to higher learning centres.
We are taxed at a much higher rate than Americans ... it ain't all roses up here , did I mention our weather ?
~;p

At 10/11/12 01:57 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Take away the demand for these products & it decimates our economy.

Na the demand will never decimate although our economy might slow down a bit until it regulates again when China starts consuming our natural resources when the Americans across the boarder go under and they can no longer pay for them. Canada supply's the US with only 10% of there total annual Oil needs but represents 50% of Canada total annual Oil production.

At 10/11/12 01:25 PM, Ericho wrote: With the two candidates being neck in neck, I can't helped but be reminded of the 2000 election with Gore and Bush. Do you think something like that could happen again? I kind of doubt it would take as long as that, but it would probably be one of our closest races. ...

That is always a concern when the race is this close. So it is a possiblity; and I hope to hell that that won't happen this time. If Romney wins that way...I think there will be civil unrest.

But I have a gut feeling that one of the candiates will win by 2% or more.

At 10/11/12 12:05 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/8/12 08:09 PM, Feoric wrote: It's also weird that you would be in support of Obama if he was a neoliberal (which he ostensibly is), as if this is somehow a good thing that didn't bring the global economy to it's knees, no siree.

...[snip..]

I think you and I have had disagreements in the past...but here, you are on the money 100%

Undecided Women voters seem to really like Ryan's point of views, and they drop low when Joe Biden talks. The men seem to be more critical of Republicans and Women seem more critical of Democrats. I think I'm siding with the Women.

Ryan is now talking about how young people and everyone are struggling under the Democrats to find work. Both women and men agreed but women seem to agree a little bit more.

When Joe Biden talks about Jobs both men and women start to decline and don't seem to be happy about what he is talking about. It showed men being a little bit more upset with what Joe Biden was talking about. I'm watching this from CNN.

Joe Biden was talking about borrowing money from China and the yellow/green line both decreased when he said we needed to do that to survive. Seems like people disagree with Vice President Joe BIden, and so do I.