Winner Of The Presidential Election is....

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not trying to be a dick here, but you sound like an ad.

You’ve hit on just about every talking point, and have appeared to let advertisers and rhetoric do your thinking for you.[/quote]

Not a problem, its hard to shake some of the bias BS I get from the news so I know I must spew it sometimes. Castings like Fox News are so over the top I forget that other news stations do the same thing at a bit more subtle level, or sometimes just as over the top for the extreme liberal perspective. Maybe when I am done with my school work split I will have a bit more mental bandwidth to find some better news sources.

The biggest things I would hate to lose out of this election are school based tax credits, because they really helped me although I wont need them anymore, and income based loan repayment. I don’t have a lot of loans but I have a car-payments worth and a lot of young professional friends with a lot more debt. I haven’t read much on how the Romney Ryan ticket feels about these or how they fit into their current plan. I know Obama has held onto to most things that make repayment and loan management easier for students.

But I suppose this is would all be trumped by lowering unemployment and simply making good jobs readily available again instead of having companies under pay and under hire. That and professional schools need to be more realistic about the amount of money they cost if they are flooding a job market with unneeded graduates.

And I am not one of those people who think everyone needs to go to college to be successful or have a fulfilling career. Not all skilled work requires a heavily academic background and for many its just a waste of time and money. Most undergrads fuck off their college degree anyway.

Anyway totally off subject. It will be a close race and being in California I don’t see my vote doing anything one way or the other. All the same it will be cast but this is honestly the first time I have felt uncomfortable simply voting for the Democratic Candidate, because this time I think it will make a significant difference in how the next 4 years play out.

242

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Iraq was Iran’s natural enemy. Now look.

Even if I agreed with all the reasons for going to war in Iraq, ^^that alone should’ve had veto power.

And I don’t agree with the “reasons” because you can slap most of those on -pick your choice of nutjob here-, The devil you know is always better than the devil you don’t. I’m 50 yrs old.[/quote]

I’m looking, and I see that we now have strategic platforms from which to launch on both sides of Iran, covering roughly 20% of Iran’s total borders on the east and west, and further strategic positioning throughout multiple bases in the Middle East without having to depend upon Saudi Arabia to not double cross us.

I’m sure that was just a happy accident, though, and that no one thought about that until I posted it just now. I’m 36 years old.

*edited

243

Not a good read for you O supporters, so skip it.

244

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Not a good read for you O supporters, so skip it.[/quote]

Rats jumping the sinking ship ?

245

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Iraq was Iran’s natural enemy. Now look.

Even if I agreed with all the reasons for going to war in Iraq, ^^that alone should’ve had veto power.

And I don’t agree with the “reasons” because you can slap most of those on -pick your choice of nutjob here-, The devil you know is always better than the devil you don’t. I’m 50 yrs old.[/quote]

I’m looking, and I see that we now have strategic platforms from which to launch on both sides of Iran, covering roughly 20% of Iran’s total borders on the east and west, and further strategic positioning throughout multiple bases in the Middle East without having to depend upon Saudi Arabia to not double cross us.

I’m sure that was just a happy accident, though, and that no one thought about that until I posted it just now. I’m 36 years old.

*edited[/quote]

My muscles aren’t as big as your muscles. Maybe that’s why I prefer to let my enemies exhaust themselves duking it out with each other, as opposed to being the big bad wolf who comes in to kick ass…but then suffers the indignity of a thousand suicide attacks before I decide to get the fuck out, again.

247

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Not a good read for you O supporters, so skip it.[/quote]

Rats jumping the sinking ship ?[/quote]

Obama 2008: [i]And that’s to be expected, because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.

If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

And you know what? It’s worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn’t work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it’s best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know. [/i]

What has his push been lately?

  1. Romneisa - paint the other guy as someone to run from
  2. Big Bird - Small thing
  3. Contraceptive lies - small thing, and painting

Need I go on?

248

Yes, while Romney has been enthralling us with a complex and detailed plan for the future…

Both parties do it, have done it, and will continue to do it. For God’s sake, Obama did it in 2008 too!

249

According to Gallup, Romney picked up a point with registered (3 point lead) voters, and likely voters (7 point lead). Not looking like the 2nd debate impacted what has now become persistent Romentum.

250

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Yes, while Romney has been enthralling us with a complex and detailed plan for the future…

[/quote]

Romney has put forth a 5 point plan on bringing back the US economy.

Part one of Mittâ??s plan is to achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020. America is blessed with extraordinary natural resources, and developing them will create millions of good jobs â?? not only in the energy industry, but also in industries like manufacturing that will benefit from more energy at lower prices. Americaâ??s economy will boom when the billions of dollars we send overseas for our oil are kept here at home instead.

Part two of the plan is trade that works for America. Mitt believes that trade can offer enormous opportunities for American businesses and workers, but only if they are given a level playing field on which they can compete and win. That is why he will work to open new markets for American goods and services, while also confronting nations like China that cheat on trade and steal American jobs.

Part three is to provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs that help to match unemployed workers with real-world job opportunities.

Part four is to cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire.

Finally, part five of Mittâ??s plan is to champion small business. Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country, but they will struggle to succeed if taxes and regulations are too burdensome or if a government in Washington does its best to stifle them. Mitt will pursue comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and he will cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring.

But in all fairness Obama also has a 5 point plan:

1- Raise the debt to 20 Trillion. So far he’s only been able to raise it more than the last three Presidents COMBINED!

2- Raise taxes on job creators. This is the cornerstone of his plan as it speaks to Baracks roots, giving credit to the government and taking credit. and money, away from those who really didn’t build their businesses anyway.

3- Drive a wedge between people and create as much class envy as possible. Barack is very proud of this one as it causes those who have not worked hard or smart enough to get really angry about all those rich guys who never really built their own businesses anyway.

4- Put more women into the unemployment line. So far he’s only touched the lives of over 400,000 women in such a negative way. Barack feels very strongly that women should not be in the workforce and he is doing everything possible to drive them back to the kitchen where they belong. I guess he’s just old fashion that way. But this is also part of his plan to break his record of 43 straight months of unemployment over 8%.

5- Increase those on food stamps by another 20 million. So far he’s only been able to pump up that figure to 47 million in four years! Barack knows that government dependency is the cornerstone of any good socialist strategy and he is pulling out all stops to make sure that more people are dependent on government. You know how Barack feels “from cradle to grave I want government to be there in every way all the time constantly. Working hard and smart is for fools. In a second Obama administration I’m going to get as much of their money and hand it to you as I possible can so…why work?”

Kinda brings a tear to your eye…

251

[quote]Sloth wrote:
According to Gallup, Romney picked up a point with registered (3 point lead) voters, and likely voters (7 point lead). Not looking like the 2nd debate impacted what has now become persistent Romentum. [/quote]

What’s interesting to me is that the first debate drew 70 million viewers. Debate two drew almost as many 68.6 million viewers.

252

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Yes, while Romney has been enthralling us with a complex and detailed plan for the future…[/quote]

I’m going to type this for the last time, as I’m sure Romney, Ryan and everyone else that understadns it is as tired of saying the same thing I am.

When you are president, you have to work with some 500 other people to get things done. You have to compromise with people that feel differently than you do.

In that instance you go in with a general plan, and work out the details together, as a leader, so everyone has a hand and a say in the governance of our country. You know, the exact thing the founding fathers intended to happen.

What you don’t do is make a bunch of promises you can’t keep, go in and cram the largest partisan bill ever in the history of the world down the American people’s throat.

The fact you ignore that this attitude is the winning one means you are blinded by either you approval of o or your disdain for romney. You are a smart person, stop hinging on a shitty talking point. Think. I know you get this already.

Doesn’t make it any less funny.

253

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Yes, while Romney has been enthralling us with a complex and detailed plan for the future…

Both parties do it, have done it, and will continue to do it. For God’s sake, Obama did it in 2008 too![/quote]

Ok, you’re right. Beans has it correct about a general plan that allows you to function with 500 other people, but…Let’s grant that for the sake of argument Romney has not given us any more details than Obama did in 2008 (this is demonstrably false in my view, even if you are unsatisfied by the level of detail Romney has given in his general plan).

I look at two applicants for the position of CEO of a Fortune 100 company. 1) The person who currently sits at the board during meetings and 2) a person who is a potential replacement. I see that #1 was a community organizer, lawyer, and legislator before he sat in his current position. I see that when he was hired he gave no details on his economic plan and as a result of his mis-management the company has not grown and kept up with its competition. It is stagnating. I look at #2 and see that he previously started, controlled, grew, and ultimately owned his own company and made it very profitable. I see that he has 30 years of financial experience. I also see that he does not give any details on his economic plan to make the company successful and competitive. This reminds me of 4 years ago when I hired #1.

I see that #1 has had 4 years and done nothing. I see that #2 has not given me any detail whatsoever. I also see that #2 has a track record of success and a long long list of experience that #1 totally and utterly lacks.

If I am going to trust the economic health of the company to one of two people–neither of which have given me any details on what they plan to do–then the easy, absolute no brainer is to go with applicant #2 because 1) he has experience 2) he has experience 3) #1 already showed he was not up to the task and I have a lot of people riding on the choice I make 4) if 2 candidates avoid giving any details, then the only thing to go on is their track record and experience. #2 has it easily beaten.

I am not voting for a known failure. Period. So, while Romney may have not given any details whatsoever, I’d rather try my hand with something new than a known and quantified failure. After all, I’m not better off than I was and if the new guy can’t fix it either then I’m not any worse off than I would have been with the first guy, but I took a chance at fixing a problem he was clearly incapable of dealing with.

254

[quote]Sloth wrote:
According to Gallup, Romney picked up a point with registered (3 point lead) voters, and likely voters (7 point lead). Not looking like the 2nd debate impacted what has now become persistent Romentum. [/quote]

Today’s Gallup has Romney up by 6, 51-45.

Real Clear Politics has Obama up by .1%

Rasmussen has Romney up by 2.

255

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

If I am going to trust the economic health of the company to one of two people–neither of which have given me any details on what they plan to do–then the easy, absolute no brainer is to go with applicant #2 because 1) he has experience 2) he has experience 3) #1 already showed he was not up to the task and I have a lot of people riding on the choice I make 4) if 2 candidates avoid giving any details, then the only thing to go on is their track record and experience. #2 has it easily beaten.

I am not voting for a known failure. Period. So, while Romney may have not given any details whatsoever, I’d rather try my hand with something new than a known and quantified failure. After all, I’m not better off than I was and if the new guy can’t fix it either then I’m not any worse off than I would have been with the first guy, but I took a chance at fixing a problem he was clearly incapable of dealing with.[/quote]

****This post is a fair and what a democracy should be. A researched post and one that is articulate and does not insult with labels such as socialist or laugh at the forum poster like a child for a position not aligned with one’s own. This is what the electorate is supposed to be doing. Researching and deciding for themselves. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is attributed with saying â??everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.â?? (Forbes article)

There is too much partisanship in this thread and I appreciate Counting Beans for arguing for more well thought out and quantified stances no matter which side of the divide one is on. Dwight D Eisenhower said in article mentioned in another post that â??I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.â??

256

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
According to Gallup, Romney picked up a point with registered (3 point lead) voters, and likely voters (7 point lead). Not looking like the 2nd debate impacted what has now become persistent Romentum. [/quote]

Today’s Gallup has Romney up by 6, 51-45.

Real Clear Politics has Obama up by .1%

Rasmussen has Romney up by 2. [/quote]

Looking at it now, 52-45, likely voters.

257

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Yes, while Romney has been enthralling us with a complex and detailed plan for the future…[/quote]

I’m going to type this for the last time, as I’m sure Romney, Ryan and everyone else that understadns it is as tired of saying the same thing I am.

When you are president, you have to work with some 500 other people to get things done. You have to compromise with people that feel differently than you do.

In that instance you go in with a general plan, and work out the details together, as a leader, so everyone has a hand and a say in the governance of our country. You know, the exact thing the founding fathers intended to happen.

What you don’t do is make a bunch of promises you can’t keep, go in and cram the largest partisan bill ever in the history of the world down the American people’s throat.

The fact you ignore that this attitude is the winning one means you are blinded by either you approval of o or your disdain for romney. You are a smart person, stop hinging on a shitty talking point. Think. I know you get this already.

Doesn’t make it any less funny.[/quote]

Beans-I understand and appreciate the point that you are making. My contention is that while bipartisanship and compromise should reign above all other factors, I would feel more comfortable with somebody going in with a detailed plan which can then be altered as those important discussions occur. That’s the main thrust of my concern-but the point you raise is fair and salient.

And yes, I agree hypocrisy is always hilarious

258

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Yes, while Romney has been enthralling us with a complex and detailed plan for the future…

Both parties do it, have done it, and will continue to do it. For God’s sake, Obama did it in 2008 too![/quote]

Ok, you’re right. Beans has it correct about a general plan that allows you to function with 500 other people, but…Let’s grant that for the sake of argument Romney has not given us any more details than Obama did in 2008 (this is demonstrably false in my view, even if you are unsatisfied by the level of detail Romney has given in his general plan).

I look at two applicants for the position of CEO of a Fortune 100 company. 1) The person who currently sits at the board during meetings and 2) a person who is a potential replacement. I see that #1 was a community organizer, lawyer, and legislator before he sat in his current position. I see that when he was hired he gave no details on his economic plan and as a result of his mis-management the company has not grown and kept up with its competition. It is stagnating. I look at #2 and see that he previously started, controlled, grew, and ultimately owned his own company and made it very profitable. I see that he has 30 years of financial experience. I also see that he does not give any details on his economic plan to make the company successful and competitive. This reminds me of 4 years ago when I hired #1.

I see that #1 has had 4 years and done nothing. I see that #2 has not given me any detail whatsoever. I also see that #2 has a track record of success and a long long list of experience that #1 totally and utterly lacks.

If I am going to trust the economic health of the company to one of two people–neither of which have given me any details on what they plan to do–then the easy, absolute no brainer is to go with applicant #2 because 1) he has experience 2) he has experience 3) #1 already showed he was not up to the task and I have a lot of people riding on the choice I make 4) if 2 candidates avoid giving any details, then the only thing to go on is their track record and experience. #2 has it easily beaten.

I am not voting for a known failure. Period. So, while Romney may have not given any details whatsoever, I’d rather try my hand with something new than a known and quantified failure. After all, I’m not better off than I was and if the new guy can’t fix it either then I’m not any worse off than I would have been with the first guy, but I took a chance at fixing a problem he was clearly incapable of dealing with.[/quote]

Very good post Aragorn. A couple things to point out from my end though:

-Saying that experience and success in the private sector is a huge benefit when moving somebody into the position of CEO in the private sector is very valid, as this experience undoubtedly transfers nearly completely. However, as prior failed businessmen presidents have shown, this is not necessarily the case for the office of president.
-Current numbers are starting to move in the right direction, which makes me hesitant to call Obama a complete and abject failure. In a normal company, I would also imagine that the opposition faced in attempting to get anything done is considerably less than in politics. While arguing about effectiveness in leadership can be a talking point, this does make implementation of policy more difficult.
-For me, the office of president is about far more than just taking care of the economy. While I respect and understand how important that that task is, I also believe in the projections I have seen from a variety of sources that put America on the right track, regardless of whose policies go into effect. I am one who believes that the economy is too large a beast for one man to truly tame. On foreign policy, social policy, and essentially everything beyond the economy, I agree far more with Obama’s stances than Romney’s.

Again, all the points you brought up are why I understand why people will vote for Romney and why I will not lose too much sleep over economic policy that will come under him. It’s why I don’t demonize the other aisle-while there are some who I am sure are worth demonization, they are vastly outnumbered by those who have good, logical reasoning on their side (as you can see in this forum).

259

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Yes, while Romney has been enthralling us with a complex and detailed plan for the future…

Both parties do it, have done it, and will continue to do it. For God’s sake, Obama did it in 2008 too![/quote]

Ok, you’re right. Beans has it correct about a general plan that allows you to function with 500 other people, but…Let’s grant that for the sake of argument Romney has not given us any more details than Obama did in 2008 (this is demonstrably false in my view, even if you are unsatisfied by the level of detail Romney has given in his general plan).

I look at two applicants for the position of CEO of a Fortune 100 company. 1) The person who currently sits at the board during meetings and 2) a person who is a potential replacement. I see that #1 was a community organizer, lawyer, and legislator before he sat in his current position. I see that when he was hired he gave no details on his economic plan and as a result of his mis-management the company has not grown and kept up with its competition. It is stagnating. I look at #2 and see that he previously started, controlled, grew, and ultimately owned his own company and made it very profitable. I see that he has 30 years of financial experience. I also see that he does not give any details on his economic plan to make the company successful and competitive. This reminds me of 4 years ago when I hired #1.

I see that #1 has had 4 years and done nothing. I see that #2 has not given me any detail whatsoever. I also see that #2 has a track record of success and a long long list of experience that #1 totally and utterly lacks.

If I am going to trust the economic health of the company to one of two people–neither of which have given me any details on what they plan to do–then the easy, absolute no brainer is to go with applicant #2 because 1) he has experience 2) he has experience 3) #1 already showed he was not up to the task and I have a lot of people riding on the choice I make 4) if 2 candidates avoid giving any details, then the only thing to go on is their track record and experience. #2 has it easily beaten.

I am not voting for a known failure. Period. So, while Romney may have not given any details whatsoever, I’d rather try my hand with something new than a known and quantified failure. After all, I’m not better off than I was and if the new guy can’t fix it either then I’m not any worse off than I would have been with the first guy, but I took a chance at fixing a problem he was clearly incapable of dealing with.[/quote]

I’d like to respond to Aragorn too, because it was a well thought out post.

I, like others, agree with your basic premise and conclusions, as it relates to economic expertise.

The “problem” (if it can be viewed as one) is that for many Americans; going into that booth and pressing a screen for their President will often take on a MUCH more personal meaning than a Board of a Company choosing it’s next CEO.

If I may use an analogy also; it may be closer to picking the Pediatrician or Day Care for their kids…or the Church they will go to based on the “feeling” they have when they sit down with the Pastor. Yes; they all must meet a certain level of expertise, and be in line with their own Core beliefs; however (as example) their Pediatrician doesn’t have to be the Past Medical Director of Texas Children’s or have written a Textbook in Pediatrics.

It’s more along the lines “Have they and will they be there when I need them”? And they most definitely don’t pick that Pediatrician based on how many Practice sites they run within a Tri-State area.

In other words; this pick for many takes on a much more personal meaning, right or wrong.

How long will my child with diabetes be able to get care under my insurance? How long will there be Social Security Disability Insurance for my now grown kids with the mentality of 5 year olds? Will my kids be able to afford College?

How much tougher will this candidate make Life for my Gay son or my hard working Landscaper with a wife and 3 kids; who works 18 hour days; is as honest as the Day is long; but is not a legal Citizen?

Let me make it clear that this is NOT to say either Romney or the President cares more about the personal issues that Americans face. It is to say, however, that people pull that lever or press than pad often at a much more personal level than a Board picking a CEO.

Mufasa

260

Wow, this is actually great discussion.

The problem for me is that I’m not simply voting on economic issues. The current establishment hasn’t performed well economically by any means (although perhaps history will view this differently after we’ve pulled through this). They also really fared poorly on health care reform (let’s be honest, they didn’t really "reform anything). And they don’t have a great track record on things like personal freedoms.

But I am concerned with how religion has seemed to taking over the Republican party. My son goes to a private religious school, I believe firmly that prayer should be allowed in schools (but not forced), and I do think that religion is a healthy part of our society. But it doesn’t belong in government as far as I’m concerned and it shouldn’t be pushed on anyone anymore than atheism should be. But when one party starts to use religion as a basis for their policy (on issues such as abortion) then that makes me vote for the party that isn’t influenced by that even though I might not agree with many of their other policies.

There’s also a lot at stake with regard to Medicare and Social Security. Hard choices need to be made regarding these and it’s going to require cuts to benefits. But that’s not going to happen with either candidate. So again, it’s down again to who I think will do the least amount of social damage to America. Maybe my fears of the overthrow of the Republican party by extremists is unfounded and maybe I’m missing the big picture. But if I’m not then it scares me.

james