Winner Of The Presidential Election is....

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

To clarify my earlier comment which drew criticism from Beans, Push, and TB:

I was swiping more at the internal logic of that excerpt than at House Republicans. I do believe that to say that Obama limited his ability to govern by arousing strong Congressional opposition in the aftermath of the ACA contains within itself the implicit (and hardly controversial) notion that partisanship has obstructed this economic recovery and that a healthy portion of that partisanship has had its origin in Boehner’s House.

I would assume that the article is referring to the package of bills known as the Jobs Act, which never really had a chance and can therefore correctly be characterized as a political calculation on the President’s part–something to strengthen his claim of having governed alongside a do-nothing Congress and to deflect the (very real and very valid) criticisms of his lackadaisical approach to ameliorating the effects of the crisis.

That said, I do believe that there were elements of the Jobs Act that, in less partisan times, would appeal to Republicans. Among the $250 billion in tax cuts there could surely be some bipartisan support. And Obama indicated explicitly that he was willing to work on a piecemeal approach to having it pass.

Other than that, though, I thought it was an interesting read TB, and I agree with much of it. And I do know that the Republicans aren’t “your people,” was just being lazy.

182

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I forget, which branch did Obama serve in…
[/quote]

Difference being Romney is actively posing as a hawk while none of his family has served. Even if it is untrue there is a perception of rich white men sending other people’s kids off to die for them.

[/quote]

Can you give an example of this? I haven’t seen it and it would certainly affect my opinion on Romney if true.

I do think it’s absurd to talk about Romney’s lack of service when the same can be said of the President. I also think that this perception is unwarranted when we have a black President while 2 wars were/are waging and Congressmen have been Black for quite a while now. Especially since they are the ones actually sending the AMERICANS off to war. I purposely use Americans as opposed to kids because well quite frankly I think it’s stupid. No kid has been forced to go to war for quite some time and before Vietnam most “kids” wanted to fight for their country when it was needed.

I still don’t understand why it’s not a constitutional requirement to have served in some capacity to be the Commander in Chief.

Damn Mothers of America…[/quote]

An example of which part, that he is hawkish or that he has evaded serving?

He is blustering constantly about bombing Iran. I agree Iran is a problem but so is Israel’s blind eye to the very real issue of the Palestinians.

Bringing up that he has been president during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is just silly considering he didn’t start either one. Yes he is president and yes he is working on withdrawal.

I said the “perception” of rich white men sending other people’s kids off to die for them. Still, historically it has been rich white men who have held the majority of power and remains so today.

If you are going to require military service better take these guys off the list.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Grover Cleveland, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt.[/quote]

*If you can give an example of both I’d like to see it.

*Why is Israel’s stance on Palestine and issue for us. Iran is an issue WE need to address. Israel and Palestine’s issue is an issue they need to address. We can be involved, but not the extend we should be over Iran imo.

*President Bush didn’t start either war either. Congress did, but really enemies of the state did. At least in Afghanistan. Also Obama had 4 years to end the wars and he did end 1, but increased troop levels in the other. He also sent troops into Pakistan something, as far as I’m aware, Bush never did.

*My point is that perception is dated and I don’t believe many people under the age of 40 even think that way. My opinion though.

*That’s a fine list, but I still think service should be required.

Edit:

Also, as far as your list goes, I think those guys (If they didn’t serve. I didn’t check and don’t know) would have served if need be. Do you think President Obama or Romney would if need be?

183

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Testy1 wrote:

Lol, his escalation in Afghanistan was at the request of generals there because we were being overwhelmed. Point is if we were going in there we should have had overwhelming force to begin with and not started war on another front.

Okay, thank you for proving my point.

Democrat President - military action perfectly cool
Republican President - murderer that wants to send my son’s to war[/quote]

I am perfectly fine with Bush going into Afghanistan, not so with Iraq. See how that works it was a republican that started both of them.

[quote]Furthermore, unless you know a lot more than everybody else about what happened in Libya you are just buying the talking points.

What talking points are those? [/quote]

About who knew what when.

184

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

I am perfectly fine with Bush going into Afghanistan, not so with Iraq. See how that works it was a republican that started both of them.[/quote]

Well, no not at all.

It was people that flew planes into a couple buildings and murdered a couple thousand Americans that started at the very least one of them.

And I believe a couple democrats voted to go to war.

[quote]

About who knew what when.[/quote]

You might want to read about these hearings they have been having… It is pretty clear who knew what when at this point.

185

Romney wins by 14 electoral college votes. Wisconsin will have been the pivotal state, leaking RED all through the Midwest. Fuck yes. #Romney2012

-LB

186

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Testy1 wrote:

I am perfectly fine with Bush going into Afghanistan, not so with Iraq. See how that works it was a republican that started both of them.

Well, no not at all.

It was people that flew planes into a couple buildings and murdered a couple thousand Americans that started at the very least one of them.

And I believe a couple democrats voted to go to war.[/quote]

Yes we all know why we went into Afghanistan. My point is it was the same leader in charge with very different reactions to the wars.

[quote]

About who knew what when.

You might want to read about these hearings they have been having… It is pretty clear who knew what when at this point. [/quote]

Source? I will gladly read it.

187

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I forget, which branch did Obama serve in…
[/quote]

Difference being Romney is actively posing as a hawk while none of his family has served. Even if it is untrue there is a perception of rich white men sending other people’s kids off to die for them.

[/quote]

US hasn’t had conscription since Vietnam. Those ‘kids’ are adults and volunteers.

188

Thanks for the assessment, TB.

Mufasa

189

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Just out of curiosity, do you desire this?

We’re all pretty transparent here. Most of us, anyway. And I just like to have a sense of where someone is coming from, particularly in a thread about an election. [/quote]

No, not at all.

For the sake of full-disclosure, I’ve voted Libertarian every election going back to Andre Marrou in 1992 because I believe in voting my principles. That being said, I vote Republican in all local elections and if there wasn’t a Libertarian candidate for POTUS, I’d be voting Republican for that as well.

At this point in the race, I think the undecided voter will vote based on 1) who they think will win, and 2) who they want to be able to tell their friends and co-workers they voted for.

Let’s be honest, the vast majority of undecided voters aren’t spending these last few weeks poring over position papers trying to make up their minds, and Romney doesn’t have enough of a lead to capture the vote of undecided voters who really just want to say they sided with the winner.
[/quote]

Thanks for that.

I actually remember Marrou. I was 16 at the time and reading his stance on legalization/decriminalization of all drugs blew my young mind. I would have probably voted for him if I could have, that election, though it would have been for the wrong reasons, haha.

I do hope that you are wrong. I’m not going to repeat all the reasons that have already been listed in this thread, but I think that the motivations that drove voters to put Obama where he is are just not there anymore. The economy still limping along, a LOT of people out of work or unsatisfied with their situation, no real Presidential benchmarks other than the death of Bin Laden, and the absence of the kind of flashpoint antihero that GWB provided are not going to drive that youth/woman/minority vote to the polls like they did four years back.

Add to this a Conservative base that is an order of magnitude more fired up to vote Obama out than it was to vote McCain in. Add another section of the population who previously voted for or supported Obama and still continue to nominally support him out of a sense of obligation or peer pressure or consistency, but come November 6, will quietly pull the lever for Romney, because that 10 they brought home in a drunken reverie of Hope and Change is still here in the morning, asking for another kiss. Only now the wrinkles in her lips are visible, and what last night looked like doe eyes have turned tired, gone sallow and bloodshot in the harsh light of dawn.

We’ll find out soon enough whose right, but again, I sure hope it’s me and not you. (^_^)

190

For what it’s worth, I hope I’m wrong as well.

To continue with your analogy, though, how many voters are honest enough with themselves to admit that the 10 in the bar last night is really a 4? That’s a blow to the ego and I’m not sure many (most?) voters are willing to admit to themselves that they were wrong the first time, that all the Hope and Change slogans they posted all over their friends’ FB pages amounted to a pile of garbage?

191

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
For what it’s worth, I hope I’m wrong as well.

To continue with your analogy, though, how many voters are honest enough with themselves to admit that the 10 in the bar last night is really a 4? That’s a blow to the ego and I’m not sure many (most?) voters are willing to admit to themselves that they were wrong the first time, that all the Hope and Change slogans they posted all over their friends’ FB pages amounted to a pile of garbage?[/quote]

We’ll find out in three weeks time.

192

Pew Poll has Romney closing gap on foreign policy, from being down down by 11 to now being down by 4.

193

“…Add to this a Conservative base that is an order of magnitude more fired up to vote Obama out…”

This bears emphasizing, Cortes.

While a “win-is-a-win”; (and I still think that Romney will win, for the reason you stated); this is a “No More Obama” Election.

Now some have argued that the first debate made Romney more “acceptable” to some people (outside of Utah and parts of Idaho)…and that may be true…but only in a limited sense.

I think that the first debate made far more people say “Hey…I think this guy CAN really beat Obama!” than “We Love MITT!”

And THAT is where the fire is.

I guarantee you that on Election Day, you will be able to hear a collective “F*uk You Obama” coming from the Booths as the Romney button is pushed.

Mufasa

194

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

I guarantee you that on Election Day, you will be able to hear a collective “F*uk You Obama” coming form the Booths as the Romney button is pushed.

Mufasa[/quote]

Nope, not me. I wouldn’t curse like that.

195

But, if Obama loses I will be celebrating in here. I will be insufferable in my festive mood.

196

Romney is going to win and while there may be a recount here or there, I’m predicting 290 Electoral votes at least.

197

[quote]sandos wrote:
Romney is going to win and while there may be a recount here or there, I’m predicting 290 Electoral votes at least. [/quote]

sandos:

I’m predicting another winner of an Avatar! (LOL!)

Who is that?

Mufasa

198

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

About who knew what when.

You might want to read about these hearings they have been having… It is pretty clear who knew what when at this point. [/quote]

Source? I will gladly read it.[/quote]

Oh my…

199

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

About who knew what when.

You might want to read about these hearings they have been having… It is pretty clear who knew what when at this point. [/quote]

Source? I will gladly read it.[/quote]

Oh my… [/quote]

You told me to read about it, surely you have a source where you read it. Is it really so much trouble to ask for it? All I have read is a bunch of speculation, which depending how you lean may lead to certain conclusions.