Not with that attitude!
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
I understand that.
Lets take Iran for example.
Are you saying he has not tried his best to negotiate? He does not want to bomb Iran.
Romney and Bibi would have been in Iran so fast it would have made your head spin.
Yeah just like Obama sent drones to save those Americans in Benghazi right?
I'm not going to try and argue with someone who claims past Presidents as "air heads". Clearly this is more of a mascot race for the White House for you than actually a policy argument.
oh dear..my mistake.
I actually thought for a moment you were serious.
I now know you drink Fox kool aid.
Bush is/was a kin idiot.
EDIT...Benghazi !!
Well at least Fox taught you how to spell that word....
I'm not talking about Iran, I was referring to the drone attacks in Pakistan. A lot of the victims are going to be innocents - guess what the children of the slain are going to end up doing?
tbh I have not studied what is happening in that part of the world too closely...other than the bin ladin attack...
but these terrorists must be hiding in villages using innocents as shields.
I'm not condoning anything..
I just dont know all the details.
oh dear..my mistake.
I actually thought for a moment you were serious.
I now know you drink Fox kool aid.
Bush is/was a kin idiot.
As a Libertarian I vote for real change in Washington, unlike Obama who's basic platform was promising change. Yet it seems we still are in an endless war, massive debt, overspending, borrowing 43 cents on the dollar and attempting to pay for socialized healthcare from where!?!
The reality is either candidate is willing to tell the American people the truth, we can not afford to continue on this path.
Feel free to join along like every Republican and Democrat and place the blame on the guy before them. Just know that those you support really are not different than those you oppose, after all it was their bipartisan work that got us to this point.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/01/should-you-vote-for-president
socialized healthcare
Socialised healthcare? No, it's not anywhere near as good as that.
A bird in the hand, as they say.
A bird in the hand, as they say.
Kingcon I'm guessing you're voting for Gary Johnson?
When Obama took office, unemployment had jumped from 5% to 7.8% in 10 months. It continued to grow, reaching 10.1% by his first 8 months. That's a total rise of 5.1% in a year and a half, over doubling the unemployment rate. Averaging an astonishing 0.28% higher unemployment rate every month. Since then, it's fallen to 7.8%, including a 1.2% fall in the last year.
The deficit, projected to be $1.3tn in 2009 without any Obama policies, has been reduced to $1.1tn. And will drop a lot further in the next 4 years with far less spending on wars ended by Obama, savings from Obamacare, increase in tax take initiated by Obama.
That's some pretty nice change right there.
The deficit, projected to be $1.3tn in 2009 without any Obama policies, has been reduced to $1.1tn. And will drop a lot further in the next 4 years with far less spending on wars ended by Obama, savings from Obamacare, increase in tax take initiated by Obama.
That's some pretty nice change right there.
Funny thing is, I don't recall Obama saying once in the debates: "I was handed an unemployment rate growing by 1% every 3 months, in the last 3 months it's fallen 0.5%. I was handed a deficit projection of $1.3tn, I've cut that by £200bn and that's not including all the savings from my policies which haven't quite kicked in yet."
Quite simple figures that are much more easily understandable than a lot of the in-depth policy talk that he got mired in.
He has a record to run on, he's just not very good at talking about it. Fortunately he'll win anyway, and I believe history will look favourably on him following a successful second term.
Quite simple figures that are much more easily understandable than a lot of the in-depth policy talk that he got mired in.
He has a record to run on, he's just not very good at talking about it. Fortunately he'll win anyway, and I believe history will look favourably on him following a successful second term.
The problem with that approach is he's running against someone who will cut the deficit by bazillions based on his secret plan. While these numbers are quite good to intelligent people capable of understanding context, they don't look as good when your opponent says 'You promised 5.4% unemployment when you passed the stimulus' or 'The deficit has gone up by $6tn in the four years you've been in office.' They're not effective political messaging.
And... he could simply have woken the feck up.
He got much better at defending his record in the last few weeks, so much so that the GOP talking point turned into "he hasn't got a plan for the future", equally as bogus.
so good you had to post it twice 
that link advices you to vote Romney....
that link advices you to vote Romney....
socialized healthcare
so good you had to post it twice
that link advices you to vote Romney....
Yeah I don't know what happened there.
That particular article makes some strong points against either candidate and the author does finally decide Romney is HIS better option.
I have already cast my vote for Johnson, being that I live in Georgia (a non-swing state) I chose to let me vote represent the change I desire in Government. I'm not sure that would have been the case if I was living in Ohio or Florida.
I do understand the numbers that Feeky_Magee is throwing out on Obama's behalf but still don't see the major policy changes required to lead this Country out of debt. I'm for abolishing the IRS all together, if we want to start the talk about paying your fair share then it's time EVERYONE pays in...not just the top 1%. Isn't that what fair is about, fairness for everyone?
" 'Need' now means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer.'
- Joseph Sobran
Kingcon, while I do not want to engage in an ideological debate, I just want to ask if you acknowledge that when you compare share of income, and share of taxes paid (both by income group), the result is only slightly progressive?
And yes, that's ALL taxes, not just income-taxes.
And yes, that's ALL taxes, not just income-taxes.
Well he's a nice choice as a posterboy: 'I am not, heaven forbid, a “Holocaust denier.” I lack the scholarly competence to be one. ... Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage'.
Leading the economy out of recession is both more important and, as the effects of austerity in Europe have shown, a necessary precursor to debt reduction.
As in you want to abolish taxation or you want to eliminate the government agency responsible for enforcing tax laws? If it's the latter, what would you replace it with? If it's the former, or your answer to the second question is "nothing", please elaborate on why we should consider you to be a sane person.
The top 1% of the country owns 42% of the wealth in the country, and pays 36% of the income taxes, (and significantly less of the payroll and sales taxes.) Which direction are you saying the current system is unfair in?
You realize you're quoting the guy who got fired from the National Review for being anti-semitic?
Probably one of them Randians.
Cutting 15% off the deficit is a nice start. Obama says he'll cut the debt (currently $16tn) by $4tn in his second term, thanks to budget agreements from a year ago, the end of Afghanistan war combined with end of Iraq war (total cost approaching $3.5tn), and lower interest payments from a reduced deficit. Whether he actually gets there is another question, but even if he falls short the deficit and debt is going to drop, probably substantially.
In any case, there's far too much emphasis on the debt and deficit right now, getting the economy going again is far more vital. The debt and deficit will follow, as we saw in the good years in the States. More people working > more spending > more tax intake. More people working > less need to invest in economy (stimulus, potential Jobs Act etc.) > less government spending. More tax intake + less government spending = lower deficit/debt.
According to Ezra Klein the top 1%'s share of the tax burden is - just about - progressive:
Of course, it should be much more so. Just saying.
And they have like, what, 45% of the total wealth?
Kingcon...supply side/trickle down economics is simply excellent propaganda.
Its just not true.
its simply common sense to want the average person to have sufficient disposable income.
Its not just good for the average joe, its good for busines. More potential customers.
So progressive tax system actually helps everyone. And it is a completely untrue that if you raise tax rates on the top few %, they will leave this country...and go where? Caymans nah... they would be willing to pay the 'tax' to live in the US.
Its just not true.
its simply common sense to want the average person to have sufficient disposable income.
Its not just good for the average joe, its good for busines. More potential customers.
So progressive tax system actually helps everyone. And it is a completely untrue that if you raise tax rates on the top few %, they will leave this country...and go where? Caymans
nah... they would be willing to pay the 'tax' to live in the US.Can see very little likelihood of Romney winning this. Take the states where Obama leads by an average of 2.6% or more in the polls and he's at 281 electoral votes. Historically speaking leads of that size hold up almost always with this long to go. Barring turnout problems for the Dems, I can't see anything but an Obama win. Biggest question for me now is will Obama take two or three of Colorado, Virginia and Florida, making it a big electoral win and a convincing mandate. Most likely outcome seems to be 303-235, with Romney narrowly taking Florida.
I have said 323...so I am saying he win all 3 states...but with a wind on his back...(Sandy.. Ok bad that) he may get to 347...NC
I've said for most of the campaign I thought Obama would win Florida. First debate changed that. Still a sneaky feeling he takes it but the data suggests Romney narrowly. Think North Carolina definitely goes Republican, possibly for the last time in a while if its - and the nation's - economy improves by 2016.
http://election.princeton.edu/
Wang saying Obama has 99% chance of winning and he will get 315 EV...
Wang saying Obama has 99% chance of winning and he will get 315 EV...
Yeah but unskewedpolls.com says Romney to win 54%-46% and receive 359 electoral votes, including a 7-point win in New Mexico, a 6-point win in Pennsylvania and a tie in... Maine.
http://www.unskewedpolls.com/unskewed_projection_2012 president_02.cfm
http://www.unskewedpolls.com/unskewed_projection_2012 president_02.cfm
He's either gonna look pretty smart or pretty stupid in 5 days.
It's hard to tell at the moment with NC, the Dems are most certainly getting out their early vote there as they did last time, but I'd guess they'll lose the white vote too badly in the end.
They'd need a very big late swing to take NC, surely it's lost?
On the face of it yeah, but there remains a very slight chance that they'll turn out enough of their unlikelier votership to nab it. The demographics have moved in their favour over the past 4 years (more registered black voters, less white), and they have a very good ground operation there (you can register to vote and actually vote at the same time). They're more or less matching their early vote numbers from last time - about 60,000 more black people have voted compared to the same point in 08 as well - so you never can tell.
In NC you can Register and vote the very same day. from all accounts the Obama people are very confident. Here is why the polls don't reflect their confidence.
Pollster only call registered voters from the last voter rolls. new registrants do not show up. Therefore they are underpolling Democratic voters...Ok Republicans can also register and vote the same day...but the Democratic voters once again have been outperforming in the early voters effort.
Pollster only call registered voters from the last voter rolls. new registrants do not show up. Therefore they are underpolling Democratic voters...Ok Republicans can also register and vote the same day...but the Democratic voters once again have been outperforming in the early voters effort.
Ubik mate...you posted the very same thing....
- Status