Obama vs. Romney - Round 3

[blayze]

Obama has enacted more change than any president since Lyndon Johnson and the vast majority of that has been for the little guy. There are plenty of sites that map out all of his decisions and campaign promises.

Agreed... he may sound like a broken record, and I can even understand how it can be perceived as a cop-out, but the truth is he really did inherit a complete cluster**** of a situation courtesy of the Bush administration's irresponsible fiscal policy as well as one of the worst global recessions since the Great Depression.

He is only now starting to undo Bush's 8 years of **** ups and given the hand he was dealt, I would say he has accomplished quite a bit.

The only area where I would fault Obama is that I don't think he understands the economy all that well (and as such I'm sure he defers a lot to his advisors in this area), and given the situation we're in, one could argue that the US is in most need of economic leadership right now. Having said that, if it's between Obama and Mitt "the used car salesman" Romney, I would still take Obama any day.

[bondon]

Look fellas, if you wanna know the details behind Romney's tax plans, all you have to do is click!

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

[Rylant]

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

[Fast Tony DeNiro]

I'm not huge into politics, but whenever someone starts going off about how Obama has done nothing I usually just show them this link.

http://whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

Agree with him or not, to say he's accomplished nothing is flat wrong.

EDIT: Hmm a swear filter that actually works on a forum, interesting. You can probably figure out what to replace the *'s with.

[Chili con Carne]

This will sound cynical (because it is) but the first rule of politics/running for office is to get elected, it does not matter how you do it. The second rule of politics is to raise money for your party. Well after that come the pet projects and trying to do what you believe is right (which is governed by your perspective).

There are a few politicians who break this mold, but the majority, regardless of party/stripe will follow this approach.

[cdubb]

You should watch documentary Inside Job. There in actuality is little difference in economic policies of Republicans vs Democrats.

Think you can watch if free here.
http://www.theotherschoolofeconomics.org/?p=2499

Basically all the presidential economic advisors / federal reserve chairman appointed by past presidents (Regan, Clinton, Bush, Obama) are the same recycled (1) former CEOs of Merrill Lynch/Goldman Sachs types who caused the financial collapse, or (2) Economic/Business professors at Harvard/Columbia who are lucratively paid consultants of such companies.

They highlight how deregulation caused all the financial shenanigans, and how the country used by economists as the shining example of deregulation, Iceland, economically collapsed completely.

Top 5 guys at these companies were earning literally billions over 6 yr period.

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/201...nterest-policy

[Pengwin7]

I like Romney.
There. I said it.
Please don't NEG rep me.

(FWIW, I like Obama too... I'm just ready for a numbers-guy to have 4 years.)

[Ross The Boss Palmer]

You should watch documentary Inside Job. There in actuality is little difference in economic policies of Republicans vs Democrats.

Think you can watch if free here.
http://www.theotherschoolofeconomics.org/?p=2499

Basically all the presidential economics advisors / federal reserve chairman appointed by past presidents (Regan, Clinton, Bush, Obama) are the same recycled (1) former CEOs of Merrill Lynch/Goldman Sachs types who caused the financial collapse, or (2) Economic/Business professors at Harvard/Columbia who are lucratively paid consultants of such companies.

They highlight how deregulation caused all the financial shenanigans, and how the example country used by economists as the shining example of deregulation, Iceland, economically collapsed completely.

Top 5 guys at these companies were earning literally billions over 6 yr period.

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/201...nterest-policy

Your post reminds me of Plato's concept of the cave, and Shakespeare's quote "all the world is a stage". The American corporatocracy was very smart to avoid an NFL lockout, otherwise the colisseums would be burned to the ground and new Rome along with it. That would have made for a more interesting electoral process than present. Not much has changed since Egypt, and perhaps long before that.

How's that for some NHL lockout jibberish?! Sorry for the derailment. No NHL and no fantasy hockey make Ross go something something...

[blayze]

I am still shocked and somewhat disgusted by how people were so influenced by the "Change" and "Hope" campaign 4 years ago. I mean, every single young voter and african-american was voting for Obama because either he was a) younger, more hip than McCain or b) the first black candidate ever. It was pretty much just a popularity contest...

...Even the Americans you saw at his rallies probably didn't have a clue about what they were actually voting for.

Life is a popularity contest - always has been always will be. The most powerful men in history have always been guys who have been persuasive, charismatic and aggressive. It is not about how smart you are... if it were about intelligence, then guys like Einsten and Edison would have ruled the world.

In a way it makes sense... at the end of the day, power is about persuading people to your point of view (Steve Jobs is a fantastic example of this). You can be absolutely brilliant like Wozniak (the guy who invented the Mac), but if you have no personality or selling ability, you are just a puppet (ie: Wozniak). You will not convince world leaders to support your views... much less your own people. Granted, there's a minimum threshold that should be met in terms of intellectual horsepower, but given that Bush was elected (twice) I question whether even this matters.

I've personally always felt voters are swayed primarily by 2 things:

1) How CONFIDENT am I that this guy can lead a nation? This means the total package... his energy, charisma, intellect, integrity, competency. This is first and foremost.
-McCann for example, had NO PULSE. I literally could not muster the attention span to listen to this guy for more than 5 minutes... can you imagine him in a meeting of world leaders?
-This is where Obama excels - he presents well, he comes off as genuine, and he at least meets the minimum threshold of knowing his shit
-Other than economic issues, I get the impression Romney knows shit all about the other issues, and he covers up for this by flopping all over the place and being intentionally vague (ie: where's the money for his plan coming from?)

2) How bad is the current situation? How desperate are people for change (regardless of whether it's good or bad)? This worked in favour of Obama when he was initially elected, and now the same factor is working against him.

I think you would be shocked at how little the voting public actually knows about the actual issues... this does not drive their voting behaviour.

[Axeman33]

Life is a popularity contest - always has been always will be. The most powerful men in history have always been guys who have been persuasive, charismatic and aggressive. It is not about how smart you are... if it were about intelligence, then guys like Einsten and Edison would have ruled the world.

In a way it makes sense... at the end of the day, power is about persuading people to your point of view (Steve Jobs is a fantastic example of this). You can be absolutely brilliant like Wozniak (the guy who invented the Mac), but if you have no personality or selling ability, you are just a puppet (ie: Wozniak). You will not convince world leaders to support your views... much less your own people. Granted, there's a minimum threshold that should be met in terms of intellectual horsepower, but given that Bush was elected (twice) I question whether even this matters.

I've personally always felt voters are swayed primarily by 2 things:

1) How CONFIDENT am I that this guy can lead a nation? This means the total package... his energy, charisma, intellect, integrity, competency. This is first and foremost.
-McCann for example, had NO PULSE. I literally could not muster the attention span to listen to this guy for more than 5 minutes... can you imagine him in a meeting of world leaders?
-This is where Obama excels - he presents well, he comes off as genuine, and he at least meets the minimum threshold of knowing his shit
-Other than economic issues, I get the impression Romney knows shit all about the other issues, and he covers up for this by flopping all over the place and being intentionally vague (ie: where's the money for his plan coming from?)

I totally agree with you on this point.
2) How bad is the current situation? How desperate are people for change (regardless of whether it's good or bad)? This worked in favour of Obama when he was initially elected, and now the same factor is working against him.

I dont know if this is what is working against Obama, or the fact he seems to battle a heavy Republican Senate that shoots down most of his "change" ideas.

I think you would be shocked at how little the voting public actually knows about the actual issues... this does not drive their voting behaviour.

I think Obama will win the election but he is having a hard time doing his job when he constantly has to climb uphill on most of his reform changes. As long as theres a heavy Republican Senate, things are never going to get better down there.

[blayze]

I think Obama will win the election but he is having a hard time doing his job when he constantly has to climb uphill on most of his reform changes. As long as theres a heavy Republican Senate, things are never going to get better down there.

Yup, their entire 2 party system is ****ed. Makes no sense.

[Pengwin7]

Yup, their entire 2 party system is ****ed. Makes no sense.

LOL, yup.
From my 10-years+ now living in Atlanta, I can tell you that Americans are much more opinionated than anything I ever grew up with in Canada (southern Ontario).
I'd say 80% of the people I know are probably extremists (politically).

For this reason, people piss each other and a majority of people end up sliding WAY right, or WAY left.
You should see the Facebook monkey-poo-throwing party that goes on with folk down here.

My wife is WAY left... WAY... WAY... WAY left.
(I sit right in the middle.)

[AldoWeldon]

I have to say, there is an immense lack of understanding in this thread. If you don't live in America then you can't truly grasp how the political system works and how it affects the people here.

The truth is, 1. Obama has been a terrible President, 2. Romney would/will be a terrible replacement, and 3. The system is just bad, and this is a cycle that goes on every four years and will continue to do so. To try and analyze it is just a waste of time.

I personally just vote for whatever person I think is most likely to deal with the important issues at hand. I think that they are 1. improving the economy and 2. protecting that nation. If you ask me, the person most likely to address those issues is Romney. I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat. I don't care to classify myself in such a way. But Obama spews just as much BS as Mitt does, folks-- and he's set on turning the country into a so******t-esque nation that is reliant on government. Welfare, Obamacare, etc... it's too important to him, and it won't help the nation in the long run.

Another thing you need to understand is how the money works here. As long as Obama is President, the economy will continue to flounder. Why? Because the economy doesn't do well unless the big players (many people like to call it "old money") are investing. Under Obama, those people/companies/funds won't invest their money in things. When they don't invest, then the market doesn't grow. When the market doesn't grow, you can't create jobs and revenue. When you can't create jobs and revenue, the country loses money.

[Ross The Boss Palmer]

LOL, yup.
From my 10-years+ now living in Atlanta, I can tell you that Americans are much more opinionated than anything I ever grew up with in Canada (southern Ontario).
I'd say 80% of the people I know are probably extremists (politically).

For this reason, people piss each other and a majority of people end up sliding WAY right, or WAY left.
You should see the Facebook monkey-poo-throwing party that goes on with folk down here.

My wife is WAY left... WAY... WAY... WAY left.
(I sit right in the middle.)

I have to say, there is an immense lack of understanding in this thread. If you don't live in America then you can't truly grasp how the political system works and how it affects the people here.

The truth is, 1. Obama has been a terrible President, 2. Romney would/will be a terrible replacement, and 3. The system is just bad, and this is a cycle that goes on every four years and will continue to do so. To try and analyze it is just a waste of time.

I personally just vote for whatever person I think is most likely to deal with the important issues at hand. I think that they are 1. improving the economy and 2. protecting that nation. If you ask me, the person most likely to address those issues is Romney. I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat. I don't care to classify myself in such a way. But Obama spews just as much BS as Mitt does, folks-- and he's set on turning the country into a so******t-esque nation that is reliant on government. Welfare, Obamacare, etc... it's too important to him, and it won't help the nation in the long run.

Another thing you need to understand is how the money works here. As long as Obama is President, the economy will continue to flounder. Why? Because the economy doesn't do well unless the big players (many people like to call it "old money") are investing. Under Obama, those people/companies/funds won't invest their money in things. When they don't invest, then the market doesn't grow. When the market doesn't grow, you can't create jobs and revenue. When you can't create jobs and revenue, the country loses money.

There's the invite to open that jar of pickles haha

[Ballsakic]

God I miss the NHL