Obama vs. Romney - Round 3

[Axeman33]

I don't doubt that Canadians know a lot about it. I never said they don't. If you read my previous posts you'll see that I clearly said that. All I'm saying is there are certain things that are IMPOSSIBLE to understand unless it's a part of your every day life.

Listen, guys, I'm not trying to play the whole America vs. Canada game right now. My statement doesn't apply to just politics. It's true in lots of things. Hockey is a decent example, actually. I love hockey and have played it all my life. But we all know it's not as big of a part of American culture as it is a part of Canadian culture. Do I know that's the case in Canada? Yea, I do. But do I actually experience it-- can I put an explicit feeling to what it means? No, I can't. But that doesn't mean I know any less about hockey than Canadians do. Just like Canadians don't know any less about American politics then Americans. It's just experienced differently.

I can totally appreciate that statement. All I was trying to say (and wasnt trying to be rude at all in my statement) is that you would be surprised how much Canadians know about American politics. A lot of that comes from the fact that American politics shape our politics. Its sad but true. For that reason "some" Canadians have a vested interest in American politics and follow them quite closely.

[Chili con Carne]

1. Lie to get into office.
2. Do what you feel is best for the country

Solid post - this is politics. I would add in between 1 and 2 the following:

1b. Raise money for future elections
1c. Pay back the people who gave you money to get elected the first time through various means (tax breaks, new policy/legislation)
1d. Get re-elected

I am a lobbyist and policy advisor by trade (won't provide any further details!) and Pengwin is bang on - platforms are designed purely to win votes (with the very rare exception where a politician's/party's ideals happen to line up with public sentiment, and even then the whole truth is never revealed up front).

[Ross The Boss Palmer]

Solid post - this is politics. I would add in between 1 and 2 the following:

1b. Raise money for future elections
1c. Pay back the people who gave you money to get elected the first time through various means (tax breaks, new policy/legislation)
1d. Get re-elected

I am a lobbyist and policy advisor by trade (won't provide any further details!) and Pengwin is bang on - platforms are designed purely to win votes (with the very rare exception where a politician's/party's ideals happen to line up with public sentiment, and even then the whole truth is never revealed up front).

So you're Michael Moore, eh?! Explains Canadian Bacon.

[Chili con Carne]

So you're Michael Moore, eh?! Explains Canadian Bacon.

We have ways of making you pronounce the letter "O", pal.

[Bomm Bastic]

I honestly believe that Obama is the greatest POTUS since Clinton. Sadly, as we saw tonight, the path to the Presidency seems to be more based on bashing the other guy and saying how bad he would be, rather than focussing on the good that you would bring to the Oval Office.

Rylant

Agreed.

Obama set the bar too high with his Hope campaign, fine. But he managed to bring the US back from the brink of a cliff, when he inherited the most f-ed up environment (politically, economically, and internationally) a guy thought.

Nutshell, his only mistake during his last campaign was underestimating the sheer enormity of the hole Bush dug.

Oh and btw...Bush II was a federalist not a conservative so I would appreciate if everyone would learn the f-ing difference and quit calling him a conservative. Bush was about as conservative as Charlie Sheen on a bender.

Romney is - despite his myriad a masks - is a theocon fundementalist. Make no mistake about that, no matter how many times he tries to steal Obama's centrist policies (unless were talking about his alter ego that reared during the primaries when he was Romney the farther right then Santorum nominee).

Romney lies. And not in the Well all politicians lie vein. All politicians avoid telling the full truth...yes.

Romney lies.

Romney will say anything to win a debate point. That's always been his modus operandi. That's why you see him in Detroit bragging about how important the auto industry is and then in Texas declares Obama's nanny state is best exemplified by the auto bailouts.

He's not merely modifying his position, nor evolving an aged one. He adopts altogether new positions as his own, depending on his crowd.

If you want specifics, I might be inclined to provide if I thought you genuinely desired them to shape your opinion.

Obama may not be perfect, but he has accomplished a lot in a very brief amount of time. I think not voting for him because he didn't fix everything perfectly in four years that Bush had eight to f-up, is a ridiculous position.

[doulos]

Seriously. They should play 1 game of winner takes all NHL13 against each other and donate all of their campaign funds to charity.

The winner then gets to spin a random wheel on every decision to decide how to run the government.

The world would be a massively better place for it. Randomness would do a better job of running a country than politicians.

[Bomm Bastic]

Randomness would do a better job of running a country than politicians.

You're probably right, sadly.

[Dakkster]

No, it's not. It's true. Hate to break it to ya, dakks. If you don't live in America then you can't possibly understand all of the trickle-down effects of a new administration. They are social and economical. Like I said, it's nothing personal, but that's just how things work. It's just not possible to look at it in the same perspective if it doesn't apply to you. Plus, I could say the same about your know-it-all posts. You say Obama has been helping all of the "little guys". You think so, huh? Haha. All he does is make more "little guys". But I'm not here to have a personal debate on politics with you. To each his own. Although I don't really think you know what you're talking about when reading through what you've previously said. But, like anyone's, I respect your opinion.

Blayze-

1. I'm not going to cite individual things that people have said that I feel demonstrate a "misunderstanding". That would come across as a bit too personal. But, a lot of the opinions people have shared about the two candidates are silly. They are both incredibly smart, they are great fundraisers, good businessmen, and are where they are for a reason. That doesn't mean either is an ideal President, though. And, also, people are reading into the debating process too much. It's a game. They have answers lined up in their heads and purposely dance around questions and ignore giving solid numbers. That's just part of the process. Another reason why I think said process is stupid. It's not fair that these BS conversations are going to determine who the Independents vote for, which could effectively decide who's President.

2. I think Obama is a terrible President because he's weakening foreign affairs, and KILLING small businesses. I could go on but don't really feel like getting into it.

3. I think Romney will be a terrible replacement because he just doesn't seem to have clear-cut goals and I worry that he will make a lot of lateral moves. That being said, I think he's well-suited to address the important issues at hand.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't live in a vacuum. I'd be willing to be that I've read/watched more American politics/economics literature and reporting over the last four years than you have. Add to that plenty of diverse American friends that I talk to regularly and you are just dead ****ing wrong. There's just nothing more to say about it. Your statement is laughable to the extreme and I don't see why I should engage in anything else you say, because it's just silly bullshit.

[Rylant]

I think Obama is a terrible President because he's weakening foreign affairs, and KILLING small businesses.

If you think Obama is killing small business, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction that Romney would bring to small business.

Rylant

[27Blue]

1. Lie to get into office.
2. Do what you feel is best for the country.
.

. I would add in between 1 and 2 the following:

1b. Raise money for future elections
1c. Pay back the people who gave you money to get elected the first time through various means (tax breaks, new policy/legislation)
1d. Get re-elected

this is modern politics, all levels, and more pronounced in america.
watch season three and four of the wire and you get an honest look at local government in action, or should that be inaction...
you actually get to see all of these steps from 1a to 1d unfold through the story and you also see that step 2 takes a backseat and is often not even possible...

[Dakkster]

You know... you don't have to be a dick all the time.
It's like this in every thread I see you in.

I really don't take too kindly to the "good thinking there" bit.

Presidential candidates are going to do & say whatever they feel needs to be said to get elected. Romney certainly has some cuts planned that many people won't take too kindly to. If he announces them now, he'd likely lose enough fringe votes to lose the election. THAT... is politics. THAT... is why you won't see a full budget that "makes sense".

In 2008, one of Obama's main running points was about how he was going to pull all the troops out of Iraq within a year of being elected. Remember that. Did they have a plan for that that they would have been willing to lay out? No. Why? Because no sane commander-in-chief is going to commit to a one year timeline for something as intensive as the Iraq situation. Sure enough, Obama gets elected and leaves the troops in Iraq to finish their job. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the last troops pulled out of Iraq in December 2011. So did Obama get them out by in one year? Nope, 2011.

1. Lie to get into office.
2. Do what you feel is best for the country.

So don't give us this crappy "can't even present his budget numbers"... every politician plays that game.

Obama... Romney... no difference in election strategy.

Say what you need to say to get elected.
Enact your plan later.

Boo ****ing hoo. If you don't want "good thinking there" comments, then don't post ridiculously stupid stuff as your main argument for Romney. You knew it was a controversial subject before you posted and you even said so yourself. The fact is that Romney hasn't presented a detailed budget yet, because that would show that everyone but the richest 5% will get ****ed in his economy. So if you're not a part of those 5% and you can't see through that transparent BS, you deserve to get called out on it. Romney talks about tax cuts, but since he refuses to close the two tax loopholes that rich people use the most (the carried interest and the estate tax loopholes), he HAS to put the squeeze on the middle and lower classes to pay for his 7 trillion in added costs that his budget calls for. Most independent and proper studies have come to that conclusion. Romney's so called "studies" that say that his budget will work aren't even studies. They are blog posts and shit put out by his own campaign advisors. VERY non-partisan analysis there, pal.

Again, don't spout idiotic shit and you won't get called on it.

Again, good thinking there.

And I'm not a dick all the time. Only when it's called for. Boo hoo.

[Dakkster]

Also, all the Americans who go all "Obama let me down, he didn't do enough!!!111" are extremely ignorant. Again, the man has enacted more positive change for regular people than any president since Lyndon Johnson. He WOULD have gotten even more done if it weren't for the fact that the Republicans in Congress made "OBAMA MUST FAIL!" a higher priority than fixing domestic problems. The Republicans have blocked several jobs bills that would have created at least four million jobs altogether.

[doulos]

Holy crap. Dakkientium is actually MICHELLE OBAMA!!

[cdubb]

I hate to break it to you, but you don't live in a vacuum.

I agree with that. The INSIDE JOB explains how the US gov't decided to let Lehman Brothers go into bankruptcy without warning any other international countries beforehand.

The laws in those countries (UK, France, etc) mean that once a company goes into bankruptcy, it's basically locked/frozen on the market. And this happened in the middle of the night, so ppl just woke up in the AM, found out about the bankruptcy, and anyone who had investments or assets with Lehman's could not access them and lost it all.

p.s. to continue my financial shenanigans rant (just saw the movie yesterday), the official (Henry Paulson - Secretary of the Treasury under Bush) who decided that Goldman Sachs should be paid BILLIONS of $$$ (12.9) in the AIG bailout was former CEO of said Goldman Sachs company.

[Bomm Bastic]

Holy crap. Dakkientium is actually MICHELLE OBAMA!!

Or Bill Clinton on 'roids. Which would tie in nicely to our other thread.