US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arruda said:
I'm a bit curious regarding this comment. Why should "liberty-conscious Americans" be particularly concerned that a US citizen can be "taken out"? That is, assuming that you mean it as opposed to a non-American citizen being taken out.

I'm not objecting to the selective take-out of national security threats. I really never reflected much on the matter to have an opinion. I'm just wondering how (if that's the case) can someone be of the opinion that it it's more legitimate to assassinate foreigners than national citizens.
Click to expand...

The primary issue for me is that citizens should be trialed, sentenced, then punished accordingly if found guilty. Not blown to pieces with drones, regardless of whether they're unsavoury characters or not. That's not how a civilised democracy operates.

I don't agree with assassinating foreigners either, unless there are very legitimate reasons for doing so. I don't object to US forces taking out Al Qaeda troops for example (but again thats an act of war), but I do have objections to them using drone attacks to say target any moving male individual within a 2 mile radius of patrol in somewhere like Pakistan.
 
Suedesi said:
Puff piece. Obama is the preferred choice as he's not Romney, but a Great President? The best President of our lifetime?Please. Barack ain't even the best President since 1992.
Click to expand...

Raoul said:
Obama is no Clinton, but he's definitely a better option than Romney for a myriad of reasons.
Click to expand...

I think people tend to forget that the dot-com boom was responsible for a fair bit of the growth under Clinton and he was lucky that the bust and recession missed his term by a few months.

No question he was a fantastic Prez, but he also lowered capital-gains taxes and repealed Glass-Steagall, two actions that I think are as responsible for the Great Recession as Dubya's policies.

Also, the way FDR gets lauded as the Prez with the biggest heart - when he was in office, he didn't particularly care about enforcing the minimum wage law or ensuring everyone received unemployment benefits, or fighting discrimination in the military, but his legislative record did change the country immeasurably for the better.

Lincoln only made abolition a primary goal halfway into the Civil War, yet, today, that is how he is remembered.

Not to say that I agree completely with Chait, but he's made a very good case in his examination of context.
 
Kaos said:
The primary issue for me is that citizens should be trialed, sentenced, then punished accordingly if found guilty. Not blown to pieces with drones, regardless of whether they're unsavoury characters or not. That's not how a civilised democracy operates.

I don't agree with assassinating foreigners either, unless there are very legitimate reasons for doing so. I don't object to US forces taking out Al Qaeda troops for example (but again thats an act of war), but I do have objections to them using drone attacks to say target any moving male individual within a 2 mile radius of patrol in somewhere like Pakistan.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, with the caveat that those publicly calling for acts of terror can be declared enemies of the state, as in wartime. You're right that it leaves a future Pres. Santorum with too-great powers and too-little oversight. Among the more troubling questions of our life-time.
 
One concern about voting day is turnout in Philly and the Northern Virginia area after the storm. The Dems badly need both to hold serve in PA and VA. Poor turnout in both places could hand both states to Romney, irrespective of Obama's apparent lead in PA.
 
Started off pretty well, but what's with the SPECIAL WORDS in ALL CAPS and SOMETIMES SIDEWAYS? It just comes off as silly. I agree with a lot of it, and I can't watch it through, I doubt this would ever convince anyone.
 
Kaos said:
The primary issue for me is that citizens should be trialed, sentenced, then punished accordingly if found guilty. Not blown to pieces with drones, regardless of whether they're unsavoury characters or not. That's not how a civilised democracy operates.

I don't agree with assassinating foreigners either, unless there are very legitimate reasons for doing so. I don't object to US forces taking out Al Qaeda troops for example (but again thats an act of war), but I do have objections to them using drone attacks to say target any moving male individual within a 2 mile radius of patrol in somewhere like Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Yes, I just think that the duty to trial, sentence and punish a citizen applies to both citizens and foreigners. A US court can accuse me as easily as they can with a US citizen. They can't get my hands on me unless I'm extradited, but that applies to US citizens abroad as well.

Now, if I'm deemed an immediate threat to US security the only way to get me if I was on a country unable or unwilling to arrest me and extradite me, would be kidnap me or assassinate me. I don't see how me being American would change that need.

I just meant that if you believe in the necessity to eliminate some threats it make no difference if they're American citizens or not. What makes a difference is whether they're in US soil or not and whether you can catch them and trial them or not.

Just nitpicking in your choice of words, I'm pretty sure we agree in this matter on principle.
 
Also, why is it that low turnouts benefits republicans?

Is it because democrats tend to care less about politics and vote less? Am I right to assume that this means that there are a lot more democrats in the United States and the only reason that the president isn't always a democrat is because they care less about politics than the republicans?
 
Certainly in this election Obama would be cruising to a comfortable win if all registered voters were likely voters.
 
Arruda said:
Also, why is it that low turnouts benefits republicans?

Is it because democrats tend to care less about politics and vote less? Am I right to assume that this means that there are a lot more democrats in the United States and the only reason that the president isn't always a democrat is because they care less about politics than the republicans?
Click to expand...


There is still a big enough group of voters who do not always vote as they are registered. So you need to be careful about reading too much into registration numbers.

But yes there do seem to be more "casual" voters registered as democrats right now.
 
JustAFan said:
There is still a big enough group of voters who do not always vote as they are registered. So you need to be careful about reading too much into registration numbers.

But yes there do seem to be more "casual" voters registered as democrats right now.
Click to expand...

My assumption was that the elderly as a group are the most likely voters and strongly lean Republican, a low turnout means other groups fall away more than the elderly so the Republicans are more likely to win.
 
Raoul said:
One concern about voting day is turnout in Philly and the Northern Virginia area after the storm. The Dems badly need both to hold serve in PA and VA. Poor turnout in both places could hand both states to Romney, irrespective of Obama's apparent lead in PA.
Click to expand...

The Dems don't need Virginia, and a good thing too because they're pretty likely to lose it.

Arruda said:
Also, why is it that low turnouts benefits republicans?

Is it because democrats tend to care less about politics and vote less? Am I right to assume that this means that there are a lot more democrats in the United States and the only reason that the president isn't always a democrat is because they care less about politics than the republicans?
Click to expand...

It's the same here. It's harder for poor people to vote, they have less easy access to leisure, childcare, transport. If a problem arises that day they have to deal with it, the rich can just pay someone else to. The elderly and rural voters sometimes even things up a bit as they tend to vote for the GOP/Tories, but overall things like bad weather affect Dem/Labour turnout much more.
 
Kaos said:
The primary issue for me is that citizens should be trialed, sentenced, then punished accordingly if found guilty. Not blown to pieces with drones, regardless of whether they're unsavoury characters or not. That's not how a civilised democracy operates.

I don't agree with assassinating foreigners either, unless there are very legitimate reasons for doing so. I don't object to US forces taking out Al Qaeda troops for example (but again thats an act of war), but I do have objections to them using drone attacks to say target any moving male individual within a 2 mile radius of patrol in somewhere like Pakistan.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that but there's no way that issue is enough to make me vote for Mitt Romney. Do you think they are more or less likely to blow the shit out of people with drones than the dems?

At least Obama is on the correct side of most of the other big issues and I'd even go as far as saying that he authorizes drone strikes to make him appear tough rather than because he is trying to assault personal liberty and erode the Constitution.
 
They do need both states in case something goes wrong in another state Obama is supposed to carry. If PA goes to Romney, it will completely change Obama's path to 270.
 
PA is pretty essential, so I hope turnout isn't badly affected there. Notably Romney isn't campaigning there in the days up till the election so I don't think they really believe it's in play either. According to Silver's likelihoods, Obama has a pretty good chance of winning 2 of Colorado, Virginia and Florida, even one of which would screw Romney up completely.
 
Plechazunga said:
It's the same here. It's harder for poor people to vote, they have less easy access to leisure, childcare, transport. If a problem arises that day they have to deal with it, the rich can just pay someone else to. The elderly and rural voters sometimes even things up a bit as they tend to vote for the GOP/Tories, but overall things like bad weather affect Dem/Labour turnout much more.
Click to expand...
The rich are always steadfast in trying to make sure they keep or extend their privileges.
 
Raoul said:
They do need both states in case something goes wrong in another state Obama is supposed to carry. If PA goes to Romney, it will completely change Obama's path to 270.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, if he loses PA he needs it. But if he loses PA he's pretty much fecked. There are plenty of paths to 270 without Virginia.

Mind you, if you believe what the 538 computer has currently churned out, he looks pretty fecking good in Florida!

2uo3whd.jpg
 
Suedesi said:
I don't understand the foreigners obsession with Obama.
Click to expand...

Probably something as simple as the fact that after eight years of that imbecile George Bush, Obama seemed a breath of fresh air.

I'd guess it's a personality thing, as a lot of people won't actually be particularly familiar with party policies.
 
I wonder why Obama doesnt just run a video of the Romney's 47% comment, followed by his "not elegantly stated" comment, followed by his "completely wrong" statement, followed by his recent FEMA flips, followed by his MA campaign comment on abortion, followed by his primary comments on abortion, followed by his current "status quo" comments on abortion, followed by his conflicting comments on tax policy, the auto bailout, education, and ending with the "etch a sketch" strategy?”
 
Suedesi said:
Don't hate him, he's certainly preferable to Romney, but he's not done a great job.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. For the sake of your argument, could you list what Clinton would have done differently to Obama in the circumstances?
 
Loses out to JFK, then. And on the scale of hot or not, landslide.
 
Saliph said:
On what issues?
Click to expand...

He didn't pass any meaningful reforms - e.g on Wall Street, where a massive fraud was perpetrated with seemingly none held accountable. It's sad that his DOJ didn't pursue any criminal charges against Goldman, Morgan Stanley, BOFA, Citi etc.

He didn't pass an adequate fiscal stimulus, which is badly needed (Sandy anyone?), and would have created some much needed jobs.

Not impressed by the drone attacks, his his lack of leadership on gun laws and not sure his foreign policy has changed that much in substance from W.
 
radd said:
Fair enough. For the sake of your argument, could you list what Clinton would have done differently to Obama in the circumstances?
Click to expand...

Bill is a genius. Even during the Democratic convention Bill made a much better and clearer case for Barack's re-election than Barack himself.

Bill would have wiped the floor with Romney on the debates, and the race would have been over by now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.