Politics 2012 USA Presidential Elections

[Josef]

Ok, this is a general thread to share your thoughts on the Presidential elections in the USA coming up in November. The first debate was last night. According to most media Mitt Romney won the debate, even though Barack Obama was leading in the polls before the debate.

Who do you think will win? And if you have other questions on how each will lead the "free world". Also an interesting topic was why other candidates were not in the debate like Gary Johnson, since the debates are made by the Republicans and Democrats only.

Discuss.

 

[Akainu]

So Mitt Romney "won" the debate according to a poll after the debate that should reflect the general populace, just how?
I couldn't stay up to watch it and since have only seen parts of it, but it seems to me that the only thing that matters is how aggressive and vigorous the candidates are? The message they have is lost in their own lies and promises sadly, but composure and calm is something Obama had more of imo. I don't know if it's strategy to lay low at least for now, but even if that is the case, it seems lost.

So who will win 2012? Does it matter much? America doesn't exactly have a free hand to shape things at the moment and probably will concentrate on itself for a while. At least it should.

 

[kkck]

Well, if we believe the media the Romney won however I would question just what exactly is it that decided who won. What exactly where the paremeters for who would win? Seeing what the media says it seems the winner of the debate would be whoever remained most confident and passionate or who made the other stutter more or even get angry. Under those parameters then perhaps romney won (I can't say I saw the debate, I just read a bunch of articles about it though) however there is the consideration that deciding a debate winner under those parameters is so gargantuan stupid, so mind bogglingly moronic, so utterly nonsensical that it should be plain insulting to each and every one of us. Was there a jury during the debate? Was there someone who could objectively decide who won? Was there a point where one of the debaters simply couldn't answer coherently to what the other said? How could it be argued someone won if parameters to decide a winner weren't there to begin with? In this regard all that will matter is the impact of what was said during the "debate" on people which is something that will perhaps reflect on the polls if Romney keeps "winning".

 

[synapse]

Well as expected the debate was stupid and mind numbing....but I think Romney made better counters and was more eager to win arguments.

Frankly I don't like Obama's "You owe me air time you little mortal" attitude...

 

[Zehahaha]

Meh this is ridiculous... Without bashing the US, but the whole two parties system thing is beyond fucked up : if not a Democrat, then a Republican, and vice versa, it's like a vicious circle, but what I find surprisind is how a lot of Americans don't seem to realize that and are stuck with these two parties, that's for one. Other thing is lobbying and shit which I find ridiculous too... Well, even tho it is ridiculous, it is still x100 time better than my country tho

Concerning the elections, I think Obama will win... I don't think Romney would win, the Bain Capital thing, and the 47% thing too, if Obama bring these two subjects in the next debate, Romney can't do shit, as for the first debate, I don't see how Romney won, the guy weeks ago was saying completely different things than what he said in this debate, I'd be rather surprised if Americans didn't notice that

And can't say Obama has it better either, he can't do much about the economy as the main problem is more deeper than debts and unemployement, it is simply an aspect that economists do know about it, but never done anything for it : Greed. What destroyed the economy was simply too much Greed...

 

[kkck]

Even with the problems romney has had I do think he has an honest shot at it. For one thing the fact is that obama did not fix the crisis and romney can always bring that up. It doesn't matter if things are better than 3 years ago, that will still be something romney can use. As for him not being able to say anything about those things, I doubt it. If those things are that big issues here then odds are he has prepared a number of things to say on the matter. Romney for some reason somehow came up on top of things during the last debate (even though there was no clear way for either of them to win or lose) so if he keeps it up he could gain some support. Another consideration is that the voting system in the US is weird enough that it is perfectly plausible to win without having a majority (I recall something of the sort happening with bush).

To be completely honest I myself am not a fan of either party. Both parties have things that to me make sense while at the same time both of them have things which IMO make both of them equally insane. I don't find either of them to be at least sane enough for it to be worth it to vote for it so that the other doesn't win either.....

 

[Josef]

Well, to put it simply, the polls changed after the debate. It can be understood since mostly the public is largely effected by the media, not saying all, but what I saying is that those that do watch it are really effected by it. I watch both sides of the coin, the left ideologies of Obama and the right ideologies of Romney, fall in the center always in the debates. That confuses voters. For example the social issues were good for a primary in either party to get the base riled up. War is also a very used toll to get bases riled up. On the center stage in the general election things are different. Most do not even vote, so whatever they catch on TV or read on the Internet, or papers will probably decide their view. In the end moments matter, but some ISSUES are HUGE, like Iran and the Economy. But they fade away to zingers and moments.

Of course another thing I brought up in my expose was something that Zehahaha touched a bit, and that was the two party system, which all hate, it is just so cartoonish, and for America it is even worst. The most democratic country looks like my country at that point, my post-communism, transition, country that has been in Capitalism and Democracy for 20 years while America has been at it for a long, long, long time! It is ridiculous, so why are Gary Johnson and Jill Stein excluded, well:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...-from-debates-over-exclusion-of-gary-johnson-

 

[synapse]

Well thats more analysis than is required, nobody really thinks that much in america. Romney will win this election because of really simple reasons. People forget that half of america is still racist.

Racism is why Obama beat Mccain by only 7%....considering it was after the war, the bad economy, Mccain was old as hell, Obama was a fresh candidate full of hope...etc...all he could get was 7%...and he was more immune to attack because he was fresh..

Now everything is the other way around. Simple. Obama will lose.

I am sorry complaining about a two party system is not an option when the average citizen wants to have nothing to do with Government issues or knows nothing about the legislative process. Its don't ask don't tell as far as politics is concerned in america.

 

[Imperium]

Do you seriously think half the population of the United states is racist? Or are you exaggerating to prove a point?

 

[earthforge]

More like no candidate could ever be allowed to do what is necessary for a faster recovery. Because if they do a lot of things fast, they'll step on a lot of interest groups' toes and be criticized as an idealist reformer (see Elizabeth Warren's work). Plus if a politician gets that far, they usually have numerous interest groups already up their butt.

Politically, there's very little difference in policies that the candidates support. You have to look at where their allegiance lies. Obama's lies with upper echelons, parts of Wallstreet, some union connections, etc. Romney's lies with the upper middle class and above. He also targets the pervasive fear that "your hard-earned money is going to welfare queens and hippies". I'm pretty angry with the upper middle class for feeling above helping the less fortunate (it becomes a battle of "you can't make me give my money!" when it should be obvious by the Golden Rule), so that sets my allegiance with Obama who is marginally better.

 

[kkck]

Well, based on my own experience I would argue that not only half of the US but a decently large part of the world is at large still racist. Racism does not necessarily mean you think a race in particular is inferior, it is something complicated which can take much more subtle forms.

It is true that obama has lost his wow factor for being the first black president though(and I also believe that influenced his win last time). Even then, perhaps more important was that the republicans didn't really try last time, they knew they were already seen in a bad light and thus had a relatively weak candidate. Romney is a much better candidate, a better public speaker and overall more charismatic than Mccain was. I think that at the moment things are basically even, its not quite the same as four years ago when everyone correctly thought obama was a shoe in for president.

 

[synapse]

Do you seriously think half the population of the United states is racist? Or are you exaggerating to prove a point?

Yes, the so called heartland states are openly racist, you'd be shocked at the things they say. I don't know what form racism will take in the present generation though. You should look at some of the subliminal ads the GOP runs in those states.

More like no candidate could ever be allowed to do what is necessary for a faster recovery. Because if they do a lot of things fast, they'll step on a lot of interest groups' toes and be criticized as an idealist reformer (see Elizabeth Warren's work). Plus if a politician gets that far, they usually have numerous interest groups already up their butt.
Politically, there's very little difference in policies that the candidates support. You have to look at where their allegiance lies. Obama's lies with upper echelons, parts of Wallstreet, some union connections, etc. Romney's lies with the upper middle class and above. He also targets the pervasive fear that "your hard-earned money is going to welfare queens and hippies". I'm pretty angry with the upper middle class for feeling above helping the less fortunate (it becomes a battle of "you can't make me give my money!" when it should be obvious by the Golden Rule), so that sets my allegiance with Obama who is marginally better.

Agree with the first part. But I know a lot of people on welfare, and they are just lazy pricks. Just sick people who take life for granted. I am for minimizing welfare.

Well, based on my own experience I would argue that not only half of the US but a decently large part of the world is at large still racist. Racism does not necessarily mean you think a race in particular is inferior, it is something complicated which can take much more subtle forms.

It is true that obama has lost his wow factor for being the first black president though(and I also believe that influenced his win last time). Even then, perhaps more important was that the republicans didn't really try last time, they knew they were already seen in a bad light and thus had a relatively weak candidate. Romney is a much better candidate, a better public speaker and overall more charismatic than Mccain was. I think that at the moment things are basically even, its not quite the same as four years ago when everyone correctly thought obama was a shoe in for president.

Yea, the irrational "first black president", "great unifier" factors are all gone. Even usually means the GOP will win cuz they are good at winning, just not governing. The debate performance really didn't help.

 

[Josef]

If the election is about money Romney wins. Mostly taxes, since I think voters really value that, whats in it for me, is the key question. If the election is about foreign policy Obama wins, though I am not sure, but he acts like he will not attack Iran when he might do just that. So yeah, if it is about domestic stuff, Romney will win, since he offers more in that category. Either way it is theater, that can be summed up in these few issues.^^

So the second debate is questions form auditorium right? And what about the VP debate who so you think will win?

 

[Drmke]

Ryan will probably win the VP debate. I'm sure Ryan will lie through his teeth, but Biden is an idiot.

 

[synapse]

If the election is about money Romney wins. Mostly taxes, since I think voters really value that, whats in it for me, is the key question. If the election is about foreign policy Obama wins, though I am not sure, but he acts like he will not attack Iran when he might do just that. So yeah, if it is about domestic stuff, Romney will win, since he offers more in that category. Either way it is theater, that can be summed up in these few issues.^^

So the second debate is questions form auditorium right? And what about the VP debate who so you think will win?

Ah, the VP debates! Paul Ryan seems to be good with cliches and truisms aimed at getting applause. Biden on the other hand seems to lack parts of his brain...so....I am guessing Ryan will win.

 

[Josef]

That will be two in a row for the Republicans, I think Obama has to really do great in the last two debates, if Ryan wins this one. Too many gaffes from Biden might even be too much for Obama to recover.

Also I think Gary Johnson filed a lawsuit to be in the second debate, I do not think he will be though ...

 

[earthforge]

Agree with the first part. But I know a lot of people on welfare, and they are just lazy pricks. Just sick people who take life for granted. I am for minimizing welfare.

Yet how can you judge everyone in the program from the small group you know? There will always be abuses of such programs. The only way to minimize the abuse is not by restricting access (because abusers will find ways to qualify no matter what) but addressing what makes living off of welfare sustainable.

Having lived through 8 years of Bush and the resulting economic collapse, gotta disagree on "the GOP is good at governing".

The opinions on the debate really bother me. I think Obama's demeanor was fine. He could've improved on getting to the point, but that's the usual from an academic professor. Meanwhile, people appreciated Romney working people up and sometimes unashamedly lying? I find it odd that people want a bloody debate, when I only saw one person who was calm enough to take on the issues.

There's also a persistent belief that "Mitt will work for me". Consistently I've seen this attitude among Romney supporters. Now, it's not like I haven't seen this before (Obama, McCain.) But when Mitt's positions on social programs are brought up (e.g. banning abortions & birth control), his supporters go "oh no, he won't do that, he's just saying that to get votes, [because he is me]". It's ironic, because his position of social programs links to his position on the economy. Following on the example of abortion, Romney passionately argued that only states should have a say in health insurance. Therein lies the rub - certain states practically publicly shame women who require abortions. Allowing states to take control of what is legal for health proceedings is a shortcut to accepting discrimination that has already been demonstrated by irresponsible states.

It's all a neatly woven tapestry. Mitt has declared 47% of Americans are "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement".

His supporters, who generally agree with the misleading statistic, are often offended at this anonymous group of 47% of the population who are "living on their dime". There's this notion of "I am entitled to pick who and what I pay for". So I should pay for hard-working but down on their luck people (realize how ambiguous this statement is?) and not lazy druggie slobs. But how do you qualify this? Heck, is there a difference?

 

[synapse]

Yet how can you judge everyone in the program from the small group you know? There will always be abuses of such programs. The only way to minimize the abuse is not by restricting access (because abusers will find ways to qualify no matter what) but addressing what makes living off of welfare sustainable.

Having lived through 8 years of Bush and the resulting economic collapse, gotta disagree on "the GOP is good at governing".

The opinions on the debate really bother me. I think Obama's demeanor was fine. He could've improved on getting to the point, but that's the usual from an academic professor. Meanwhile, people appreciated Romney working people up and sometimes unashamedly lying? I find it odd that people want a bloody debate, when I only saw one person who was calm enough to take on the issues.

There's also a persistent belief that "Mitt will work for me". Consistently I've seen this attitude among Romney supporters. Now, it's not like I haven't seen this before (Obama, McCain.) But when Mitt's positions on social programs are brought up (e.g. banning abortions & birth control), his supporters go "oh no, he won't do that, he's just saying that to get votes, [because he is me]". It's ironic, because his position of social programs links to his position on the economy. Following on the example of abortion, Romney passionately argued that only states should have a say in health insurance. Therein lies the rub - certain states practically publicly shame women who require abortions. Allowing states to take control of what is legal for health proceedings is a shortcut to accepting discrimination that has already been demonstrated by irresponsible states.

It's all a neatly woven tapestry. Mitt has declared 47% of Americans are "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement".

His supporters, who generally agree with the misleading statistic, are often offended at this anonymous group of 47% of the population who are "living on their dime". There's this notion of "I am entitled to pick who and what I pay for". So I should pay for hard-working but down on their luck people (realize how ambiguous this statement is?) and not lazy druggie slobs. But how do you qualify this? Heck, is there a difference?

nope didnt say good at governing

Even usually means the GOP will win cuz they are good at winning, just not governing. The debate performance really didn't help.

what makes living off welfare sustainable? lack of ambition? lack of responsibility? immunity to an inferior quality of life? How can these things be fixed?

Agreed, a calm demeanor is required to make good decisions. But Obama did not exemplify that in the debate, he just stopped with the calm demeanor. That he can make good decisions as a result is mere speculation for now.

On the other hand Romney showed enthusiasm, something basic you look for in job interviews.

"I am entitled to pick who and what I pay for" - unfortunately this message will connect with a lot of people, because everyone, even some slackers think this way. So the 47-gate will not be as damaging as it sounds.

GOP is bad for women, no doubt.

 

[kkck]

I wouldn't go as far as saying that GOP are simply bad at governing. Does that make sense? I will admit I find plenty of stuff they say or do outright insane (gun control views and their take on immigrants mostly) however at different times in history they have had their great leaders who were exactly what the country needed at the time. Bush is a controversial figure however he did deal with stuff which was extremely complicated and even then much of the stuff which contributed and perhaps even caused the economic crisis can be traced to clinton's administration (who as far as I understand even republicans thought was a good president). IMO the issue here is not about republicans or democrats being objectively good or bad. That's just politics. To me the issue would be about who exactly is the president the country needed at that particular time under their particular circumstances.

Now, IMHO obama is not a bad president however the issue lies in that he was ultimately not the president the country needed (Mccain certainly was not it either though). I don't think he has done enough for the whole debt control thing which has the world on its toes. I can't say I have an opinion on whether Romney is the president the US needs although perhaps I would choose him just to have someone different from obama and see what happens (perhaps this view is heavily influenced by me being reasonably (perhaps heavily) individualistic and dislike the idea of large governments though).

 

[synapse]

I wouldn't go as far as saying that GOP are simply bad at governing. Does that make sense? I will admit I find plenty of stuff they say or do outright insane (gun control views and their take on immigrants mostly) however at different times in history they have had their great leaders who were exactly what the country needed at the time. Bush is a controversial figure however he did deal with stuff which was extremely complicated and even then much of the stuff which contributed and perhaps even caused the economic crisis can be traced to clinton's administration (who as far as I understand even republicans thought was a good president). IMO the issue here is not about republicans or democrats being objectively good or bad. That's just politics. To me the issue would be about who exactly is the president the country needed at that particular time under their particular circumstances.

Now, IMHO obama is not a bad president however the issue lies in that he was ultimately not the president the country needed (Mccain certainly was not it either though). I don't think he has done enough for the whole debt control thing which has the world on its toes. I can't say I have an opinion on whether Romney is the president the US needs although perhaps I would choose him just to have someone different from obama and see what happens (perhaps this view is heavily influenced by me being reasonably (perhaps heavily) individualistic and dislike the idea of large governments though).

The GOP is blunt in terms of governing strategy and not updated or sensitized to a changed world. Still on tax cuts and trickle down.

How did the clinton terms cause the crisis? This is the first time I am hearing this. I have mixed opinions about the Bush terms. But he is simply not a leader, just a lay person. He shouldn't have been President.

Right now we need democrats in the house if you wanna reign in the debt. We would also do well to tax the top 5%. While I personally despise selective taxation, it is needed now to avoid civil unrest and economic implosion. If we hold on to the ideal of individualism now, that is all we will be left with. Sad but true. Such a situation needs to be avoided another time.

And frankly their Bible waving is embarrassing and puts us in the same category as Iran. I thought America was about freedom and here you have these people making election arguments on personal choices (abortion, gays etc). This is a more recent perversion the GOP has acquired.