US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Stewart stopped being good a long time back, Colbert is where it's at. That being said though, there is a clear Democrat slant on this forum which is quite funny to read. It becomes even funnier when you realise that the differences between Democrat and Republican candidates are usually so minuscule they don't even deserve mention. The race ends up being about things like where they guy is from and how he feels about gays or abortion - undoubtedly important issues, but both of which the President would have very little influence over.

You're all at it. And one of the big problems is that people actually form opinions after getting their news from talking heads like John Stewart, Colbert, Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and that fat one from The Young Turks.
 
Nate is being pretty pragmatic this time round btw. He cannot believe Obama is ahead in so many polls.

Hectic. How was Rasmussen's accuracy 'during'those election years instead of the final ones?
For now I trust the NBC/WSJ/Marist polls the most...besides Nate of course.
 
Andrew~ said:
John Stewart stopped being good a long time back, Colbert is where it's at. That being said though, there is a clear Democrat slant on this forum which is quite funny to read. It becomes even funnier when you realise that the differences between Democrat and Republican candidates are usually so minuscule they don't even deserve mention. The race ends up being about things like where they guy is from and how he feels about gays or abortion - undoubtedly important issues, but both of which the President would have very little influence over.

You're all at it. And one of the big problems is that people actually form opinions after getting their news from talking heads like John Stewart, Colbert, Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and that fat one from The Young Turks.
Click to expand...

Ok, who gave mjs a new username?
 
Andrew~ said:
John Stewart stopped being good a long time back, Colbert is where it's at. That being said though, there is a clear Democrat slant on this forum which is quite funny to read. It becomes even funnier when you realise that the differences between Democrat and Republican candidates are usually so minuscule they don't even deserve mention. The race ends up being about things like where they guy is from and how he feels about gays or abortion - undoubtedly important issues, but both of which the President would have very little influence over.

You're all at it. And one of the big problems is that people actually form opinions after getting their news from talking heads like John Stewart, Colbert, Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and that fat one from The Young Turks.
Click to expand...

We got a live one here.

It's amazing that you are able to know where everybody gets their news from.
 
Excal said:
Ok, who gave mjs a new username?
Click to expand...

:confused:

Grinner said:
We got a live one here.

It's amazing that you are able to know where everybody gets their news from.
Click to expand...

I never said I knew where everyone get's their news from. It's just quite a large amount of the discussion in this thread is centred around what those talking heads are saying.

Red Dreams said:
A President McCain would never have passed the Affordable Health Care Act, nor got us out of Iraq...just for starters.

So it does make a tremendous difference who is the President.
Click to expand...

Congress passes laws, not the President. As for Iraq, there was already an exit plan, although to his credit, Obama did push very strongly for an earlier date. And that's where the President can exercise power: in foreign policy. Certainly, Obama did support the Affordable Healthcare Act, but again, the President has very little legislative power individually.

It makes a difference who is President, but only in certain areas. The system in the US is different from the UK where the executive has a vice-like grip on the legislative process. Let's not give any President more credit than they should have. And my point was rather that policy-wise, Romney and Obama are not all that different.
 
Andrew~ said:
John Stewart stopped being good a long time back, Colbert is where it's at. That being said though, there is a clear Democrat slant on this forum which is quite funny to read. It becomes even funnier when you realise that the differences between Democrat and Republican candidates are usually so minuscule they don't even deserve mention. The race ends up being about things like where they guy is from and how he feels about gays or abortion - undoubtedly important issues, but both of which the President would have very little influence over.

You're all at it. And one of the big problems is that people actually form opinions after getting their news from talking heads like John Stewart, Colbert, Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and that fat one from The Young Turks.
Click to expand...

sZAZE.gif
 
Andrew~ said:
Congress passes laws, not the President. As for Iraq, there was already an exit plan, although to his credit, Obama did push very strongly for an earlier date. And that's where the President can exercise power: in foreign policy. Certainly, Obama did support the Affordable Healthcare Act, but again, the President has very little legislative power individually.

It makes a difference who is President, but only in certain areas. The system in the US is different from the UK where the executive has a vice-like grip on the legislative process. Let's not give any President more credit than they should have. And my point was rather that policy-wise, Romney and Obama are not all that different.
Click to expand...

OpoQQ.jpg
 
:lol:


And here I thought people in the Mains were more likely to have meaningful discussions about this. I'll let you guys carry on with your support for your 'team'.
 
When you say there's no difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates, and that Romney and Obama are not really that different - this false equivalence nonsense - that's kind of a non-starter for any meaningful discussion.
 
Andrew~ said:
:lol:


And here I thought people in the Mains were more likely to have meaningful discussions about this. I'll let you guys carry on with your support for your 'team'.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen you post anything meaningful yet. When you do we'll be happy to discuss.
 
"It's hilarious to read how biased you all are."

*shockingly enough, this elicits mockery*

"I would have thought we could have a real discussion about this."

Leaving aside the notion of people having a sports fan-like affiliation to a political party in a country most of the posters here don't live in, you'd better have quite a lot of insight on football, or whoever promoted you is gonna be replaced by Damobot or Grinner.
 
I think when it comes to funding and corporate support there's very little to separate Dems from the GOP, even foreign policy I'd say. In that respect I don't think Andrew is entirely wrong.

The major difference however is that the GOP seem stuck in the past with their outlandish views on women, the poor, abortion, homosexuality etc. They're also far more obnoxious with their bullying and hypocrisy. For what its worth I think the Dems bear as many arrogant heads as they do.
 
Saliph said:
When you say there's no difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates, and that Romney and Obama are not really that different - this false equivalence nonsense - that's kind of a non-starter for any meaningful discussion.
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on that, again. There's little that annoys me more.
 
RedKaos said:
I think when it comes to funding and corporate support there's very little to separate Dems from the GOP, even foreign policy I'd say. In that respect I don't think Andrew is entirely wrong.

The major difference however is that the GOP seem stuck in the past with their outlandish views on women, the poor, abortion, homosexuality etc. They're also far more obnoxious with their bullying and hypocrisy. For what its worth I think the Dems bear as many arrogant heads as they do.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's quite a major difference between the two parties.
 
Saliph said:
When you say there's no difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates, and that Romney and Obama are not really that different - this false equivalence nonsense - that's kind of a non-starter for any meaningful discussion.
Click to expand...

Right. So explain this to me, who is apparently ignorant: what is the most important issue - to you - this election, and how do the two candidates differ in their views? And how do you expect the candidate, if elected, to effect the change in law?

Grinner said:
I haven't seen you post anything meaningful yet. When you do we'll be happy to discuss.
Click to expand...

You're more than free to quote me and point out where my posts have been inaccurate or mistaken.
 
RedKaos said:
I think when it comes to funding and corporate support there's very little to separate Dems from the GOP, even foreign policy I'd say. In that respect I don't think Andrew is entirely wrong.

The major difference however is that the GOP seem stuck in the past with their outlandish views on women, the poor, abortion, homosexuality etc. They're also far more obnoxious with their bullying and hypocrisy. For what its worth I think the Dems bear as many arrogant heads as they do.
Click to expand...

This was my point.
 
niMic said:
How about health care? That's all that needs to be said, really.
Click to expand...

While Romney was governor in Massachusetts, he passed a law which was virtually identical to what is currently being billed as 'Obamacare'.
 
Red Dreams said:
Looking at the two platforms will be a start. Seriously for anyone to come on and say there is no difference between the parties without doing some basic research is just being lazy.
Click to expand...

Go on then, I asked a question, now you can't just cop out by saying I'm lazy. I've done research and come to a conclusion, you think it is the wrong one, so argue your point.
 
Andrew~ said:
While Romney was governor in Massachusetts, he passed a law which was virtually identical to what is currently being billed as 'Obamacare'.
Click to expand...

That's not the platform he's running on now though - so effectively, it would be a starkly opposite policy to the affordable health care act - namely to repeal it and retain some version of the status quo.
 
Andrew~ said:
Right. So explain this to me, who is apparently ignorant: what is the most important issue - to you - this election, and how do the two candidates differ in their views? And how do you expect the candidate, if elected, to effect the change in law?
Click to expand...

- The economy. Romney thinks trickle-down economics, giving further tax breaks to the richest people, will somehow magically restore the economy and create jobs, when the empirical evidence suggests that it doesn't, at least not in the long term.

Obama wants to employ a bottom-up approach. He wants the rich to pay more, to strengthen the middle class by making things like college and health care more affordable, and give everyone a fair shot. And that's what I expect him to do when he's re-elected: redistribute some of the wealth in a country that badly needs it. And I expect him to be a bit more ruthless in his second term if the House and Senate Republicans continue to refuse to collaberate with him.
 
Andrew~ said:
While Romney was governor in Massachusetts, he passed a law which was virtually identical to what is currently being billed as 'Obamacare'.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously saying that Obama had little to do with Obamacare, except as a supporter of it on the sidelines? He didn't, sort of, make it (healthcare reform) a key election pledge, get the debate started in congress, push a lot of his political capital into getting it done?

And Romney flip-flopped on that health-care plan, as standard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.