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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

At 9/12/12 02:26 PM, Warforger wrote:

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.

They shouldn't teach that Reaganomics are conservative economics.

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, 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.

To be honest the GOP were never popular with black people, since 1972 i don't think a republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 15% of the black vote. Of course a republican can't seem to win with less than 10% of the black vote.

At 9/12/12 02:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 9/12/12 02:26 PM, Warforger wrote:

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.

They shouldn't teach that Reaganomics are conservative economics.

Wow...... So de-regulations and lower taxes is totally not conservative. I'd like to see what you think Conservative economics are.

At 9/12/12 06:59 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 9/12/12 02:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Wow...... So de-regulations and lower taxes is totally not conservative. I'd like to see what you think Conservative economics are.

Trickle down economics is government enforcement/control of the economy. Conservative economics would be a total separation of government from private finance. Now, I know the common liberal argument is that Reagan was a de-regulator, and that equals conservatism. It doesn't. He deregulated a certain sector of the economy. That's liberalism, and it's exactly what GWB, Obama did, and Mitt Romney will do.

Also, Regan didn't cut taxes. He increased taxes on the top 10%. He cut SOME taxes for SOME people. Not conservatism. That's government favoritism of one sector/class of people over another, which is the polar opposite of conservative economics.

Furthermore, because of his ridiculous spending on welfare (corporate and social) he managed to triple the deficit, increased unemployment.

I really wish both side would stop calling Ronald Reagan a conservative. He was a republican. They are not the same, and 9 times out of 10 republicans aren't even conservative.

At 9/12/12 07:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I really wish both side would stop calling Ronald Reagan a conservative. He was a republican. They are not the same, and 9 times out of 10 republicans aren't even conservative.

Nobody cares what goes on in your little world. In the world of US politics, Reagan was most definitely conservative. Seeing as this is a discussion based in US politics, the label is extremely apt.

At 9/12/12 10:38 AM, TheMason wrote: asdf

We're both seeing what we want to see, that is, our favorite candidate coming out with the victory.

The fact remains, though, that Obama's record is sterling -- the website you criticized as "liberal" is quite liberally sourced, and perfectly accurate. Nearly all early indicators favor Obama, pundits are predicting his victory, etc. People will vote on the things that have happened during his term, and quite frankly, there have been a large number of good things. The weakness of Romney as a candidate is definitely apropos. A great many people vote for the stronger candidate, or at least abstain from voting for the weaker one.

I'm pretty confident Obama will win. I'll revisit this thread on November 6 and either pick apart my analysis if it was incorrect, or gloat if it was correct.

At 9/12/12 07:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 9/12/12 06:59 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 9/12/12 02:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Wow...... So de-regulations and lower taxes is totally not conservative. I'd like to see what you think Conservative economics are.

Trickle down economics is government enforcement/control of the economy. Conservative economics would be a total separation of government from private finance.

..........Trickle Down economics is just lowering taxes on the upper class so they invest it in the other classes. That seems roughly the minimum.

Now, I know the common liberal argument is that Reagan was a de-regulator, and that equals conservatism. It doesn't. He deregulated a certain sector of the economy. That's liberalism, and it's exactly what GWB, Obama did, and Mitt Romney will do.

What? So de-regulating is liberal as long as you don't de-regulate everything. I look forward to my meat filled with saw dust and hundreds of coal miners dying due to little inspection or oversight.

Also, Regan didn't cut taxes. He increased taxes on the top 10%. He cut SOME taxes for SOME people. Not conservatism. That's government favoritism of one sector/class of people over another, which is the polar opposite of conservative economics.

He did cut taxes, that was one of the first things he did. The thing though was that this wasn't healthy so he eventually had to raise them. Common misconception there.

Furthermore, because of his ridiculous spending on welfare (corporate and social) he managed to triple the deficit, increased unemployment.

No he cut social spending, thus the whole thing about not helping out minorities. Furthermore it was the military spending he did which annihilated the budget, not welfare.

I really wish both side would stop calling Ronald Reagan a conservative. He was a republican. They are not the same, and 9 times out of 10 republicans aren't even conservative.

You're thinking that Conservative = Libertarian. It doesn't. A Conservative is a grassroots politician, a Libertarian pops up like Communists pop up, from universities and idealists whose ideology comes from outside American politics. So there isn't much basis in American political tradition for either, despite similarities. The main reason being though is that America was founded on elements of Classical Republicanism and Classical Liberalism, Classical Republicanism is pretty much Communism and Classical Liberalism is pretty much Libertarianism. This doesn't mean it was fully devoted to both, but that the Founding Fathers recognized that a pure ideology from either wasn't going to work and that some in-between was required. You may be wondering where I'm going with this, well you see Conservatives descend from their political battles as do Liberals, it doesn't mean they were 100% Classical Liberals thus you see these diverting idea's when it comes to Libertarians. But since America was founded on elements of Classical Liberalism there are area's which they agree and area's which they don't agree. That's the thing, modern Conservatives want the least amount of regulation required and acknowledge a need for it, whereas Libertarians don't think there's any need for that (hence why they're not taken very seriously on a national scale).

At 9/12/12 07:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Nobody cares what goes on in your little world. In the world of US politics, Reagan was most definitely conservative. Seeing as this is a discussion based in US politics, the label is extremely apt.

How can one be a conservative, yet never hold or implement any conservative ideals?

At 9/12/12 08:29 PM, Warforger wrote:

..........Trickle Down economics is just lowering taxes on the upper class so they invest it in the other classes. That seems roughly the minimum.

Which is not a conservative viewpoint.

What? So de-regulating is liberal as long as you don't de-regulate everything. I look forward to my meat filled with saw dust and hundreds of coal miners dying due to little inspection or oversight.

Sorry, I trusted you were smart enough to know wtf was in your food without the having to trust a corporate-driven government entity. Does the government also need to teach you how to wipe your ass?

He did cut taxes, that was one of the first things he did. The thing though was that this wasn't healthy so he eventually had to raise them. Common misconception there.

Yes, cut taxes on SOME. Then raised them on SOME. That isn't equality, therefore has no basis in conservative ideology.

No he cut social spending, thus the whole thing about not helping out minorities. Furthermore it was the military spending he did which annihilated the budget, not welfare.

Cut social spending? By increasing Social Security and entitlement spending? Okay.

You're thinking that Conservative = Libertarian. It doesn't. A Conservative is a grassroots politician, a Libertarian pops up like Communists pop up, from universities and idealists whose ideology comes from outside American politics. So there isn't much basis in American political tradition for either, despite similarities. The main reason being though is that America was founded on elements of Classical Republicanism and Classical Liberalism, Classical Republicanism is pretty much Communism and Classical Liberalism is pretty much Libertarianism. This doesn't mean it was fully devoted to both, but that the Founding Fathers recognized that a pure ideology from either wasn't going to work and that some in-between was required. You may be wondering where I'm going with this, well you see Conservatives descend from their political battles as do Liberals, it doesn't mean they were 100% Classical Liberals thus you see these diverting idea's when it comes to Libertarians. But since America was founded on elements of Classical Liberalism there are area's which they agree and area's which they don't agree. That's the thing, modern Conservatives want the least amount of regulation required and acknowledge a need for it, whereas Libertarians don't think there's any need for that (hence why they're not taken very seriously on a national scale).

Classical liberalism doesn't work because it marginalizes the American people. True conservatives, IE libertarians, believe in true equality for everyone. It's not hard to see that when the government get involved, someone is favored over the other, and 99% of the time it's industry. Mussolini tried this decades ago. Didn't work so well for Italy, did it? The only way America can ever be truly just, is if government, and private citizens have equal power. This can never happen if government keeps protecting and encouraging industries' behavior of taking advantage of and stomping on the people.

I'm smelling the beginning of a No-True-Scotsman type argument...

At 9/12/12 06:59 PM, Warforger wrote: Wow...... So de-regulations and lower taxes is totally not conservative. I'd like to see what you think Conservative economics are.

Actually, if you look at the Clinton-Bush era it was W. how expanded government regulation especially following the spectacular failure of Enron early in his presidency (and the subsequent scandal). And it was Clinton who de-regulated the banks to allow full-service banks (insurance, mortgages and checking accounts all under one roof) and multi-state branches (now Bank of America can have a branch on every corner, snuffing out local banks kinda like Walmart allegedly does). And let's not forget it was CLINTON who eased restrictions on FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE that allowed for the sub-prime crisis to happen.

At 9/12/12 09:55 PM, TheMason wrote: And let's not forget it was CLINTON who eased restrictions on FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE that allowed for the sub-prime crisis to happen.

Let's not forget that George Bush encouraged Greenspan to keep the interest rates low thus providing massive fuel to the subprime crisis.

I can also blame this on Wall Street, Consumer America, the Baby Boomers, the Greatest Generation, WalMart, Homer Simpson, that angry looking cloud in the sky, and that one really big spider that scared me as a child. Blame Clinton if you want, but no one person is responsible for more than 5% (at the ultra highest) of the tapestry of bad acting, bad ethics, bad thinking, bad timing, bad policy, and just plain bad luck that caused the subprime crisis. Anyone who claims to have the definitive answers if Jesus to a Muslim, or John Smith to a Baptist.

At 9/12/12 08:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote: How can one be a conservative, yet never hold or implement any conservative ideals?

Favoring businesses in order to perform the actions that should be taken by the government is a conservative position. Just because the word "government" is involved doesn't mean it's not conservative. A Pizza with cream sauce instead of tomato sauce is still a pizza.

Also, like I said before, think of the parameters here. We don't exist in your pseudo-intellectual world where theory is everything and the real world be damned (see: any economic theory ever made). Just because you don't think it's conservative enough, doesn't mean it's not conservative to those who exist in the real world.