Who should (not will) win this election: Obama or Romney?

[Der Trihs]

Obama. The Republicans are incompetent, malignant, irrational, and as said borderline treasonous. I wouldn't support voting for any Republican for any position of authority whatsoever at this point. Even if the individual Republican is actually better than his/her opponent, since they are not just an individual but a part of the whole party machine.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Obama should win. He has some solid accomplishments in office (ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq, killing OBL, passing healthcare reform, signing the Ledbetter Act, saving the auto industry, ending DADT, ending torture by U.S. military and intelligence agencies, Wall Street reform, etc.), and I agree with him on far many more issues than I disagree. He has earned a second term, and then some.

Romney has moved sharply and conveniently to the right on every major issue since he ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate, and is, IMHO, utterly untrustworthy.

Wall Street reform? I favor Obama too, but Wall Street fucking OWNS Obama.

[gatorslap]

I hope Obama wins in a landslide. Not because I think he's a great president; I'm pretty ambivalent about his administration and I will likely vote third party. I just think the Republican Party has gone way off the deep end into crazy territory. A firm rejection of their current ludicrous politics could bring about some sanity in the future. Of course I don't see this as a likely scenario.

[SaharaTea]

Obama. There are certainly arguments against giving him a second term; however, I have never seen this kind of all-consuming hatred and unanimous opposition from an opposing party before. It disgusts me. Considering what he's been up against and the mess he inherited, he's done a decent job. No way in hell would I consider voting for a Republican the way the party stands now.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by SaharaTea

Obama. There are certainly arguments against giving him a second term; however, I have never seen this kind of all-consuming hatred and unanimous opposition from an opposing party before. It disgusts me. Considering what he's been up against and the mess he inherited, he's done a decent job. No way in hell would I consider voting for a Republican the way the party stands now.

Almost all of this, except that I'm not sure if there are arguments against giving him a second term, except if you heavily emphasize the flaws in the ACA. Or believe that someone would take a more principled stance toward freedom and peace in foreign policy and security, but you have to balance that against bin Laden. (Plus of course, consider the alternative.)

There would be more data to analyze how his domestic policies work if he had been allowed to enact them without the greatest level of obstruction possibly ever.

For me, the unanimous opposition is what really makes it imperative to not elect Romney. If Romney wins he will probably create a coattail effect and thus consolodate effective GOP control of Congress, who will then be setting the agenda and Romney will give in to every demand of the far right.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by gatorslap

I hope Obama wins in a landslide. Not because I think he's a great president; I'm pretty ambivalent about his administration and I will likely vote third party.

Don't do that; if you want Obama to win at all, you should vote for him. Nobody's going to win this one by a landslide, it's going to be close.

[GIGObuster]

The NPR bit on the health care decision showed me that Romney is just faking his interest for Hispanics, Romney just said a few hours ago that his target is now the defeat of Obamacare, and yet that is not what most of Hispanics were looking for:

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/28/155941...ng-to-partying

Mercado tells NPR's Robert Siegel she didn't expect the ruling to go the way it did. She says that if the Supreme Court had thrown out the health care law, she would have been protesting instead of partying.

Between working at low-paying jobs or at part-time jobs, Hispanics are the ethnic group most likely to be uninsured.

"I would say nationwide the percentage was, more or less, 34 percent. And here in Central Florida, I would say it's about 60 percent or more that are uninsured," Mercado said. "It's a hardworking population. Unfortunately, they cannot afford the premiums. And that's really what this law is all about. It's about making insurance more affordable."

Much of the relief that the Affordable Care Act would bring to the people served by Mercado's group would be through expanding Medicaid eligibility. And while the impact of Thursday's ruling on that part of the law was still unclear, the feeling at Hispanic Health Initiatives was: This was a win.

And, yes, that is in Florida. With this single act I think Romney is betting that he does not need the Hispanic vote. Well, as a Hispanic I was not going to vote for him, but just before this I was of the mind that Romney becoming president was not going to be so bad compared to Bush the lesser, now I see that I will have to contribute to make sure Obama wins.

[New Deal Democrat]

President Obama has made mistakes, but he has the right intentions. Romney's proposals will certainly increase the national debt. They are likely to increase unemployment as well.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by SaharaTea

Obama. There are certainly arguments against giving him a second term; however, I have never seen this kind of all-consuming hatred and unanimous opposition from an opposing party before. It disgusts me. Considering what he's been up against and the mess he inherited, he's done a decent job. No way in hell would I consider voting for a Republican the way the party stands now.

This again. Against different opposition there might be a case for voting him out, but in this contest he is clearly the best man.

And the GOP really has become loathsome, no? Hate seems to be their agenda, hate the president, hate democrats, hate liberals, hate everything they do even if it is the GOP's idea. And they combine this with anti-intellectualism. It is a disastrous combination if it succeeds- effectively a license to be stupid, evil and powerful all at once. Obama is not perfect but he does seem to be influenceable via facts, and evidences desire to serve the best interests of the American people as a whole.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

This again. Against different opposition there might be a case for voting him out . . .

Only if it came from his left.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Cyberhwk

Obama. It has nothing to do with him or Mitt Romney and everything to do with the idea that, if such misinformation as has been thrown about over the past 4 years ends up being proven as a genuinely effective tactic, then it is sure to be embraced over and over again by both sides. And how do we run an effective government going forward if that is the case?

That is more-or-less my reaction to the "What would be the negative effects of banning pornography?" currently running in GD, namely "It would encourage more stupidity in future."

[BrainGlutton]

OK, here's one more reason why Romney should not be our next POTUS.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mitt Romney's tax plan would provide large tax cuts to the very wealthy, while increasing the tax burden on the lower and middle classes, according to a study released Wednesday.

The report -- produced by researchers at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center -- illustrates just how difficult it would be to recoup government revenue lost under Romney's plan.

[IceQube]

Originally Posted by otternell

Again, they side with corporations over people.

Oxymoron: corporations are people.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by IceQube

Oxymoron: corporations are people.

No, they aren't. Reality trumps law.

[IceQube]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No, they aren't. Reality trumps law.

Whoosh

[adaher]

Romney. there is little Obama hasn't accomplished that he couldn't have accomplished just by staying in the Senate. As an executive, as a manager, he is as bad as GWB. He is also as unprincipled, never ceasing to surprise me with new ways to be cynical.

There are a lot of things wrong with Mitt Romney, you all know what they are and I'm sure you'll be glad to recite the list again. But this country needs someone capable, with a record of success in government and the private sector. And someone who believes in professionalism in the public sector, not patronage. And frankly, we need someone to lead. I don't know if Romney's up to the job, but I know Obama is not. two straight unserious budgets rejected unanimously. It's one of the most basic jobs of the Presidency, submitting a realistic and serious budget that makes tough choices and sets priorities, and this President has steadfastly refused to do that. I figure even if Romney doesn't have the guts, he'll at least let Congressional Republicans implement the Ryan plan, which cuts the deficit by $5 trillion over 10 years.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by adaher

.... the Ryan plan, which cuts the deficit by $5 trillion over 10 years.

Cite?

Not even Paul Ryan makes that claim.

[adaher]

Actually, Ryan claims $6 trillion:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...19046120110405

I'm having trouble finding the CBO's bottom line estimate of Ryans' deficit reduction compared to the alternative baseline scenario, but this is what his budget plan does:

CBO calculates that, under the specified paths, federal revenues and spending would evolve as follows:

Revenues—from 15½ percent of GDP in 2011 to 19 percent in both 2030 and 2050;
Medicare—from 3¼ percent of GDP in 2011 to 4¼ percent in 2030 and 4¾ percent in 2050;
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—from 2 percent of GDP in 2011 to 1¼ percent in 2030 and 1 percent in 2050;
Social Security—from 4¾ percent of GDP in 2011 to 6 percent in both 2030 and 2050; and
Other mandatory spending and all discretionary spending—from 12½ percent of GDP in 2011 to 5¾ percent in 2030 and 3¾ percent in 2050.

Under those paths for revenues and spending, federal debt held by the public would be 53 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2030 and 10 percent at the end of fiscal year 2050.



Tough choices. Can the President match that or even come close?

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by adaher

Actually, Ryan claims $6 trillion:

You may want to reread your own cite. Ryan does not claim his plan will reduce the deficit by 6 trillion.

A plan that makes 6 trillion in cuts is not the same as a plan that reduces the deficit by 6 trillion.

[adaher]

His plan also increases revenue, from 15% of GDP to 19%. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if his plan cuts spending by $6 trillion, how is that not $6 trillion in deficit reduction is revenues are increasing?

[adaher]

The Obama budget increases spending and taxes while running large deficits as far as the eye can see. it keeps spending at permanently high levels, near 24% of GDP. The Ryan budget cuts spending back to historical levels and gets us back to sustainability.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/...e-ryan-budget/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86234429/C...12-Budget-Plan

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43083

In addition, the CBO says the Obama budget reduces economic growth in the long term, while Ryan's plan increases economic growth:


http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...h-in-long-term

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by adaher

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if his plan cuts spending by $6 trillion, how is that not $6 trillion in deficit reduction is revenues are increasing?

It may be a semantic point. One cannot reduce a deficit to below zero, it becomes a surplus.

[adaher]

The ten year deficit is $9-10 trillion, so $6 trillion in cuts gets it down to $3-4 trillion.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by adaher

His plan also increases revenue, from 15% of GDP to 19%. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if his plan cuts spending by $6 trillion, how is that not $6 trillion in deficit reduction is revenues are increasing?

His plan doesn't cut total spending by 6 trillion. He proposes 6 trillion in cuts. Programs that are not being cut will maintain the same funding while other programs would see their budgets increase.


The problem with the Ryan Budget's CBO scoring is they weren't given free reign in scoring it. They had to make specific assumptions that may or may not prove to be true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rePS_blog.html


If we are deciding who should win based off budget plans so far I'd have to go with Obama because he's actually put one forward for people to look at.

The Romney/Ryan plan is still a complete mystery. If they want to cut spending I think they have an obligation to let us know exactly where they plan on cutting it from.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by adaher

Tough choices. Can the President match that or even come close?

To draw from the other thread; no, Obama does not have a written plan to wreck the US government. Score one for Ryan.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by Terr

Kiwis do but I don't have to and don't intend to. And if I find NZ to be disagreeable, I have a couple of other countries to go to.

Why waste time and money moving to a new country each and every time it finally dawns on you: "Shit!! You mean to tell me that THIS country has a government TOO?!?!?"

Relax! Spare yourself the constant jet-lag, and pocket the $500,000 you'll save in air-freight bills.

Just move to Somalia or North Korea straightaway.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by adaher

The Obama budget increases spending and taxes while running large deficits as far as the eye can see. it keeps spending at permanently high levels, near 24% of GDP. The Ryan budget cuts spending back to historical levels and gets us back to sustainability.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/...e-ryan-budget/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86234429/C...12-Budget-Plan

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43083

In addition, the CBO says the Obama budget reduces economic growth in the long term, while Ryan's plan increases economic growth:


http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...h-in-long-term

The wealthy elite and the corporations are swimming in money. We do not need "economic growth." What we NEED is a new relationship between the wealthy and the middle class.

[BrainGlutton]

Having watched the Republican National Convention this week, I have to say we're really fucked if Obama doesn't win this.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Having watched the Republican National Convention this week, I have to say we're really fucked if Obama doesn't win this.

You definitely will be.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Terr

You definitely will be.

Are you offering a conciliation prize?

[Elendil's Heir]

Get a room, you guys!

[BrainGlutton]

One more reason: Better by far to have a gaffe-machine like Biden than a lie-machine like Ryan a heartbeat away from the OO.

[adaher]

Biden's actually a pretty smart, serious guy, don't let the gaffes fool you.

And Ryan's very honest, at least by DC standards. Most of what the fact checkers dinged him on was baloney. If anything, the fact checkers got exposed during the Ryan controversy.

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by adaher

Biden's actually a pretty smart, serious guy, don't let the gaffes fool you.

And Ryan's very honest, at least by DC standards. Most of what the fact checkers dinged him on was baloney. If anything, the fact checkers got exposed during the Ryan controversy.

Your second statement is intriguing - would you be willing to start another thread on Ryan's acceptance speech and what the fact-checkers got wrong?

I agree that Biden is a smart and serious guy, but he's also gaffe-prone. On the smart/serious side, I started reading the speech he gave at Shanksville, PA this past September 11th. I was reminded that Biden lost his wife and daughter just after he was first elected to the Senate. Biden's speech on 09/11/12 was so searingly beautiful I could not finish reading it. On the gaffe side, there are many examples.

We now return to our thread, already in progress.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, Obama seems to have responded very presidentially to Hurricane Sandy. Romney, OTOH, had a canned-goods drive . . . the Red Cross does not need canned goods right now.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Having watched the Republican National Convention this week, I have to say we're really fucked if Obama doesn't win this.

And we're only less fucked if Obama wins it. "We" cannot win this election.