Who are you voting for in the US election and why?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Not Obama, that's for damn sure. Whether I actually vote for Romney or throw my vote away on some useless third party remains to be seen.

KlLLUMINATI:
I will literally vote for anyone besides Obama.

While I get the sentiment and know you will vote for the Republican no matter what, I do find it funny since even other Republicans consider Romney to be a two-faced liar, incredible flip-flopper and utterly disconnected from "Real Americans". How does voting for somebody like that make you feel?

Well, as an Australian citizen, I'll not have the ability to vote. But, I'll consider the hypothetical that I can vote in it.

Honestly? I'd go for Romney, for a few key factors. For one, I have something of a dislike for Obama; whilst the use of socialism as a 'dirty word' is rather unfair, when I look at Obama I see nothing more than the slow creep of socialism into the United States. Whilst I wouldn't go so far as some of my fellow Libertarians in stating that all support for the poor must be removed (really, only an ideologue would talk about politics in such extremes), I do believe that there should be incentives for excellence combined with incentives for austerity.

Romney, I believe, might be able to bridge the partisan divide in the United States. Whoever came up with the idea that changing on a position is automatically a negative trait was an idiot; how many people do you know that hold the same beliefs at 60 as when they were 6? Or 15? or 25? People change, opinions change, and any sane and realistic person recognizes that. I will admit, however, that a lot of his changes may be strategic pandering (and that having the base nature of our election system exposed in such a way can be upsetting).

Whereas Obama's policies would only go further to expanding federal powers, emphasizing more socialistic policies, and in general pushing us further on the path that Lincoln, F.D.R., and Johnson set us on (to the detriment of our nation, I might add), I feel that Romney would either be able to push capitalistic legislature, or be able to bridge a political divide that has grown and grown over the past 8 years (really, beginning with Bush's 2nd term).

In the end, the candidate I had truly hoped would win the nod (Huntsman) did not, and against my rational and better judgement, if I were forced at gunpoint to vote for a candidate... it would be Romney, over Obama.

I am registered to vote.

I will be using my vote in one of two ways

Either I will vote : No confidence, vacate office

Or...

I will remain as a registered voter but proactively abstaining from making a choice as it would only give credence to a broken system.

(a broken system I might add, that saw the republican nominee bore out of even his own party not wanting him as candidate)

I'm not. I don't agree with either party's platform, and voting for a third party in a two-party first past the post system is meaningless.

KlLLUMINATI:

Hazy992:
[quote="KlLLUMINATI" post="528.366995.14290222"]He lies is the main reason I dislike him. He is a pathological liar.

Yet you'll vote for Romney?

I will literally vote for anyone besides Obama.

Once again - why??

Captcha: cotton on (oh my....)

Seekster:

"He also has a history of taking things and burning them to the ground"

Not really, not even sure what you mean by that.

30% of companies acquired while Romney was with Bain Capital failed drastically - by going bankrupt (read - losing thousands of jobs), and/or losing all of the investment capital provided. Now, this is not to say this isn't common in private capital firms - but to say he has a history of success must be tempered with the reality of his failures as well.

Obama is all things a typical politician is taken to the extreme. He just oozes arrogance in a way that not even Bill Clinton did.

Arrogance / Confidence - Potato / Potahto. It all depends on the colour of your glasses.

The Senate and House were majority Democrat from 2008-2010. Obama ended up getting his Healthcare Reform Act through the Senate without a single GOP vote.

I'll have to check my research - I know a lot of concessions were made in the original bill, and that it was finally voted through in 2010 - my understanding was after the transition in the house. I admit I could be wrong.

The Republicans run the House now, Democrats still have a few seat majority in the Senate...though most of the seats up for grabs in 2012 are held by Democrats so the GOP has a huge opportunity to win the Senate back.

My error - I mixed up the House and the Senate.

Ill grant that the Republicans in Congress have been a bit petty but really even if they werent most of what Obama has proposed I would want them to vote against. Personally my view towards Congress and Washington in general is "vote all the bums out and start over from scratch with new officials at every level".

Could you give some examples of which Obama propositions you have disagreed with and why?

Do you vote for parties in Canada or for individuals? I always look at individuals. There are some Democrats I dont mind and some Republicans I can't stand. I suppose that is why I dont have loyalty to either party anymore though ideologically I tend to favor the Republicans over the Democrats but it has more to do with similar views than party loyalty.

Personally, or nationally? I personally will vote for the party before the person, because historically speaking, the leader will make efforts that ultimately reflect the views of the overall party. That being said, we don't have a Primary system like you do in the states - it is the other Members of Parliament (similar to your Senators, I guess) that elect a leader for their party. Most of the views that cause me to shift to the liberal stance are social more than economic. In the respect of the Canadian system, I would consider myself a Fiscal conservative, and a Social/Moral liberal.

EmptyOptimist:
OOC - is there a representative for the GOP that would make you vote the other way? Is your issue with voting Republican due to Mitt Romney, or due to the Republican Party?

I won't lie. I'm not happy with the general direction the Republican party has taken. I've seen a few Republicans on the local level who are decent folk and whom I would very much like to see on a debate stage with real progressives. There's far too much of this Tea Party nonsense right now. I don't see many real conservatives, just corporatists, plutocrats, theocrats, and various and sundry whores and lunatics getting the limelight. I'm too much of a humanitarian to vote for such people.

Begrudgingly, Obama. I don't always agree with his economic policies, but the alternative is far, far worse.

EmptyOptimist:

Seekster:

"He also has a history of taking things and burning them to the ground"

Not really, not even sure what you mean by that.

30% of companies acquired while Romney was with Bain Capital failed drastically - by going bankrupt (read - losing thousands of jobs), and/or losing all of the investment capital provided. Now, this is not to say this isn't common in private capital firms - but to say he has a history of success must be tempered with the reality of his failures as well.

Obama is all things a typical politician is taken to the extreme. He just oozes arrogance in a way that not even Bill Clinton did.

Arrogance / Confidence - Potato / Potahto. It all depends on the colour of your glasses.

The Senate and House were majority Democrat from 2008-2010. Obama ended up getting his Healthcare Reform Act through the Senate without a single GOP vote.

I'll have to check my research - I know a lot of concessions were made in the original bill, and that it was finally voted through in 2010 - my understanding was after the transition in the house. I admit I could be wrong.

The Republicans run the House now, Democrats still have a few seat majority in the Senate...though most of the seats up for grabs in 2012 are held by Democrats so the GOP has a huge opportunity to win the Senate back.

My error - I mixed up the House and the Senate.

Ill grant that the Republicans in Congress have been a bit petty but really even if they werent most of what Obama has proposed I would want them to vote against. Personally my view towards Congress and Washington in general is "vote all the bums out and start over from scratch with new officials at every level".

Could you give some examples of which Obama propositions you have disagreed with and why?

Do you vote for parties in Canada or for individuals? I always look at individuals. There are some Democrats I dont mind and some Republicans I can't stand. I suppose that is why I dont have loyalty to either party anymore though ideologically I tend to favor the Republicans over the Democrats but it has more to do with similar views than party loyalty.

Personally, or nationally? I personally will vote for the party before the person, because historically speaking, the leader will make efforts that ultimately reflect the views of the overall party. That being said, we don't have a Primary system like you do in the states - it is the other Members of Parliament (similar to your Senators, I guess) that elect a leader for their party. Most of the views that cause me to shift to the liberal stance are social more than economic. In the respect of the Canadian system, I would consider myself a Fiscal conservative, and a Social/Moral liberal.

You realize that going into bankruptcy is not the end of a company right? You go in, make yourself more efficient and then come out hopefully better than you were before.

Romney has been very successful at turning around screw ups but I think he has actually said this before, that sometimes companies fail. Put another way, sometimes it just makes more sense to sell a car for scrap than to try and repair it. And no he isnt going to do that with the United States, first off you cant really do that with a country and second of all the USA still has a LOT going for it but we need to do better with taking advantage of our own advantages.

I always say that confidence is being proud of abilities you do have, arrogance is being proud of abilities you do not have. The US Military is confident, Obama is just arrogant.

I stayed up to watch CSPAN the night it passed through the Senate. Not a single Republican voted for it and if it wasnt for the kickbacks and pork for pet projects that were stuffed into the bill it would never have passed because they couldnt get enough Democrats to vote for it. Even though it did pass they only way they were able to get it to pass is by using "budget reconciliation" which is only supposed to be used for non-controversial spending bills, sort of a clerical thing to keep things moving along. Even if you like Obamacare you are being disingenuous if you arent willing to admit that the way they went about trying to get that thing passed was a Legislative tragedy.

Do you mean Obama propositions related to Healthcare or in general?

My understanding is that in many other western states people vote for a party and depending on how much of the vote that party gets they work down a list of who gets into office...though that may just be for British Parliament. Its confusing to me but then again I imagine the American system must be confusing to others too.

I'm voting for whoever the Libertarian candidate is (which will most likely be Gary Johnson.) We need a president who cares about our civil liberties, is fiscally responsible, and won't get us involved in pointless wars.

I see no reason to commit myself now when it's almost 8 months away, but I think it's highly unlikely that anyone will make themselves look more reasonable than Obama by then. Hell, I think the challenger candidates will be doing pretty well if they can make themselves look competent at a basic level.

Katatori-kun:
I see no reason to commit myself now when it's almost 8 months away, but I think it's highly unlikely that anyone will make themselves look more reasonable than Obama by then. Hell, I think the challenger candidates will be doing pretty well if they can make themselves look competent at a basic level.

Look at third-party candidates. You'll see people MUCH more competent and reasonable than Obama or his GOP rivals.

hurricanejbb:

Katatori-kun:
I see no reason to commit myself now when it's almost 8 months away, but I think it's highly unlikely that anyone will make themselves look more reasonable than Obama by then. Hell, I think the challenger candidates will be doing pretty well if they can make themselves look competent at a basic level.

Look at third-party candidates. You'll see people MUCH more competent and reasonable than Obama or his GOP rivals.

I'm skeptical.

You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that I oppose Obama. I don't. I don't agree with him on everything, but he's done a very reasonable job running the country.

So maybe there are some third party candidates out there who can tie their shoelaces without getting a nose bleed. I'd recommend they make themselves known. I'm not going to go looking for them. Because while Obama hasn't done everything I want, I am perfectly happy to give him a second term.

Katatori-kun:

I'm skeptical.

You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that I oppose Obama. I don't. I don't agree with him on everything, but he's done a very reasonable job running the country.

So maybe there are some third party candidates out there who can tie their shoelaces without getting a nose bleed. I'd recommend they make themselves known. I'm not going to go looking for them. Because while Obama hasn't done everything I want, I am perfectly happy to give him a second term.

You might want to read this, then. It's a good outline of how Obama is as bad as his GOP rivals and his predecessor Dubya.

http://www.postlibertarian.com/2012/03/218-reasons-not-to-vote-for-obama/

Remember: the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Um, no. I don't see Obama as the lesser of two evils. I don't see him as evil at all. And I see libertarianism as a nonsensical, self-interested political philosophy that lacks any supporting evidence to show it can actually work in a modern society without absolutely destroying our quality of life.

So when a libertarian wants me to not vote Obama, I take it even less credibly than when a Republican wants me to not vote Obama.

Katatori-kun:
Um, no. I don't see Obama as the lesser of two evils. I don't see him as evil at all. And I see libertarianism as a nonsensical, self-interested political philosophy that lacks any supporting evidence to show it can actually work in a modern society without absolutely destroying our quality of life.

So when a libertarian wants me to not vote Obama, I take it even less credibly than when a Republican wants me to not vote Obama.

Then don't vote libertarian. Vote for Rocky Anderson, or the Green candidate, or an independent, or anyone else who you see as a better option.

I don't care who you vote for, but I highly encourage you to vote for a third party candidate in order to break the stranglehold the two-party majority has on our country.

hurricanejbb:

Katatori-kun:
Um, no. I don't see Obama as the lesser of two evils. I don't see him as evil at all. And I see libertarianism as a nonsensical, self-interested political philosophy that lacks any supporting evidence to show it can actually work in a modern society without absolutely destroying our quality of life.

So when a libertarian wants me to not vote Obama, I take it even less credibly than when a Republican wants me to not vote Obama.

Then don't vote libertarian. Vote for Rocky Anderson, or the Green candidate, or an independent, or anyone else who you see as a better option.

I don't care who you vote for, but I highly encourage you to vote for a third party candidate in order to break the stranglehold the two-party majority has on our country.

This contradicts my fundamental belief about voting.

My vote belongs to me. It is only of value if it supports the candidate I most agree with. If I begin trying to vote strategically, the it defeats the entire purpose of me having a vote. I have been willing to vote 3rd party in the past, when I supported the 3rd party candidate over the establishment candidates - such as voting for Nader in 2000. However, I am not going to support a 3rd party candidate simply because they are a 3rd party candidate. There is no intrinsic value in not being a part of either of the main parties.

So Anderson is welcome to make his case to me. Part of doing that will be showing he has the organizational competence to reach me with his message even if I don't go looking for him. We'll see what happens in the campaign.

hurricanejbb:
Then don't vote libertarian. Vote for Rocky Anderson, or the Green candidate, or an independent, or anyone else who you see as a better option.

I don't care who you vote for, but I highly encourage you to vote for a third party candidate in order to break the stranglehold the two-party majority has on our country.

While I think you're on the right track, I don't think the USA's political system allows for that. Not with "first past the post", "winner takes all". Third parties are extremely important in proportional representation, but without that? It's pointless voting for them. It's depressing, but that's why Ron Paul tried running as a Republican, too.

Seekster:
Ill vote for Romney. Romney is the only candidate who can get things done and address problems that need to be addressed. Obama is simply too partisan and too divisive a figure to be able to effectively solve the nations problems.

...Because the Republicans hate him and have stonewalled every effort at Bipartisanship since he got elected.

Maybe the solution isn't Rmoney in the White House, but less Republicans in Congress?

Seekster:

Obama is all things a typical politician is taken to the extreme. He just oozes arrogance in a way that not even Bill Clinton did.

So, are you saying he's... "uppity"?

Seekster:

The Republicans run the House now, Democrats still have a few seat majority in the Senate...though most of the seats up for grabs in 2012 are held by Democrats so the GOP has a huge opportunity to win the Senate back.

Oh, goodie. Then they can finally impeach Obama for loitering, aggravated mopery and dopery, possessing the implements of witchcraft, and Presidenting While Black.

Seekster:
Ill grant that the Republicans in Congress have been a bit petty

Understatement of the fuckin' CENTURY, right there.

Seekster:

but really even if they werent most of what Obama has proposed I would want them to vote against. Personally my view towards Congress and Washington in general is "vote all the bums out and start over from scratch with new officials at every level".

Bullshit.

How many Republicans did you vote to re-elect last time? How many Republican incumbents do you plan to vote for this time?

EmptyOptimist:

KlLLUMINATI:

He lies is the main reason I dislike him. He is a pathological liar.

Killuminati, care to provide an example or scenario in which Obama has done something to alienate you - beyond the script Fox News is providing?

After Obama stole all of Killuminati's guns, he used his Death Panels to murder Killuminati's grandmother, then made Communist Shari'a Law the law of the land, then destoyed America's military completely, forced everyone making more than $50,000 a year into bankruptcy with a 110% tax rate, and signed the articles of surrender to Al Qaeda, just like all the hysterical right-wing fearmongers warned us would happen if Obama got elected.

arbane:
Maybe the solution isn't Rmoney in the White House, but less Republicans in Congress?

Nitpick here, but shouldn't it be "fewer Republican in Congress"?

OT: Romney. Explaining the process at how I came to this decision would, quite frankly, take way to much time. So I'll just say that that's how I'm voting

Feel free to make fun of me for it though.

CM156:

arbane:
Maybe the solution isn't Rmoney in the White House, but less Republicans in Congress?

Nitpick here, but shouldn't it be "fewer Republican in Congress"?

OT: Romney. Explaining the process at how I came to this decision would, quite frankly, take way to much time. So I'll just say that that's how I'm voting

Feel free to make fun of me for it though.

That's what this thread is for. Please explain your bizarre ratiocination.

arbane:

CM156:

arbane:
Maybe the solution isn't Rmoney in the White House, but less Republicans in Congress?

Nitpick here, but shouldn't it be "fewer Republican in Congress"?

OT: Romney. Explaining the process at how I came to this decision would, quite frankly, take way to much time. So I'll just say that that's how I'm voting

Feel free to make fun of me for it though.

That's what this thread is for. Please explain your bizarre ratiocination.

To do so, I would have to explain a lot about my personality, upbringing, moral system, ect, as well as personal experiences, thoughts, and the like.

Basically, to make sense of it:
1) You'd need to know me well or
2) I'd have to explain more about myself than I feel comfortable doing.

Also (and this is somewhat of a joke), I come from a strongly right-winged household. My 'rents have said that I can vote Democrat, I'll just have to find somewhere else to live over the summer (And again, that's a joke).

Also, off topic, but I know of one other poster who uses purple text. And I remember the two of you sharing some similarities in phrases you said.

Seekster:
I always say that confidence is being proud of abilities you do have, arrogance is being proud of abilities you do not have. The US Military is confident, Obama is just arrogant.

The right-wing whining about Obama being "arrogant" is hilarious. I'll take arrogant over stupid.

Honestly, I would have to see what Romney starts saying and possibly interpret it as he will do the opposite knowing him and if I see him fit, I will vote for him. Although I like Obama's foreign policy which has been some of the greatest in years, his domestic policy is god awful and I would rather see something else. If I don't choose Romney, then my good buddy Ron Paul will be my write-in.

Sigh. Hearing all these otherwise-sane people (and Killuminati) saying they'll vote for Romney just reminds me that Democracy isn't two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch, it's two lambs and a wolf, but one lamb has been watching too many TV ads for mutton.

I am voting for the Libertarian Party just because of how much I hate Romney and Obama.

Seekster:

You realize that going into bankruptcy is not the end of a company right? You go in, make yourself more efficient and then come out hopefully better than you were before.

Romney has been very successful at turning around screw ups but I think he has actually said this before, that sometimes companies fail. Put another way, sometimes it just makes more sense to sell a car for scrap than to try and repair it. And no he isnt going to do that with the United States, first off you cant really do that with a country and second of all the USA still has a LOT going for it but we need to do better with taking advantage of our own advantages.

I'm well aware that bankruptcy is not the end of a company - the more important component of my response was the thousands of lost jobs part, and seeing as unemployment is arguably the biggest issue in the US right now, that deserves a little bit of consideration.

Companies do fail, and sometimes it happens despite the efforts of those involved. In fact, some of the companies that Bain was involved in failed for reasons far beyond the scope of Bain's efforts. But the same thing works the other way as well - some of the companies that Bain Capital got involved in were and remained successful despite the efforts that Bain made. I am not implying that the failures are all Romney's fault, but you have to balance the successes that he was involved in with the failures.

I always say that confidence is being proud of abilities you do have, arrogance is being proud of abilities you do not have. The US Military is confident, Obama is just arrogant.

Again, I think this is debatable, but I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm curious to hear an example of what you think illustrates Obama's arrogance beyond confidence.

I stayed up to watch CSPAN the night it passed through the Senate. Not a single Republican voted for it and if it wasnt for the kickbacks and pork for pet projects that were stuffed into the bill it would never have passed because they couldnt get enough Democrats to vote for it. Even though it did pass they only way they were able to get it to pass is by using "budget reconciliation" which is only supposed to be used for non-controversial spending bills, sort of a clerical thing to keep things moving along. Even if you like Obamacare you are being disingenuous if you arent willing to admit that the way they went about trying to get that thing passed was a Legislative tragedy.

The way it was passed was shady, for sure - but I think that's more due to the reality of politics moreso than Obama or the Democrats as a whole. Politicians lately, regardless of belief or affiliation, seem to be more concerned about the duration of their reign than the quality it imparts on their country and representatives. I'd be very curious to hear the opinions of these politicians if they didn't have lesser informed masses to represent. To quote Mark Twain "Whenever you find yourself on the side of majority, it is time to reform."[/quote]

Do you mean Obama propositions related to Healthcare or in general?

You choose - just something that represents your point.

My understanding is that in many other western states people vote for a party and depending on how much of the vote that party gets they work down a list of who gets into office...though that may just be for British Parliament. Its confusing to me but then again I imagine the American system must be confusing to others too.

I'd be happy to share the intricacies of Canadian politics as I understand them if you are interested - although maybe not in this specific thread. Don't want to bore the others away!

I'm voting for Obama because things have gotten better. I was really waiting for the double dip recession they were talking about. I still cannot believe the dow hit 13,000 this year. Progress is slow but investors are confident for such a quick rebound from a 2009 low less than half that.

The wars may still be going on and guantanamo is still open, but I honestly did not expect that to change overnight. Those wars and wars like them have to go on to re-start the global economy. The only thing different about them is we've gone from unilateral action to propping up rebels we don't even know with NATO airstrikes. I guess it's cheaper than maintaining a 10 year ground force. As long as half a country is leveled and we get to finance the rebuilding, American companies make money. It's one thing that never changes.

The most clear reason in my mind to support Obama again is their recent anti-SOPA stance. It wasn't a flat out no to any regulation, but at least they made it clear they will not allow over-reaching broad legislation.

There's also Mitt Romney being a total flake. I'm actually still surprised the Republicans could not find ANYONE better than the lot they presented this year. That's pretty sad, not just for the republicans, but for america in general.

But you make the best of it, shut off the noise, and just play the game. Last year I snagged a great job without even having a 4 year degree, this year I'm buying a house. I used to complain about how crazy the world was and go to all sorts of demonstrations, remember the world trade organization, now I just stop whining and play the game.

Romney. Other than loon Ron Paul who cannot win and has never actually convinced any "body" to actually follow him on any issue, Romney does the most to close the deficit that means doom for liberty on the USA.

Gorfias:
Romney. Other than loon Ron Paul who cannot win and has never actually convinced any "body" to actually follow him on any issue, Romney does the most to close the deficit that means doom for liberty on the USA.

What do you think he's going to do?

EmptyOptimist:

Seekster:

You realize that going into bankruptcy is not the end of a company right? You go in, make yourself more efficient and then come out hopefully better than you were before.

Romney has been very successful at turning around screw ups but I think he has actually said this before, that sometimes companies fail. Put another way, sometimes it just makes more sense to sell a car for scrap than to try and repair it. And no he isnt going to do that with the United States, first off you cant really do that with a country and second of all the USA still has a LOT going for it but we need to do better with taking advantage of our own advantages.

I'm well aware that bankruptcy is not the end of a company - the more important component of my response was the thousands of lost jobs part, and seeing as unemployment is arguably the biggest issue in the US right now, that deserves a little bit of consideration.

Companies do fail, and sometimes it happens despite the efforts of those involved. In fact, some of the companies that Bain was involved in failed for reasons far beyond the scope of Bain's efforts. But the same thing works the other way as well - some of the companies that Bain Capital got involved in were and remained successful despite the efforts that Bain made. I am not implying that the failures are all Romney's fault, but you have to balance the successes that he was involved in with the failures.

I always say that confidence is being proud of abilities you do have, arrogance is being proud of abilities you do not have. The US Military is confident, Obama is just arrogant.

Again, I think this is debatable, but I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm curious to hear an example of what you think illustrates Obama's arrogance beyond confidence.

I stayed up to watch CSPAN the night it passed through the Senate. Not a single Republican voted for it and if it wasnt for the kickbacks and pork for pet projects that were stuffed into the bill it would never have passed because they couldnt get enough Democrats to vote for it. Even though it did pass they only way they were able to get it to pass is by using "budget reconciliation" which is only supposed to be used for non-controversial spending bills, sort of a clerical thing to keep things moving along. Even if you like Obamacare you are being disingenuous if you arent willing to admit that the way they went about trying to get that thing passed was a Legislative tragedy.

The way it was passed was shady, for sure - but I think that's more due to the reality of politics moreso than Obama or the Democrats as a whole. Politicians lately, regardless of belief or affiliation, seem to be more concerned about the duration of their reign than the quality it imparts on their country and representatives. I'd be very curious to hear the opinions of these politicians if they didn't have lesser informed masses to represent. To quote Mark Twain "Whenever you find yourself on the side of majority, it is time to reform."

Do you mean Obama propositions related to Healthcare or in general?

You choose - just something that represents your point.

My understanding is that in many other western states people vote for a party and depending on how much of the vote that party gets they work down a list of who gets into office...though that may just be for British Parliament. Its confusing to me but then again I imagine the American system must be confusing to others too.

I'd be happy to share the intricacies of Canadian politics as I understand them if you are interested - although maybe not in this specific thread. Don't want to bore the others away![/quote]

One fact about efficiency is being able to do more with less. In the context of jobs this means jobs will be lost at least in the short term. You know when people talk about smaller government or cutting government spending this does tend to translate into less public sector jobs you know. People know this and deem the losses acceptable. The company I used to work for went through a reorg and I recently lost my job because of that...its a fact of life.

Yes you have to look at Romney's entire record of course but overall his record has been a good one, not a flawless one by any means but how many organizations or enterprises has Barrack Obama turned around? Look how much money he is spending just to achieve this snails-pace recovery we are currently in. Any businessman would cringe at the abysmal return on investment. That is why I think Romney is far better suited to not only accelerating the recovery but ensuring it is sustained and furthermore that America bounces back from it. I know it sounds nationalistic but the fact is if you look at American history, we have a tendency to bounce back from hard times and emerge better than ever. That which does not kill us makes us stronger so to speak.

Well most recently you have Obama lecturing the Supreme Court about how it would be "unprecedented" for it to overturn Obamacare...despite it being the Supreme Court's central function to review laws that are brought before it (The Supreme Court cannot review a law unless a case is brought before it regarding that law. In fact there were some who argued that the Supreme Court could not rule on Obamacare until things like the Individual Mandate actually went into effect, however everyone including Obama seemed to prefer a ruling sooner rather than later and its highly unlikely the Supreme Court will come back and say "sorry ask us again in a few years"). This is just one of his more recent actions that clearly demonstrates his arrogance.

While I agree that Washington is broken and politics in Washington have gotten so petty its absurd and furthermore its getting to the point that there is just no more outrage over pettiness because its par for the course (and yes arbane it IS both parties not just one or the other). However whatever the reasons for the shady dealings that went on to get Obamacare passed, the fact is they did take place and those responsible should be held to account for those dealings. People should not forget all the vote buying and parliamentary smoke and mirrors that went on to force Obamacare through. Oh and its also laughable that Obama claimed that the law passed with strong Bi-partisan support...thats just an outright lie.

As for Obama's policies which I disagree with...I certainly can't list them all but some of the ones I distinctly disagree with are as follows:

1. His moves to try and end the US Manned Space Program:

Space exploration is one of those things that facinates me and I realize all the costs and the benefits involved and how most of the benefits are long term which makes them less attractive, especially to a government. While I agree with Obama that private space companies should become the mainstay of human travel into space, I think he fails to understand that few companies will take risks in space unless what they want to do could conceivably work. In other words organizations like NASA should lead the way to prove things could be done...do you know it used to be believed that the human body could not survive or survive long in space regardless of protection? For example prior to the advent of human space travel there was a fear that zero g would cause problems with the liquid in the eyeball and lead to a human eye altering its shape or becoming unusable for vision. Anyway I am talking specifically about his getting rid of the Constellation program. Yes it was over budget, yes it was behind schedule...no surprise given how little funding NASA gets and really its pretty routine for a government project to be behind schedule and over budget. Now it wouldnt be as bad if Obama just said "look we can't afford this so we need to get rid of it" but then he turns around and suggests a new manned space program that essentially does the same thing. In other words Obama scrapped the Constellation program and then called for a new program which effectively does the same thing only we go to an asteroid instead of the moon. Case and point, it takes a lot to get Neil Armstrong to break his treasured privacy and make a public statement:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/14/armstrong_letter/

"Veteran astronauts Neil Armstrong, Eugene Cernan and James Lovell have signed an open letter urging Barack Obama to reconsider the "devastating" cancellation of the Constellation programme."

2. His reliance on deficit spending to try and help the economy

Now I am a historian not an economist but I have a working knowledge of the basic ideas behind Keynesian economics. Historically yes you can spend yourself out of a bad economic situation but even the New Deal only manage a very slow recovery (though margianlly faster than our current recovery). An economy has to be able to support itself or else its just going to collapse once you cant afford to prop it up anymore. I think money would be better spent on things like job training programs or wide infrastructure improvements than on bailouts and trying to prop up a green energy industry that just isnt profitably with the current technology.

3. Obamacare (well most of it)

Yeah people talk about how they don't like Obamacare but that law is MASSIVE. Seriously its not unlikely that some lawmakers actually did pass that thing without reading it. Heck one of the Supreme Court justices made a joke about "Cruel and Unusual punishment" when one of the lawyers asked the court to go through the law piece by piece to decide what they are going to keep and what they are going to void. While I think some parts of the law are actually good or workable ideas (allowing young adults to remain on their parent's insurance, changing what is called a pre-existing condition and non-controversial things like that). However these are a few gems in a pile of dung. The individual mandate is only the most visible problem with Obamacare. I also think it takes powers away from the states to enact their own healthcare programs which I believe is the opposite of what we should be doing. Romneycare I think is fine because its a state program built to address the unique situation in the state of Massachusetts. I don't agree with all provisions of it but I don't live in Massachusetts and I respect the right of states to decide on what is best for them.

4. His decision to not defend laws he personally disagrees with.

The job of the Executive Branch is to enforce the law. In the continuing theme of Obama disregarding the separation of powers he has taken to deciding which laws the federal government will enforce and which it will not. While I personally think that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional (more because the federal government has no business deciding which couples with state marriage licenses it should grant benefits to than anything else). However on top of that he has taken to only enforcing some immigration laws and has taken a hostile stance towards states trying to mitigate the problem themselves While it is true that states like Arizona overstepped their authority somewhat since it is the job of the Federal Government to handle immigration, the Federal Government is not doing its job so I can sympathize with Arizona. My issue is that rather than understanding this the Obama admin practically treated Arizona like some racist rogue state. All in all though I think Eric Holder has been an unmitigated disaster as Attorney General.

5. Class Warfare

While the term "class warfare" is really a poor one since it implies some kind of political struggle I use it because its just easy to say and I cant think of a better term for Obama's general policy towards taxation. Obama seems to have an inflated view of the importance of income disparity. Furthermore his words and his policies seem to all conform to the idea that the reason that poor people are poor is because somewhere some rich guys are hoarding all the money. He keeps going around saying the rich arent paying their "fair share." Sorry but the idea behind a progressive tax system is that the rich pay more than their fair share, which they do. Ill agree that the rich could do with paying just a bit more in taxes but things like the Buffet Rule are just a gimmick to help Obama's re-election bid. It pisses me off that he is willing to promote this lie that society is all about some war between rich and poor to get another 4 years in office.

EmptyOptimist:

Gorfias:
Romney. Other than loon Ron Paul who cannot win and has never actually convinced any "body" to actually follow him on any issue, Romney does the most to close the deficit that means doom for liberty on the USA.

What do you think he's going to do?

Strip the welfare state bare, cut capital gains taxes so they are closer to the rate paid in other countrys, cut spending. This will close the deficit.

Of course, if you rely upon federal government hand outs, this will be troubling.

Seekster:

Yes you have to look at Romney's entire record of course but overall his record has been a good one, not a flawless one by any means but how many organizations or enterprises has Barrack Obama turned around? Look how much money he is spending just to achieve this snails-pace recovery we are currently in. Any businessman would cringe at the abysmal return on investment.

Arguably no investor would be happy with the economic rate of return at any point in recent US history - a good GDP growth rate in the US is only approximately 5%. Comparing the GDP to a profitable investment is a skewed argument.

As for TARP - I'm torn about my feelings regarding the viability of it. I think it kept the economy from becoming even worse than it did, but I don't think I can give much credit to the government for the recovery we are now experiencing. Although that would hold true regardless of the party in power.

That is why I think Romney is far better suited to not only accelerating the recovery but ensuring it is sustained and furthermore that America bounces back from it. I know it sounds nationalistic but the fact is if you look at American history, we have a tendency to bounce back from hard times and emerge better than ever. That which does not kill us makes us stronger so to speak.

Historically speaking, I believe the US has come back stronger because of being at the forefront of most innovations in recent history. The push out of the great depression was instilled largely by the military initiative with WWII. Recovery out of the 80's was the advent of the personal computer, and with the 90's the internet. Most recently, recovery out of 2000/2001 was military again. I think the biggest innovational challenge in this regard will be more competition from other megapowers (China, India) than any government support/restriction. And I think trying to push the US into another war will be met with at least a little skepticism by citizens and the world alike.

Well most recently you have Obama lecturing the Supreme Court about how it would be "unprecedented" for it to overturn Obamacare...despite it being the Supreme Court's central function to review laws that are brought before it (The Supreme Court cannot review a law unless a case is brought before it regarding that law. In fact there were some who argued that the Supreme Court could not rule on Obamacare until things like the Individual Mandate actually went into effect, however everyone including Obama seemed to prefer a ruling sooner rather than later and its highly unlikely the Supreme Court will come back and say "sorry ask us again in a few years"). This is just one of his more recent actions that clearly demonstrates his arrogance.

While I agree that Washington is broken and politics in Washington have gotten so petty its absurd and furthermore its getting to the point that there is just no more outrage over pettiness because its par for the course (and yes arbane it IS both parties not just one or the other). However whatever the reasons for the shady dealings that went on to get Obamacare passed, the fact is they did take place and those responsible should be held to account for those dealings. People should not forget all the vote buying and parliamentary smoke and mirrors that went on to force Obamacare through. Oh and its also laughable that Obama claimed that the law passed with strong Bi-partisan support...thats just an outright lie.

3. Obamacare (well most of it)

Yeah people talk about how they don't like Obamacare but that law is MASSIVE. Seriously its not unlikely that some lawmakers actually did pass that thing without reading it. Heck one of the Supreme Court justices made a joke about "Cruel and Unusual punishment" when one of the lawyers asked the court to go through the law piece by piece to decide what they are going to keep and what they are going to void. While I think some parts of the law are actually good or workable ideas (allowing young adults to remain on their parent's insurance, changing what is called a pre-existing condition and non-controversial things like that). However these are a few gems in a pile of dung. The individual mandate is only the most visible problem with Obamacare. I also think it takes powers away from the states to enact their own healthcare programs which I believe is the opposite of what we should be doing. Romneycare I think is fine because its a state program built to address the unique situation in the state of Massachusetts. I don't agree with all provisions of it but I don't live in Massachusetts and I respect the right of states to decide on what is best for them.

I think the easiest way to respond to this such: I don't agree with Obama's tactics regarding Obamacare, but I think I understand why this is the way it's played out. Coming from a country that has had universal health care for much (if not the entirety) of my life, I think it is a great asset and benefit to a population as a whole. And when Canada first introduced the concept, it received distaste and disagreement as well. In the US, that disagreement has reached ridiculous proportions (Death panels? Really?) As my earlier Mark Twain quote implied - the majority will almost always promote stagnation or degradation, improvements always come out of the minority. In a way, this is the entire concept of evolution, both physical and conceptual. I believe Obama is trying to get the law through so that people can experience it and then make a more informed decision - he's just going about it in a horrible way.

As for Romneycare, I am ignorant to it's details so I can't comment.

1. His moves to try and end the US Manned Space Program:

Space exploration is one of those things that facinates me and I realize all the costs and the benefits involved and how most of the benefits are long term which makes them less attractive, especially to a government. While I agree with Obama that private space companies should become the mainstay of human travel into space, I think he fails to understand that few companies will take risks in space unless what they want to do could conceivably work. In other words organizations like NASA should lead the way to prove things could be done...do you know it used to be believed that the human body could not survive or survive long in space regardless of protection? For example prior to the advent of human space travel there was a fear that zero g would cause problems with the liquid in the eyeball and lead to a human eye altering its shape or becoming unusable for vision. Anyway I am talking specifically about his getting rid of the Constellation program. Yes it was over budget, yes it was behind schedule...no surprise given how little funding NASA gets and really its pretty routine for a government project to be behind schedule and over budget. Now it wouldnt be as bad if Obama just said "look we can't afford this so we need to get rid of it" but then he turns around and suggests a new manned space program that essentially does the same thing. In other words Obama scrapped the Constellation program and then called for a new program which effectively does the same thing only we go to an asteroid instead of the moon. Case and point, it takes a lot to get Neil Armstrong to break his treasured privacy and make a public statement:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/14/armstrong_letter/

"Veteran astronauts Neil Armstrong, Eugene Cernan and James Lovell have signed an open letter urging Barack Obama to reconsider the "devastating" cancellation of the Constellation programme."

My opinion when it comes to spending can be summed up as thus: The government should be responsible to fund things that only government can do - not because it would be nice if they would, or because some politician wants it to be done. Let me give you an example - something commonly referred to as "public goods"; something that we all need that will make our lives better, but something that the market will not an cannot provide.

Whenever the budget is released, I have a litmus test:
1) is this something that will benefit the people as a whole
2) can this/would this be provided by the free market without being detrimental the people as a whole.
Here are a few examples:
- Defense/police - will the lack of defense spending or police spending be a detriment to society? Yes. Will private control over defense/police be detrimental to society? Yes.
- Health Care - 1) Yes, health care benefits people as a whole. 2) Yes, private involvement in health care can - and has - made most procedures prohibitively expensive to the general population (and that's with some government involvement).

So, does the space program fit this criteria? Does manned space research benefit people as a whole? That argument could be made - technological advancement, etc. but would lead to a lengthy debate. Would private manned space research be detrimental to people as a whole? No.

4. His decision to not defend laws he personally disagrees with.

The job of the Executive Branch is to enforce the law. In the continuing theme of Obama disregarding the separation of powers he has taken to deciding which laws the federal government will enforce and which it will not. While I personally think that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional (more because the federal government has no business deciding which couples with state marriage licenses it should grant benefits to than anything else). However on top of that he has taken to only enforcing some immigration laws and has taken a hostile stance towards states trying to mitigate the problem themselves While it is true that states like Arizona overstepped their authority somewhat since it is the job of the Federal Government to handle immigration, the Federal Government is not doing its job so I can sympathize with Arizona. My issue is that rather than understanding this the Obama admin practically treated Arizona like some racist rogue state. All in all though I think Eric Holder has been an unmitigated disaster as Attorney General.

I can't really comment as I'm not familiar with the specifics of US immigration laws, or rights of state over federation, but come on - Arizona tried to pass a law that was clearly and definably racist. Whether Obama was in the wrong about stepping in or not, that law was easily unconstitutional (although I guess it should have then been left to the Supreme Court to handle....

5. Class Warfare

While the term "class warfare" is really a poor one since it implies some kind of political struggle I use it because its just easy to say and I cant think of a better term for Obama's general policy towards taxation. Obama seems to have an inflated view of the importance of income disparity. Furthermore his words and his policies seem to all conform to the idea that the reason that poor people are poor is because somewhere some rich guys are hoarding all the money. He keeps going around saying the rich arent paying their "fair share." Sorry but the idea behind a progressive tax system is that the rich pay more than their fair share, which they do. Ill agree that the rich could do with paying just a bit more in taxes but things like the Buffet Rule are just a gimmick to help Obama's re-election bid. It pisses me off that he is willing to promote this lie that society is all about some war between rich and poor to get another 4 years in office.

I believe - and so do many economists and pundits - that the current tax law definitely favors the rich. If you make more money you pay more taxes, the progressive tax system ensures that, and it works. The problem is the loopholes, specifically regarding investment revenue - making money through means that are only available to the richer portion of society means that the system favors the rich and suffers the non-rich. Obama's efforts to change the tax law - and the Buffett Rule - make little or no changes to the progressive tax system (to my knowledge), but makes the earnings made through capital gains and dividends less tax preferential.

At the end of the day, Romney is probably one of the few Republican candidates that I would actually consider. That being said, I'm terrified about what his party will and won't allow him to do once he's in power that will go completely against his platform. I'd say the same thing about Obama and his 1st term in comparison to his platform, but at least I'm more comfortable with broad strokes of the democratic party than that of the republican.

You think anyone other than you and I are actually reading our posts at this point?

renegade7:
Begrudgingly, Obama. I don't always agree with his economic policies, but the alternative is far, far worse.

I pretty much have this view.

I do have some criticisms of Obama (such as his unnecessary spending), but I do have some compliments as well (such as job creation increasing since he took office, according to this: http://www.gallup.com/poll/151553/Gallup-Daily-Job-Creation-Index.aspx).

Regardless, I'll be paying attention to the candidates and wait until November to make my final decision.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked