Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Obama vs Romney - POTUS 2012


Recommended Posts

"Infiltrated," even!

One might counter with a popular conservative platitude--"personal responsibility"--and insist that the socialists can't be blamed for what their self-described enemies commit to.

That, in brief, conservative is what conservative does.

"Permeated" might be a better word. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 872
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Permeated" might be a better word. What do you think?

Much better, seriously.

But the point remains: you wish to blame "socialists" for what conservatives do.

It's not the conservatives' fault that they behave as they do. It's the damn socialists' fault! :)

Ahh, the simple and perfect beauty of the convenient partisan tautology.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Permeated" might be a better word. What do you think?

Here's a better question, Pliny. What do you have against socialism?

Compare and contrast say, Finland with the United States with regard to debt and deficits and tell me which is more fiscally responsible. Then explain how you believe the Americans are leading happier lives than the Fins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current economic illiterate-in-chief actually said that Romney isn't qualified to think about the economy as a whole. This from the guy that's never had a job in the private sector in his life, and in terms of the economy, couldn't find his a$$ from a hole in the ground. :rolleyes:

You know, I never thought much of Obama. In the last election, I wanted McCain to win -- right up until he sold his soul and appointed Sara Palin as his running mate. I think Obama lacks gravitas, and would have done better to spend another decade or two in the Senate before trying for the presidency. I also think he's been a mediocrity as president.

Nevertheless, if I were to vote in the US election I'd go for him over Rommey by a country mile. There's just nothing about Romney that speaks of character, of integrity, or of ability. There's nothing there that says he gives a damn about anyone but himself. And his party is full of fruit-loops and wackos who think they're Daniel Boone on the frontier, and want to do away with government because they don't have a clue what government does for them. Those that do, don't care, because they have a lot of money, and don't care what happens to poorer people. I believe a lot of Republican supporters would, on seeing a newspaper with a headline saying "Two million more Americans starve to death" simply flip past it to the business news to eagerly check their investments. Too much of that party is heartless and soulless. And Romney is the perfect man to represent them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, if I were to vote in the US election I'd go for him over Rommey by a country mile.

Count that as another Canadian thinking about voting in American elections.

There's just nothing about Romney that speaks of character, of integrity, or of ability. There's nothing there that says he gives a damn about anyone but himself....

Sure...signing that universal health care law as governor was so selfish and really helps him now. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe a lot of Republican supporters would, on seeing a newspaper with a headline saying "Two million more Americans starve to death" simply flip past it to the business news to eagerly check their investments. Too much of that party is heartless and soulless. And Romney is the perfect man to represent them.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, if you look at how Romney governed in Massachusetts, it definitely doesn't paint the picture of a heartless and soulless person. The same things said about Romney were said about Harper before he became PM. In fact, I would consider Romney and Harper to be pretty close ideologically. Also, I don't consider promising government goodies to every single constituency as being very compassionate. But when one presides over an economy and puts in places policies that make it harder for business to thrive, and therefore hire people looking for work, I can understand why Obama makes such promises. However, I'm sure a lot of people will vote for the guy. And if he gets re-elected, his job killing policies will continue to keep people unemployed and looking for work, relying on government assitance to survive. But I guess that's "compassionion" eh? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be even funnier on the wannabe scale of funny.

It would. What I find even funnier, or I guess more interesting, is that he's a fairly strong supporter of Stephen Harper. But at the same time, states that he'd support Obama if he were living in America. Even though Obama and Harper are completely opposite ideologically, and Romney is much closer to what Stephen Harper is, and has governed as such in Massachusetts. It's kind of bizarre. Perhaps it's Obama's cult of personality.

Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though Obama and Harper are completely opposite ideologically, and Romney is much closer to what Stephen Harper is, and has governed as such in Massachusetts.

That is more a sign of your black-and-white, remedial interpretation of politics than reality. Obama and Romney and Harper are pretty much the same ideologically---that is, they all stand for the maintenance of the corporate status quo. But I invite you to provide some substance to your argument that Romney governed Massachusetts like Harper governs Canada. How?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, if you look at how Romney governed in Massachusetts, it definitely doesn't paint the picture of a heartless and soulless person. The same things said about Romney were said about Harper before he became PM. In fact, I would consider Romney and Harper to be pretty close ideologically.

Only in the sense that Harper, like Romney, will say whatever it takes to get into power, and then do whatever it takes to stay there. I think Romney is meaner, though, just based on his history, both the nasty bullying in schools, and his job in the cutthroat world of 80s private equity investments which said 'screw people, its the money that counts'. On top of that, his party is, as I said, soulless and full of haters, and since Romney will do whatever it takes to placate them that doesn't bode well for anyone else.

But when one presides over an economy and puts in places policies that make it harder for business to thrive, and therefore hire people looking for work, I can understand why Obama makes such promises.

You mean policies which don't allow the financial industry to run amok like Bush did? As far as I can see the major drags on the US economy right now are Europe, which is not something of Obama's creation, the huge debt run up by Bush, and by the need to keep the economy Bush almost destroyed from falling apart, and the trillions of dollars companies are sitting on rather than putting to work.

This is a fairly new wrinkle for the issue of corporate taxes. The theory, which I somewhat embrace, is that cutting taxes to corporations is good because they then use that money to expand and create jobs. But that might not be the case any more.

None of it is going into research and development, expansion of market share, new offices and factories or, crucially, on employing people. Nor is it going into tax revenues, since cash reserves – and some of the earnings that contribute to them – escape the taxman, giving companies an incentive to not invest.

Tear Down Those Mountains of Cash

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is more a sign of your black-and-white, remedial interpretation of politics than reality. Obama and Romney and Harper are pretty much the same ideologically---that is, they all stand for the maintenance of the corporate status quo. But I invite you to provide some substance to your argument that Romney governed Massachusetts like Harper governs Canada. How?

Romney didn't do a terrible job as governor of Massachusetts. But remember, that was Massachusetts. He was a reflection of what the people of that fairly liberal state, even Republican supporters, would accept. Put him in charge of a national party heavily influenced by the Tea Party, however, and you suddenly get him repudiating anything related to health care, or indeed, anything that helps the poor at all.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, look at the bright side...at least you are not thinking about voting in a foreign election!

That would be desperate.

And you're still running your fingers about things you know nothing about. Do you know that Argus doesn't have American citizenship or are you just assuming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you're still running your fingers about things you know nothing about. Do you know that Argus doesn't have American citizenship or are you just assuming?

It doesn't matter because even if he did, my American wannabe jokes still work.

Isn't it good enough to "just be" a Canadian citizen? Too much Michael Ignatieff, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It'll be interesting to see how the Republicans try to convince lower and middle-class Americans that Romney tax plan is a great idea.

Analysts say it isn't a great idea, unless you happen to be wealthy. The idea is that tax cuts will produce economic benefits that will produce higher revenue that will pay for the tax cuts. But the problem, according to the study, is that (a) "reasonable models would show that these tax changes would have little effect on growth" and (B)"even with implausibly large growth effects, revenue neutrality would still require large reductions in tax expenditures and would likely result in a net tax increase for lower- and middle-income households and tax cuts for high-income households." (both statements from page 2.)

"Large reductions in tax expenditures" is a key phrase. "Tax expenditures" sounds cold and clinical. But what it means is cutting things like the child tax credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit (which helps people with low-paying jobs make ends meet instead of going on welfare), tax breaks for education, tax breaks for healthcare coverage.

The wealthy will not escape Romney's tax-expenditure cuts, as he has also talked about eliminating tax-credits for mortgages on second homes. :rolleyes:

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would. What I find even funnier, or I guess more interesting, is that he's a fairly strong supporter of Stephen Harper. But at the same time, states that he'd support Obama if he were living in America. Even though Obama and Harper are completely opposite ideologically, and Romney is much closer to what Stephen Harper is, and has governed as such in Massachusetts. It's kind of bizarre. Perhaps it's Obama's cult of personality.

I have no qualms at all voting for Harper, but voting for the Republican party in the US would be quite distasteful for me (as would voting for the democrats). I cannot support a party that wants to supplant science with religious dogma or give the state the power to enslave people's bodily functions to the needs of others. Harper and his party do not promote creationism or banning abortion, Romney and his party do. Major major differences.

In terms of economics, Romney and Harper are quite close, and of course the economy is the largest election issue, but the economic policies of America will change hardly at all regardless of who is president anyway. Congress holds the power there.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an interesting article in a newspaper how the Republicans keep on banging on about the states' rights and federal infringement of those rights. "Leave the states alone" is the campaign-motto of many republicans.

However, when it comes to issues such as abortion and gay marriage it is the very same republicans who demand that the federal government must prohibit such horrendous things from happening anywhere, no matter what the states think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an interesting article in a newspaper how the Republicans keep on banging on about the states' rights and federal infringement of those rights. "Leave the states alone" is the campaign-motto of many republicans.

However, when it comes to issues such as abortion and gay marriage it is the very same republicans who demand that the federal government must prohibit such horrendous things from happening anywhere, no matter what the states think.

Blatant hypocrisy is nothing new for republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...