2012 Election Thread

[snapple]

Snapple I think the whole "having a beer thing" is a singular example rather than rumboraks entire rationale. In any case, we really going to spend half a page discussing this?

Well, I know it's not rumborak's entire rationale. But it's still dumbfounding to read that, despite all of the incredibly intelligent posts and points rumborak makes, he puts that kind of view on the presidential candidates. I don't care what the guy is like (outside of following the law and things of that nature), if he gets the job done that's who we need.


aaaaaaaaaaaand I just read bosk's post. I didn't take anything rumborak was saying in a negative way. I really took it as "banter" in the same way when my friends and myself yell and swear at each other. It's not that we can't be nice, it's the we would rather yell and swear  (does anyone here argue with their friends [or have friends that do the same to you] just for the sake of arguing?)

I wasn't trying to be rude to rumby at all. I hope he knows that (and I'm pretty sure he does)

and another edit: But this is serious; what does being able to sit down and have a beer with the guy have to do with being President? Or, did you mean all of that in a "cherry on top" kind of way? Or is it some kind of homer-ism? Like, Orioles fans boo Mark Teixeira pretty viciously because he didn't sign with them. But, you know if he would have, they would love him.

[Super Dude]

Wasn't that the whole point of your argument that Mitt isn't an asshole?

[snapple]

Wasn't that the whole point of your argument that Mitt isn't an asshole?

I'm not really sure where I outright said that (at least in response to rumborak). Sometimes cold, calculated responses are what's needed. And, you pretty much need an asshole for that. Well, I don't think Mitt is an asshole, but is anything I would say in defense of the guy going to change any minds?




That's the image that comes up first when I search Romney. I don't think that qualifies as a suit. Oh yeah - Obama, really? Tucking in a t-shirt? (this part was a joke)

[rumborak]

First of all, let me actually chime in with Snapple; I didn't think our slightly heated discussion was too bad. I hope this "new" kind of P/R doesn't mean we no longer can be passionate about our views; I always thought that aspect was/is the lifeblood of it.

To the topic, through all my explanations the single basic thing I'm trying to get across is that IMHO the character and personality of a president is an important factor too, alongside with his/her policy ideas, credentials etc. etc.
Look at it this way: A president's job isn't just sitting in the White House and signing bills. He is also a travelling salesman for the United States, pitching for the interests of the country. And you can ask any salesman in the world, they will all tell you that personality is a key ingredient in selling something. If you come across as an ass or an idiot, it will be a LOT harder to get other people, domestic and international, to do what you would like them to do. Look at GWB: Outside the UK, he was utterly unable to garner support for the war in Iraq. Was lacking evidence for WMDs the main factor? Absolutely. Did the fact that the world didn't like him and thought he is rather dumb play a factor? Absolutely too.

That is my point. Romney puts me on guard because I distrust smarmy CEO-like people. That, I think, is not a god sign, because I will not be the only person who has that reaction to him.

rumborak

[Adami]

That's the best "Mitt not in a suit" pic I could find, and that took a LOT of digging.

[bosk1]

aaaaaaaaaaaand I just read bosk's post. I didn't take anything rumborak was saying in a negative way. I really took it as "banter" in the same way when my friends and myself yell and swear at each other. It's not that we can't be nice, it's the we would rather yell and swear  (does anyone here argue with their friends [or have friends that do the same to you] just for the sake of arguing?)

Okay, that's fine.  I'm not trying to come down on you or rumborak.  You're both good posters, in general.  However, both of you are guilty of posting in a way that can come across as very abrasive and bordeline-insulting sometimes.  Even if neither of you are offended by the other, it can come across that way to others and either discourage them from posting or encourage them to jump in and start fighting, and I am trying to avoid either result.  Just keep that in mind, okay?  Carry on.

[senecadawg2]

He doesn't exactly look very comfortable in that pic either ^^

Of course, it really shouldn't matter too much.

[Scheavo]

That, I think, is not a god sign, because I will not be the only person who has that reaction to him.

rumborak

No, you wouldn't be - in fact, most of his fellow Republicans have the same response to him. Also, look at his recent foreign trip - he basically pissed off someone everywhere he went, the Brits didn't like him, and he said some pretty insensitive stuff in Palestine. If that's a preview of what his foreign relations would be like, it would be a mess.

Well, I know it's not rumborak's entire rationale. But it's still dumbfounding to read that, despite all of the incredibly intelligent posts and points rumborak makes, he puts that kind of view on the presidential candidates. I don't care what the guy is like (outside of following the law and things of that nature), if he gets the job done that's who we need.

Just curious, did you happen to catch the post I had about what the President's job is, or did it get lost in the pages? Rumby said some of the same points, but the job of the President isn't supposed to be the ideological leader of the country, most importantly in the current debate, he isn't supposed to control the budget or be responsible for the economy. The House of Representatives is completely in charge of that, or is supposed to be. Policies, bills, and things of that nature are supposed to come out of the legislative branch. That's what I meant by the if you like his policies, ask he run for the House. I sorta can't think of something that would be better for this country right now than a really strong Speaker of the House who stands up to the President, and get's Congress behind him.

[snapple]

The only issue with that is veto power. If you have that power, you pretty much need to have a platform. You basically write policy.

[rumborak]

Scheavo, I think one of the problems is that the POTUS is essentially viewed with king-like attributes.

[Scheavo]

The only issue with that is veto power. If you have that power, you pretty much need to have a platform. You basically write policy.

I'm not saying their views are completely irrelevant, but we hold them to too much regard. Many Presidents have never used the veto, and many more have shied away from using it too much. There's also the fact that veto's can be overridden.

To say that the veto power "essentially writes policy" is a gross exaggeration, if you ask me. It can block some legislation, but it cannot write the policy, it cannot direct the policy, and many presidents have signed bills they don't agree with, or that have parts that they don't agree with. Especially in today's climate, where bills have tons of riders and attachments to them, that a President has to take fully or not at all. There's more than once that this has forced a President to sign a bill with provisions he might otherwise disagree with.

Scheavo, I think one of the problems is that the POTUS is essentially viewed with king-like attributes.

Oh I agree, and it baffles me. If any President actually acted like a King, people would hate him, but at the same time, they blame him for not being a King. The President has been made into a great scapegoat by our corrupt congress, and before we realize that, this country isn't going to be fixed.

[Super Dude]

I don't suppose anyone would know anything about FDR's level of involvement in the policies he proposed to get through the depression? Could be he was very active, but if so that it was a freak incident.

Yeah, I meant more in the sense of their passage into law, the framing of the laws themselves, their implementation, etc. How much was he just the guy who said, "Oh, this would be a good idea," and how much was it him playing a role in the nitty gritty of how those programs actually worked? And more importantly, how big of a role did he take in them actually getting passed?

I sincerely don't know, and if anyone does, I'm eager to learn.

[Scheavo]

Okay now, see, this is a lie:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ryan-publicly-said-he-didnt-take-stimulus-cash-although-he-asked-for-it-a-year-before/2012/08/16/c10eb96a-e7e6-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Thursday denied for a second time that he ever lobbied the government for stimulus money, even though he sent letters —with his signature — to the Energy Department and Labor Department asking for millions of the program’s dollars on behalf of two companies in Wisconsin.

Ryan’s new denial in an interview with Cincinnati’s WCPO-TV contradicts letters that Ryan wrote in 2009 to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies. One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., later received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records.

This is a very nice, verifiable, check-able lie. I mean, a blatant lie, he said he didn't do something that he in fact did do. This is the kind of lie I'm looking for with Obama. Anyone got one?

[snapple]

The only issue with that is veto power. If you have that power, you pretty much need to have a platform. You basically write policy.

I'm not saying their views are completely irrelevant, but we hold them to too much regard. Many Presidents have never used the veto, and many more have shied away from using it too much. There's also the fact that veto's can be overridden.

To say that the veto power "essentially writes policy" is a gross exaggeration, if you ask me. It can block some legislation, but it cannot write the policy, it cannot direct the policy, and many presidents have signed bills they don't agree with, or that have parts that they don't agree with. Especially in today's climate, where bills have tons of riders and attachments to them, that a President has to take fully or not at all. There's more than once that this has forced a President to sign a bill with provisions he might otherwise disagree with.

I don't think it's a gross exaggeration. And I didn't say "writes direct policy" I said "essentially writes policy". If, to borrow from Truman, the buck stops with the President, you'd better make sure he won't stop it. So, you probably want to either A.) Have enough backing that can 2/3 the fuck out of a veto or B.) put some stuff in there the President wants, hopefully avoiding the veto. While he isn't the one with the pen and paper, that's essentially writing policy by means of...threat? I don't know if that's the right word, but I hope that demonstrates my point.

(every President does this I'm well aware. I, for one, wish there was some measure of line-item veto. But, nothing would get done if it were implemented. Too bad we can't live in a perfect world)

[jsem]

Ryan backtracking on Objectivism is funny imo... being a Rand disciple his entire life up until a few months ago when it was clear he was considered for VP nomination? Fail.

It's so BLATANATLY OBVIOUS it's not even funny. ONLY a politician would ever try to change his own history like this even though the record is so obvious.

[Super Dude]

I thought it had to do with religion?

[jsem]

Yeah, well... he was also subjected to heavy criticism from Catholic authorities, so yeah - there's also that.

Now he dismisses Objectivism because it's an "atheist philosophy". Epic fail. The Catholic authorities were outraged because her Objectivism is about individualism and promoting self-interest and not being your brothers keeper, not because Ayn Rand was an atheist. In a sense, unconditional love was seen as morally repulsive by Rand, while in the eyes of Christ it was the highest moral standard for humans to reach for.

[snapple]

To try and add a working example of the "essentially writing policy" I will use myself and bosk. There are rules on the forum I must adhere to. Example, I can't post links to porn. While, I of course have the ability to post porn, I don't because of the consequence that would occur.

Does bosk actually write my posts? No. Does he "essentially write" them? I guess shape would be a better word than write in this instance. But yes, he does (based on the rules of the forum). I am aware of what I am not allowed to post.

However, there are other forums I can post that material on.


EDIT by bosk1:  No, I really do write your posts.  Now shut up and get back to being my puppet.

[bosk1]

I kinda disagree.

[rumborak]

Romney says he paid 13% taxes over the last 10 years. Meaning, he paid less than 10%, that's for sure.

[Super Dude]

Have the numbers been verified or did he just toss it out a little while ago?

[El Barto]

Last I heard he "went back and checked."

[rumborak]

That's why I'm saying it. If he have to take his word on the 13%, you can bet it's below 10%.

Apparently under the Ryan plan he would stop paying taxes altogether.

[Super Dude]

I meant by an outside source or something. I realize this is probably the best we're gonna get.

[rumborak]

Interesting list, the top 5 campaign contributors for each candidate:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012

Rather tellingly, Romney's are all financial institutions. If Romney wins, I'm sure some favors will be called in.

[kirksnosehair]

Interesting list, the top 5 campaign contributors for each candidate:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012

Rather tellingly, Romney's are all financial institutions. If Romney wins, I'm sure some favors will be called in.

What the hell?




Buddy Roemer:

University of San Diego School of Law   $-2
HLB Engineering   $-10
Trifecta Multimedia   $-20
Vanguard Health Systems   $-20


Those are negative dollar amounts, so does that mean he gave them money?   

[snapple]

Gotta spend money to make money

[Scheavo]

The only issue with that is veto power. If you have that power, you pretty much need to have a platform. You basically write policy.

I'm not saying their views are completely irrelevant, but we hold them to too much regard. Many Presidents have never used the veto, and many more have shied away from using it too much. There's also the fact that veto's can be overridden.

To say that the veto power "essentially writes policy" is a gross exaggeration, if you ask me. It can block some legislation, but it cannot write the policy, it cannot direct the policy, and many presidents have signed bills they don't agree with, or that have parts that they don't agree with. Especially in today's climate, where bills have tons of riders and attachments to them, that a President has to take fully or not at all. There's more than once that this has forced a President to sign a bill with provisions he might otherwise disagree with.

I don't think it's a gross exaggeration. And I didn't say "writes direct policy" I said "essentially writes policy". If, to borrow from Truman, the buck stops with the President, you'd better make sure he won't stop it. So, you probably want to either A.) Have enough backing that can 2/3 the fuck out of a veto or B.) put some stuff in there the President wants, hopefully avoiding the veto. While he isn't the one with the pen and paper, that's essentially writing policy by means of...threat? I don't know if that's the right word, but I hope that demonstrates my point.

(every President does this I'm well aware. I, for one, wish there was some measure of line-item veto. But, nothing would get done if it were implemented. Too bad we can't live in a perfect world)

A line-item veto would be a massive increase in the President's power, and would go along way to making it so he directs legislation even more than what you're proposing. While there are certainly cases where it would be nice, or could be beneficial, I'd say the overall effect is rather undesirable.

Obviously the President can stop certain legislation from passing, but the position he's in forces his hand much more. He can either sign or veto legislation, and that gives him very limited options. He has a desire to get things done, and not be an obstructionist, he's going to end up signing laws he doesn't agree with. There's tons of examples out there of a President signing a law, or a Governor for that matter, and saying how he disagrees with the law, but doesn't feel his position is strong enough to override the legislative branch. The Budget is a good example; if the House wasn't so worthless, it could present a budget that the President doesn't like; but then the President is either presented with shutting down the government completely, by not letting a budget pass, or accept the budget he doesn't like, and get some things done.

[kirksnosehair]

I think the line item veto is a terrible idea and I hope we never give any president, whether I agree with him or not, that kind of power.

[snapple]

Pure line item wouldn't work. I said some measure. Like, for things that didn't get debated on the floor.

[Scheavo]

Seems like the wrong way to address the problem to me. If we're going to add a constitutional Amendment on the issue, I'd say make one that gets rid of riders and the like, so that Bills have to deal with one issue, and all be directly related to each other, or even require that all provisions of a bill get debated and discussed on the floor.

[Scheavo]

http://news.yahoo.com/executives-obama-better-world-economy-poll-092717460--business.html?_esi=1

Twice as many business executives around the world say the global economy will prosper better if incumbent President Barack Obama wins the next election than if his Republican challenger Mitt Romney does, a poll showed on Friday.

Democrat Obama was chosen by 42.7 percent in the 1,700 respondent poll, compared with 20.5 percent for Romney. The rest said "neither".

I guess the silver lining is just as many people said Neither as Obama, but this is a pretty direct response to Romney's claim that because he was CEO, he's better able to handle the economy, or something.

[KevShmev]

Well, the problem for Obama is that, right or wrong, a lot of independent voters will go with the fear of the unknown (Romney) over Obama's track record of not being able to turn the economy around.  To them, they know Obama sucks at it, but Romney might be better equipped to turn things around.  Again, not saying it is right, but it's the way many will think. 

Really, this election will likely come down to how many Democrats Obama can get to come out and vote in the swing states.  Record turnouts back in '08 is why he won, but his recent poor approval and likability ratings might keep some potential voters at home instead of coming out to support him with their vote vs. the hardcore Republicans, many of whom will come out and vote if only to get Obama out of office.

[ResultsMayVary]

Seems like the wrong way to address the problem to me. If we're going to add a constitutional Amendment on the issue, I'd say make one that gets rid of riders and the like, so that Bills have to deal with one issue, and all be directly related to each other, or even require that all provisions of a bill get debated and discussed on the floor.

That would be awesome and they should definitely go after a constitutional amendment for that. That's a great idea. That would eliminate Congressman and woman voting on a bill they disagree with because it has something they like in the bill. The bills would be more streamlined and thus, shorter in terms of length (depending on the bill, of course). It would also provide a more streamline approach of what the elected officials support. Too bad it would never have a chance in Congress to pass because that would eliminate how some congressman and woman get their funding for their 'special' projects, etc. And that goes for both sides.

Well, the problem for Obama is that, right or wrong, a lot of independent voters will go with the fear of the unknown (Romney) over Obama's track record of not being able to turn the economy around.  To them, they know Obama sucks at it, but Romney might be better equipped to turn things around.  Again, not saying it is right, but it's the way many will think. 

Really, this election will likely come down to how many Democrats Obama can get to come out and vote in the swing states.  Record turnouts back in '08 is why he won, but his recent poor approval and likability ratings might keep some potential voters at home instead of coming out to support him with their vote vs. the hardcore Republicans, many of whom will come out and vote if only to get Obama out of office.

This, exactly. It is not so much as an election for Romney as one against Obama. Now, don't take the wrong way. Some people really like what Romney is for and the same goes for Obama, but I think Kev's point will end up being the mindset for the way the Independents vote. Obama advocated 'Hope' and 'Change' and I believe most Independents think he didn't follow through with that mindset, especially on his foreign policy, which he basically continued several Bush policies. Even Guantanamo Bay is still open and I think he wanted to close that within one year of being elected.

[kirksnosehair]

Well, the problem for Obama is that, right or wrong, a lot of independent voters will go with the fear of the unknown (Romney) over Obama's track record of not being able to turn the economy around.  To them, they know Obama sucks at it, but Romney might be better equipped to turn things around.  Again, not saying it is right, but it's the way many will think. 

Really, this election will likely come down to how many Democrats Obama can get to come out and vote in the swing states.  Record turnouts back in '08 is why he won, but his recent poor approval and likability ratings might keep some potential voters at home instead of coming out to support him with their vote vs. the hardcore Republicans, many of whom will come out and vote if only to get Obama out of office.

Obama's current approval rating is about 50%


Dubya's approval rating in August 2004 was virtually the same @ 51%




I don't think the approval ratings matter too much.  Voter turnout could definitely make a difference, though.