Topic: "I'm only voting for Romney because he's not Obama."

[Valerian]

Anyone see 60 minutes with Romney? He explained his position on the tax cuts. He actually made some points that I hadn't heard before, stating how his does want to cut taxes, but will also cut deductions and tax credits. Frankly, I think President Obama has some good intentions, but has no idea how to properly implement them. I get the feeling that while President Obama has good intentions, Mr. Romney would be better at actually getting things done. Cutting the military budget is very scary. Especially with what is going on between China and Japan, not to mention the Middle East. I do not agree with everything Romney says. His lifestyle makes his background not representative of my own. Then again, the president didn't even grow up in this country, so his background does not match either.

There's "not representative" and then there's "lacking in any form of empathy." 

Romney is the one who said, in response to criticisms about his plans for higher education and student loans, that students just needed to 'shop around' and try to avoid taking out loans to pay for college.  He's the one who, when speaking to students in Ohio, suggested that they borrow money from their parents if they have to in order to start a business.  Because everyone's parents just happen to have half a million or so lying around that they'd be glad to lend their kids, right?

He simply cannot fathom the idea of not being rich, of having that comfortable money cushion to fall back on, and most of the time doesn't even pretend to try.  He's already labelled almost half the country freeloaders.  You can argue that when he said it 'wasn't his job to worry about those people' he was referring only to worrying about getting their votes, but given everything else he's said and done, I can't believe that was all he meant.  If by some miracle he is elected, he'll still consider those people to be freeloaders, only after whatever handouts they can grab, and he will act accordingly.

[ReijiTabibito]

There's "not representative" and then there's "lacking in any form of empathy." 

Romney is the one who said, in response to criticisms about his plans for higher education and student loans, that students just needed to 'shop around' and try to avoid taking out loans to pay for college. 

Right.  And in today's world, how are you supposed to be competitive with the rich legacy kids that go to Yale (much like Romney, though he isn't a Yaleite) when the best that the average family can come up with without taking out loans is to send kids to a local community college?  And even then, the kids might have to work a part-time job somewhere to help pay...

[Oniya]

I'd point out that both FDR and Kennedy were men of the upper class, coming from wealthy families and not experienced with privation, and both were very empathetic with the situation of the lower class. 

[ReijiTabibito]

Totally agreed.  But I attribute more to the fact that FDR And JFK understood that the common man was the working backbone of the great USA, so anything that helped them helped the country.  Good luck telling today's 'job creators' that and not igniting a firestorm of WE BUILT IT and SOCIALISM!

[Oniya]

Oh, fully agreed.  I was putting them up as counters to Romney in particular, not the idea that 'rich folks can't understand poor folks.'  So Mitt can't really fall back on 'Well, I never had any problem with it.  There must be something wrong with you.'

[ReijiTabibito]

I know this is from another thread, but it really ires me how much stupidity Romney has shown the American public...and that I still know that there are people who are going to vote for him.  People who would firmly be within the 47% that was his first fuck-up in this chain of them.  And why are they supporting this flip-flopper?

"Obama supports gay marriage!"

>_<

[Avis habilis]

Single-issue voters will settle on some pretty peculiar single issues.

[MasterMischief]

I am so sick of hearing 'failed policies'.  You know who failed us?  The GOP take-over of 2010.  How many jobs bills did they pass?  How many bills did they put up to repeal Obamacare?  Thier failed policies (the same ones Romney would like to support) are driving this country to ruin.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am so sick of hearing 'failed policies'.  You know who failed us?  The GOP take-over of 2010.  How many jobs bills did they pass?  How many bills did they put up to repeal Obamacare?  Thier failed policies (the same ones Romney would like to support) are driving this country to ruin.

Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President

House Speaker Mitch McConnell ladies and gents.. the man who the President HAS to work with in the house to get things going. So if his attitude is that.. how much do you think got done in the last 2 years?

[MasterMischief]

...but Obama is the 'divider'.   

[Callie Del Noire]

...but Obama is the 'divider'.   

No .. He isn't. It's the entire GOP

[Elias]

It's rather hard for Obama to get anything done when the GOP reflexively and dogmatically oppose his every move.  Over the past few years I've come to hate the Republicans.  Seriously.  Even Reagan would reach across the aisle and compromise to move the business of the nation forward. 

The only reason Romney might be better at getting things done is if the GOP manages to gain control of both houses of Congress.

He controlled the Congress and the Senate for the first 2 years, President Obama is an unequivocal failure. The Economic policies belong to him alone, because what Bush spent is a drop in the bucket when compared to Obama and the only thing he takes credit for (Foreign policy) Was all implemented by the man he bashes at every turn (Bush).

[Question Mark]

He controlled the Congress and the Senate for the first 2 years, President Obama is an unequivocal failure. The Economic policies belong to him alone, because what Bush spent is a drop in the bucket when compared to Obama and the only thing he takes credit for (Foreign policy) Was all implemented by the man he bashes at every turn (Bush).

There's plenty wrong with this argument, but I'm frankly too tired to dissect all of its flaws.  Instead, I'll just ask that someone else do so.  *yawn*

G'night everyone.

[Rune]

So if I am reading your argument correctly, Even if he does get reelected, he will still have the GOP against him and still won't be able to get anything passed. As good as his intentions may be, actions speak louder than words. If is so hindered that he can't take action, (even if it is not his fault) is he really the right choice?

The thing that concerns me the most is his stand on the current budget cuts that are scheduled to go into effect Jan 2nd. Everything is in place for it to happen. By law, the details are supposed to be released 60 days before they go into effect. But because they do not want the cuts to impact the election, they have been granted a special exemption so that they can obscure the details. Regardless, Northrup Grummond, GE, United Technology, General Dynamics are all expecting big cuts. Expect them to be releasing layoff notices after the election.

When they say that they are cutting the military budget, what a lot of people don't realize is that they aren't actually cutting into troop size. Where they make their cuts are all the companies that provide equipment. Right now, the averaqe pilot in the Airforce flies a plane older than he is. We have a fleet a third the size it was in the eighties and it is getting small as older ships are being decommissioned and new ones are not being built. Worse, the skilled weapons designers will be out of work. When it is time to ramp up production again, these individuals will have moved on. Or worse, they may get offers from other countries such as China.
 

Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President

House Speaker Mitch McConnell ladies and gents.. the man who the President HAS to work with in the house to get things going. So if his attitude is that.. how much do you think got done in the last 2 years?

[Oniya]

So if I am reading your argument correctly, Even if he does get reelected, he will still have the GOP against him and still won't be able to get anything passed. As good as his intentions may be, actions speak louder than words. If is so hindered that he can't take action, (even if it is not his fault) is

The thing is, half the House and a third of the Senate are up for re-election as well.  The GOP might very well not have the majority that they've enjoyed, especially if they've managed to piss off enough of their own party members into not voting for them (or worse, voting against them.)

[Callie Del Noire]

When they say that they are cutting the military budget, what a lot of people don't realize is that they aren't actually cutting into troop size. Where they make their cuts are all the companies that provide equipment. Right now, the averaqe pilot in the Airforce flies a plane older than he is. We have a fleet a third the size it was in the eighties and it is getting small as older ships are being decommissioned and new ones are not being built. Worse, the skilled weapons designers will be out of work. When it is time to ramp up production again, these individuals will have moved on. Or worse, they may get offers from other countries such as China.

Actually they ARE cutting manpower. Have been since Donald Rumbsfeld's tenure as SecDef. Dumbest move in decades. The arguement is that we can do 'more with less' by increasing technological innovation. IE... Drones are good .. piloted aircraft is good.. grunts on the ground is bad.

Forgetting the first rule of warfare. You don't a piece of ground till you got guys putting feet down on it and putting, and keeping, the flag on it. Otherwise all you got is a bombing range you have to fly a lot longer to get to. Sure, you can bomb the crap out of their infrastructure.. but hey.. the Russians learned that doesn't mean you OWN the ground.

Let me break things down for you on how US warfighting SHOULD go. From the sailor's POV. (Which I know)

-WE pound the crap out of the landing via bombs, shells, cruise missles and close in boat action, while bringing in the Marine Force in to secure the territory.
-The Marines TAKE the area we've just turned into rubble, suppressing enemy and securing inroads further inland. While holding the field for back up forces.
-The Backup forces, typically the Army, come in to take the heavy lifting job of long term occupation and free up the Marines to move up while moving to support them at points of heavy conflict. (the Marines are the hammer, and the Army is the anvil they mash the enemy against in these situations) While their support teams rebuild the infrastructure and set up for longer term holding of the territory.

There is some give and take in this.. but that is the basic strategy.

[Stattick]

He controlled the Congress and the Senate for the first 2 years, President Obama is an unequivocal failure.

You're right. It was very difficult for Obama to get bills through Congress because of unprecedented Republican obstructionism. Had it not been for the obstruction, we might very well be coming out of the recession now, instead of just squeaking by. Republicans have blocked economic stimulus bills. They've blocked jobs bills. They've blocked bills to get soldiers coming out of the armed forces retrained for the civilian job market. You're right. Obama failed to turn the worst economic crisis this country has had since The Great Depression around in a mere four years. But the fault of that lies with the Republicans.

The Economic policies belong to him alone,

You're right. Obama stopped the economic freefall that was going on when he took office. He saved the auto industry. He saved the financial sector. He saved Europe from a replay of The Great Depression that would have sucked us down too. He's made some progress at new regulations of the banking and financial industries to keep them from repeating the same mistakes that caused this crisis to begin with (the deregulation of the Bush, Jr. years). There's still a long way to go, both in new regs for the financial industry, and in getting this nation back on it's feet, but the Republicans have been blocking as much legislation in that regard as they can. We'd be in a hell of a lot better position if the GOP hadn't tried to shut down the government.

because what Bush spent is a drop in the bucket when compared to Obama

Someone's been watching too much Fox News. If you watch Fox, you know that these are the spending figures that Fox reported on the spending during Bush, Jr's last years, and Obama's first years:



If you watch an unbiased news source, you'd know that Fox News lies. You'd know that the numbers above were cooked. You'd know that once again, Fox News is lying to it's viewers. What Fox did, was for Bush's numbers, compare federal spending growth pegged to federal revenue. For Obama's numbers, they counted spending growth as a share of the economy. This is comparing apples to oranges. If they used the same calculation for Obama's numbers, they'd have show that spending has come down compared to 2009, to less than 8%. CITE

The lesson here, is never trust that Fox News says without corroborating with an unbiased source first. Fox lies.

and the only thing he takes credit for (Foreign policy)

You're right, foreign policy has improved vastly under president Obama. The US is no longer the hated laughing stock of the world as we were under Bush Jr's years.

Was all implemented by the man he bashes at every turn (Bush).

Actually, Obama's been running around fixing Bush's messes for the last four years. I suppose that you could argue that Bush helped create the opportunity for Obama to be a great and well respected statesman.

[Stattick]

So if I am reading your argument correctly, Even if he does get reelected, he will still have the GOP against him and still won't be able to get anything passed. As good as his intentions may be, actions speak louder than words. If is so hindered that he can't take action, (even if it is not his fault) is he really the right choice?

The Democrats are taking back the Senate. They've already promised to reform the filibuster, which has been one of the prime methods that the GOP has used to block legislation. They might even take back the House. Obama's going to have a hell of a lot easier time passing legislation in his second term.

The thing that concerns me the most is his stand on the current budget cuts that are scheduled to go into effect Jan 2nd. Everything is in place for it to happen. By law, the details are supposed to be released 60 days before they go into effect. But because they do not want the cuts to impact the election, they have been granted a special exemption so that they can obscure the details. Regardless, Northrup Grummond, GE, United Technology, General Dynamics are all expecting big cuts. Expect them to be releasing layoff notices after the election.

When they say that they are cutting the military budget, what a lot of people don't realize is that they aren't actually cutting into troop size. Where they make their cuts are all the companies that provide equipment. Right now, the averaqe pilot in the Airforce flies a plane older than he is. We have a fleet a third the size it was in the eighties and it is getting small as older ships are being decommissioned and new ones are not being built. Worse, the skilled weapons designers will be out of work. When it is time to ramp up production again, these individuals will have moved on. Or worse, they may get offers from other countries such as China.

Honestly, I haven't followed this particular issue at all. Do you have a cite?

[Callie Del Noire]

Agreed Stattick.. it's going to be a long time before all the diplomatic capital of the US is back to where it was. We had a strong case for coalition building with 9/11 and we dropped the ball. Too many private interests in the US wanted the return of regime building to share the load of rebuilding Iraq. We pissed on our European allies and alienated a lot of local (gulf) partners in small ways that add up.

For what? So Dick Cheney and his cronies could make a ton off of no-bid contracts in the Gulf. Then.. after we've spent all those years half ass doing things to rebuild Iraq.. they have the GALL to sell their oil to the highest purchaser (China!).

We went into Gulf War II with good standing and a very big amount of sympathy..and came out covered in the fall out of a political shit storm. We lost the respect of our peers, nations in the Gulf and pretty much handed the enemy a LOT of ammo to back up their claims under Bush.

President Obama did what he could, proved in many ways he was a team builder.. but a LOT more could have been done if the GOP had swallowed their pride and met him in the middle of the aisle, shook his hand, looked him in the eye and worked WITH him. Instead we've had years of obstructionism and political sniping. It's hard to meet with your rivals and work with them when their self proclaimed public goal is to ensure you fail. PERIOD.

When you say things like that.. you know what I hear? 'I'm a self entitled prat who don't like losing and can't put my poor injured pride aside to serve those who elected me to office. Fuck my voters. Fuck my duties! Screw everything but putting that upstart in HIS place."

[ReijiTabibito]

I watch the Daily Show.  Anyone who reads a dozen of my posts in this section can learn this.  I also watch the Report.  Now, based on that, here's what my mind has come up with at the moment, given what people are saying.

Item: The Republican Party is rapidly deteriorating.  No matter how much Koch money funds them, nor how badly Fox News twists the truth for them, it's coming apart.  The fact that Mitt Romney got the Repub nomination, in conjunction with the crazy-ass things he's said, should be proof of that.

If you want more, check out Every Which Way But Lucid for this Monday's Daily Show.

Item: This is good, believe it or not, for the political landscape and the Republican Party.  Because I believe, that if they fail on this one, where Super PACs reign supreme, money is free speech, and all those wonderful little sound bites that are the distillation of modern conservative thinking that thinking people despise, then they are going to have to be forced to reconsider their positions and abandon the stances they've taken.  Because Obama's victory will have proven that you can't buy elections, nor win them by only saying 'the other guy sucks worse than I do.'

Item: Jon Huntsman, considered by some one of the saner conservative-leaning candidates, was on the Report.  He noted that as a party, the Republicans have 150-odd years worth of history to draw upon.  He named 3 specific Presidents.  Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower.  And I believe that if the Republicans look back and draw on that heritage, then they will be revitalized for 2016, and actually have some points worth making.

Item: Even if they don't, I do believe that that's not the end of the Republican party.  Understand, I can agree with things that Republicans are saying, on general principle, but not on implementation.  Example - Republicans believe businesses are the backbone of this country.  They're right.  But it's not the big businesses, the AIGs and Bain Capitals of the world that are.  It's the small corner stores, the Neil's VCR & TV Repair Shop down the street.  I believe, in some part, that if the Repubs were to take that much-touted business acumen, and retool it for the small business owner that needs help, then they would stand a better chance with the people.

Item: I'll say it to people until I'm blue in the face.  I'm no Democrat, but I hate the Republicans more.  Why?  Simple.  Hypocrisy on my end.  The Repubs always appeal to the evangelicals in this country, saying they support the Christian ethic.  Problem is, they cherry-pick which parts of Ye Old God Book they want to use.  Charity is fine...as long as its impersonal (like to fight cancer) and not mandated by someone beyond me, or as long as it's not going to people who just sit at home popping out babies inbetween snorts of PCP.  Paul says that no one should feel compelled to give, but Jesus has render unto Caesar.  I know which one I'd prioritize.

Soon as you cross their comfort line, though, all their Christian values disappear, and they become people capable of doing things just as bad, if not worse, than people who don't adhere publicly to those values in the first place.

[Rune]

Honestly, I haven't followed this particular issue at all. Do you have a cite?

I don't have a link with the info. Most of my info on it comes from a conversation I had over dinner last week with the former Senator from RI and one of Mrs. Obama's advisors. It has to do with a policy called Sequestration and the WARN Act. They are automatic spending cuts as mandated by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control act, as amended by the Budget control act enacted in 2011. They kick into affect on Jan 2 2013 to reduce accounts by a uniform percentage unless Congress provides sequestation by agreeing on budget cut. As mentioned before, these guys don't agree on anything. I don't see them coming together in time to stop this. It is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that this is going to lead to a 10% reduction in defence discretionary spending and 8% reduction in non-defence discretionary spending.

I haven't done any online searching on this. But if you find something good, let me know.

[Stattick]

I don't have a link with the info. Most of my info on it comes from a conversation I had over dinner last week with the former Senator from RI and one of Mrs. Obama's advisors. It has to do with a policy called Sequestration and the WARN Act. They are automatic spending cuts as mandated by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control act, as amended by the Budget control act enacted in 2011. They kick into affect on Jan 2 2013 to reduce accounts by a uniform percentage unless Congress provides sequestation by agreeing on budget cut. As mentioned before, these guys don't agree on anything. I don't see them coming together in time to stop this. It is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that this is going to lead to a 10% reduction in defence discretionary spending and 8% reduction in non-defence discretionary spending.

I haven't done any online searching on this. But if you find something good, let me know.

Wait. Which former senator from Rhode Island?