Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama v. Romney

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:54:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am utterly confused. I am not better off now than I was this time last year and the economy is much worse (two minuses for Obama). However, I am not sure that Romny/Ryan will be much better. Ryan is WAY too conservative for me in the social aspects and not conservative enough when it comes to fisical aspects and small government.

Who will I be better off with and why?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 7:01:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, I'd say Obama, but then I would.

If you're disillusioned with both, I'd recommend checking out some third party candidates. :)
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 7:02:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:57:35 PM, Ultra wrote:
Based on your particular complaints - Johnson/Gray

I agree. I love Johnson/Gray and would LOVE for them to win; however, they are not going to win and I feel like I'm giving Obama a better shot at the whitehouse.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 7:06:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 7:02:59 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:57:35 PM, Ultra wrote:
Based on your particular complaints - Johnson/Gray

I agree. I love Johnson/Gray and would LOVE for them to win; however, they are not going to win and I feel like I'm giving Obama a better shot at the whitehouse.

Then vote for 'em bro, s'democracy. If you're worried about Obama winning, offer a deal to a nominally Democratic friend where you both select your preferred third candidates - that way, no harm's done.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 7:15:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obviously Obama. Social fascism is not libertarian.
And their economic differences are comparatively marginal.
Sapere Aude!
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 8:22:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jill Stein, She would fix the economy the same way FDR did in the Depression but in a more a way that helps the enviorment, she would ensure better healthcare, and she would promote education and peace rather then intolerance and war. I know your against government intervention in the economy, but just leting the problem stay there is like going to be leaving a cancer inside your body. It will get worse till you die.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 8:51:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 8:22:31 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
Jill Stein, She would fix the economy the same way FDR did in the Depression but in a more a way that helps the enviorment, she would ensure better healthcare, and she would promote education and peace rather then intolerance and war. I know your against government intervention in the economy, but just leting the problem stay there is like going to be leaving a cancer inside your body. It will get worse till you die.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com...

"Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt."
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 8:54:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Look Johnson represents the libertarian party and Jill Stein represents the Green party (I think) point is they are both supported only by 3rd parties and dont have a chance in hell of coming close to winning

Go with your heart. You say youre against Obama for economic reasons and against Romney for social reasons. Which one does your heart lie more with?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 12:13:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:54:03 PM, Microsuck wrote:
I am utterly confused. I am not better off now than I was this time last year and the economy is much worse (two minuses for Obama). However, I am not sure that Romny/Ryan will be much better. Ryan is WAY too conservative for me in the social aspects and not conservative enough when it comes to fisical aspects and small government.

Who will I be better off with and why?

Your choice is ultimately Goldman Sachs vs Goldman Sachs. Both of these candidates are controlled by the financial institutions that bankroll their campaigns. The specific institutions and exact numbers can be easily found online, this isn't conspiracy mumbo jumbo.

I guess a relatively minor difference is that Romney/Ryan will be more social conservative, more aggressively anti-civil liberties/pro-police state, and more jingoistic/aggressively militaristic in foreign policy. Romney would favor the wealthy individuals/corporations slightly more and more openly than Obama does. From a libertarian's point of view then it seems Obama might be slightly better, the lesser of two evils. But let's get real, the system stays the same either way, just like it has from Bush's to and throughout Obama's presidency, and it will remain so regardless of whether Obama or Romney is elected. We have but a one party system here in America. Both parties are owned by the same financial interests/corporations. As Emma Goldman said, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 1:26:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 12:13:58 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:54:03 PM, Microsuck wrote:
I am utterly confused. I am not better off now than I was this time last year and the economy is much worse (two minuses for Obama). However, I am not sure that Romny/Ryan will be much better. Ryan is WAY too conservative for me in the social aspects and not conservative enough when it comes to fisical aspects and small government.

Who will I be better off with and why?

Your choice is ultimately Goldman Sachs vs Goldman Sachs. Both of these candidates are controlled by the financial institutions that bankroll their campaigns. The specific institutions and exact numbers can be easily found online, this isn't conspiracy mumbo jumbo.

I guess a relatively minor difference is that Romney/Ryan will be more social conservative, more aggressively anti-civil liberties/pro-police state, and more jingoistic/aggressively militaristic in foreign policy. Romney would favor the wealthy individuals/corporations slightly more and more openly than Obama does. From a libertarian's point of view then it seems Obama might be slightly better, the lesser of two evils. But let's get real, the system stays the same either way, just like it has from Bush's to and throughout Obama's presidency, and it will remain so regardless of whether Obama or Romney is elected. We have but a one party system here in America. Both parties are owned by the same financial interests/corporations. As Emma Goldman said, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

http://thesecularity.com...
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 1:36:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obama is a neosocialist whose aim is to expand government control and force redistribution of wealth through regulation. A major factor holding back the recovery is the Dodd-Frank legislation that forbids banks from taking risks. Loans to small business are risky, and hence largely forbidden. Small business has traditionally provided 70% of the jobs in a recovery. the Obama economy is the new normal. There is no need to run business directly. Regulation works every bit as well.

Romney/Ryan are capitalists. There will be an economic recovery if they are elected.

Social beliefs are completely irrelevant. Social issues are determined most entirely by the States, and Romney wants to keep it that way. The popular will prevails on social issues, so nothing changes without popular support.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 12:35:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:54:03 PM, Microsuck wrote:
I am utterly confused. I am not better off now than I was this time last year and the economy is much worse (two minuses for Obama). However, I am not sure that Romny/Ryan will be much better. Ryan is WAY too conservative for me in the social aspects and not conservative enough when it comes to fisical aspects and small government.

Who will I be better off with and why?

Oil - creates jobs, increases GDP, lowers cost of gas, which lowers the cost of, well, everything.
Jobs - Romney will give us a competitive tax rate, which will be attractive to multinational investment.
Taxes - Romney will stop punishing multinational corporations for bringing profits made in other countries into the US.

Look at Romney as governor... He's not far-right wing, he is much more moderate. He picked Ryan so he could get the R vote he's going to need.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
CityTech
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 3:14:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe, based on the statement you have provided, that your best option is voting for Romney in the next election.

First off, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result. Therefore, re-electing Obama is literally the definition of insanity.

As for Ryan being to conservative on social issues, I wouldn't worry about that. Society is what the society makes of it, not what a Vice President makes of it.

As for Ryan on the fiscal issues: Ryan is one of the only people in Washington to actually get on the depression we're in. He has multiple plans ( even though the left say he has none ) to stop spending, bring down the debt, and do what needs to be done.

As a conclusion: A vote against Obama is a vote against the way things have been going in the past few years. Ask yourself this: Are you been better off now than you were 5 years ago? I say 5 years ago, because that's before the Democrats took control of Congress. ( Approximation, date isn't exact. )

And please remind yourself: Romney isn't another Bush. He's another Reagan.
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 3:33:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
+1 for Romney
Hmm... lets see Mitt Romney writes his own speeches. To me this is a big deal, lately we have seen some phony math come out of Obama's speeches.
I am real big on the the voucher program for schools. This would allow kids and parents to get what they need out of the education program.
He has built businesses, he has also brought businesses that were going to file bankruptcy out of bankruptcy. We need this America is past bankrupt!!
Me
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 5:53:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 3:14:46 PM, CityTech wrote:
As for Ryan on the fiscal issues: Ryan is one of the only people in Washington to actually get on the depression we're in. He has multiple plans ( even though the left say he has none ) to stop spending, bring down the debt, and do what needs to be done.

Obama budget plan - $3.8 trillion spent, $2.4 trillion brought in (for 2012)
Ryan budget plan - $3.6 trillion spent, 2.5 trillion brought in (for 2012)

Ryan has spending over the next 10 years averaging 20 percent of GDP with revenue amounting to 18.3 percent. Obama's has spending at 22.5 percent of GDP with revenues amounting to 18.3 percent.

Neither plan even considers balancing the federal budget in 10 years. Ryan's plan would eliminate the budget deficit... By 2040.

The differences between the Ryan and Obama budget plans are insignificant when compared to the severity, unsustainability and fiscal irresponsibility/impossibilities of our current situation.

As a conclusion: A vote against Obama is a vote against the way things have been going in the past few years. Ask yourself this: Are you been better off now than you were 5 years ago? I say 5 years ago, because that's before the Democrats took control of Congress. ( Approximation, date isn't exact. )

So you hold Obama accountable for the failures of the last 5 years, including when Bush was in office but the Democrats had control of Congress. But why don't Republicans deserve some Congressional accountability for the failures of the last few years (they did take control of the House) and more importantly why doesn't Bush deserve any accountability for the trainwreck situation he left Obama with? Bush left office with 2 fiscally irresponsible and failed wars, the housing bubble burst and the economy tanked and tanking further. Recall that Obama came into office with those Bush era problems on his plate.

And please remind yourself: Romney isn't another Bush. He's another Reagan.

Ah, so deficits will skyrocket, the national debt will double, tax revenues will increase 59 percent, government spending will grow 10.4 percent per year since Romney takes office, and the Romney administration will enthusiastically lend financial and military support to brutal terrorist dictators and terrorist militia groups to achieve its primary foreign policy goal of U.S. global hegemony? (All easily verifiable facts from the Reagan years). Thanks but no thanks.

Or did you mean that Romney and Reagan would be similar in personality characteristics, in terms of how they conducted themselves while President? In which case Romney would have only the vaguest conception of the inner dealings of his administration but he will smile, read from the teleprompter in a pleasant and comforting voice, crack a few jokes, and pretend everything's okay.

Either way, the idea that Romney is "another Reagan" should not be appealing to anyone who favors fiscal responsibility, limited government, justice and integrity in foreign policy (aka not directly sponsoring terrorism on a massive scale), and a President who knows what's really going on in his own administration.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 7:32:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 1:36:45 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama is a neosocialist whose aim is to expand government control and force redistribution of wealth through regulation. A major factor holding back the recovery is the Dodd-Frank legislation that forbids banks from taking risks. Loans to small business are risky, and hence largely forbidden. Small business has traditionally provided 70% of the jobs in a recovery. the Obama economy is the new normal. There is no need to run business directly. Regulation works every bit as well.

Romney/Ryan are capitalists. There will be an economic recovery if they are elected.

Social beliefs are completely irrelevant. Social issues are determined most entirely by the States, and Romney wants to keep it that way. The popular will prevails on social issues, so nothing changes without popular support.

Though, neither Romney nor Obama are defenders of civil liberties and individual rights, they both presumably support the Patriot Act, the NDAA, etc.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 5:32:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 10:38:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Jill Stein.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:50:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 1:36:45 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Romney/Ryan are capitalists. There will be an economic recovery if they are elected.

Some people say that technically, only laissez faire capitalism is true capitalism. In that regard, Romney and Ryan most certainly are not. Others say that there are different kinds of capitalism (crony capitalism, socio-capitalism, democratic capitalism, corporate capitalism, etc.) in which the word capitalism merely refers to private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of goods or services for profit. Both Romney and Obama support private ownership. Increased regulation, banking accountability and insurance mandates don't negate private ownership in an economic sense.

I would love to know how the economy would magically recover if Romney were elected. We would still import more than we export. Corporations would still outsource despite lower tax rates (oh btw - how many jobs were created thus far? I'm pretty sure Bush promised a bunch...). Inflation would still be completely rampant. Ryan voted to raise the national debt ceiling, and then criticized Obama for wanting to cut defense spending, calling the cuts "reckless and devastating." That stands completely contrary to capitalist ideals. Capitalism is about getting the government out of private business, but Republicans support corporate welfare (as Democrats do) and giving the military carte blanche when it comes to spending in order to help the good ol' oil boys and defense contractors (it was just a coincidence that the last President and Vice President had significant ties and investments in both...)
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:57:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 8:51:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/23/2012 8:22:31 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
Jill Stein, She would fix the economy the same way FDR did in the Depression but in a more a way that helps the enviorment, she would ensure better healthcare, and she would promote education and peace rather then intolerance and war. I know your against government intervention in the economy, but just leting the problem stay there is like going to be leaving a cancer inside your body. It will get worse till you die.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com...

"Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt."
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

http://www.salon.com...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:02:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Republican Party has included anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion provisions in their platform. Moreover, multiple Republican politicians have made disgusting comments about rape; I am not going to believe that a string of people from the same party expressing the same sentiments were just a bunch of isolated incidents. I was going to vote for Stein, but the Republican Party is so legitimately dangerous that I have no choice but to vote for Obama.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:26:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, I would go with the Democrats. Neither party's policies address the biggest issues that challenge and weaken our economy. Instead they rely on social wedge issues to ignite emotion and gain political support. The economy won't change significantly under either president, and if it does, it won't be because of their policies but some other instigator (like the dot.com boom under Clinton).

As such, I find the social issues to be bigger threats, because the economy is going to sink or swim regardless of who wins. Neither side balances the budget. Neither side significantly curbs spending. Neither side has a solution for creating jobs (tax breaks for corporations and the rich have proven time and again to be ineffective). Neither side combats inflation or the Fed. Neither side inhibits outsourcing. Neither side can legislate against certain realities (like lower standards of living in other countries that make them more lucrative places to invest and create jobs).

So, I think social issues will be the things that actually matter, because they're things our legislation can control... like allowing gays in the military, or to get married, or same-sex adoption, or ending the Drug War, or allowing women to continue making choices about their own bodies, etc.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:27:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the Democrats win, what will happen? Maybe the rich will have to pay more taxes. That doesn't bother me. For one thing, tax rates for the rich are at a historic low. It's not some new socialist agenda to expect a progressive tax rate, so it's ludicrous for people to accuse Obama of trying to radically change the status quo. Today the word "socialism" is thrown around to scare people the way communism was during McCarthyism. It's a load of crap. Newsflash: the U.S. has employed some socialist ideas (like public schools, or public anything for that matter) for centuries.

I also believe that the rich often make money "on the backs" of the poor (I won't derail this thread though) which is another reason I'm okay with Obama's proposed rates. The people rich enough to pay those rates have plenty of money off shore or in lucrative investments; it's not like these rates will suddenly cause their demise - nor would tax breaks create jobs or benefit the country as a whole. History shows us that decreasing taxes just places us further into debt. In terms of whether or not it's moral to "steal" from the rich, that standard doesn't apply to me since I don't find crony capitalism moral in the first place.

If the Republicans win, rich people get richer - and that's fine - but the debt wouldn't go away. Jobs wouldn't be created. Spending would still occur, except insanely put toward defense and maintaining an imperialistic police state all over the world rather than toward health care or education at home. Further, their social politics are terrifying but worse completely immoral. I don't understand how moderates could back Republicans. They're selling their soul based on an idealized notion of capitalism that Republicans in this country manipulate and don't abide by. They will not be helped by Republican policies, but millions would be hurt.
President of DDO
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:36:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Romney/Ryan are capitalists. There will be an economic recovery if they are elected.:

Presidents love to take credit for recovering economies and halting unemployment, but the fact of the matter is their contributions to those dilemmas are so miniscule that it's laughable to even entertain it. It's self-aggrandizing behavior that is transparently fallacious.

If the economy recovers more than it has, it cannot reasonably be attributed to anything the president does (regardless of who is elected).

If Ryan is elected in with Romney, sure, he may curb excessive government spending which would translate marginally to taxpayers, but the lifeblood of every single nation is its economy. Google makes America rich, not Ryan. Apple makes America rich, not Ryan.

Who the f*ck honestly believes that presidents can control markets and create jobs? Serious question. Who?

Government cannot create jobs or wealth. If the president authorizes 60,000 TSA employees, he isn't "creating a job," as those jobs are FUNDED through the taxation of the REAL money-makers, those in the private sector. Tax-paid jobs are merely eating your own flesh.

The greatest thing a president can do to help the economy is to get the f*ck out of the way.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:50:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 8:36:36 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Agreed with everything PL said.

The greatest thing a president can do to help the economy is to get the f*ck out of the way.

It depends what the goals are.
President of DDO