[Discussion] The American Politics Discussion Thread

[Went]

Okay, so: three things I think are slightly surreal and might decide the election:

- Romney has pulled off from campaigning in the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. That's 46 electoral votes, and Obama is leading in all of them, to the point that Pennsylvania already appears as "leaning Obama" in the RealClearPolitics map, which, as you know, works by taking all credible polls anywhere and calculating the average- Obama is ahead in PA (20 votes) by more than the margin of error. Just counting the non-swing states where Obama is safely leading, he has 201 electoral votes more-or-less secured. By giving up in these three other ones, it could put Obama up to 247. Out of 270 required to win.

- But let's look at another Swing state, Virginia. In the polls, Obama leads Romney alone by barely a point. But they aren't going to be alone in the ballot. Oh no.

Virgil Goode Jr., ex-republican, is also appearing in the ballot.
As the presidential candidate of the Constitutional party.

And the latest polls say that he's going to take a huge chunk of the votes from Romney. Making it Obama 49%, Romney 35%, Goode 10%. Virtually handing that state to Obama. That means 13 more votes. 260 out of 270.

- On top of this, the Republican National Convention was a slight failure. Romney got a 1% increase in polls during their week. Obama, so far, has recovered all that and added some extra 5% bounce in the latest Rasmussen/CNN/Gallup polls afetr the Democratic NC. So we can safely say that the 2012RNC was the first convention in several decades to not help their candidate in the polls. Awesome.

[Livewire]

Originally Posted by Went

Okay, so: three things I think are slightly surreal and might decide the election:

- Romney has pulled off from campaigning in the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. That's 46 electoral votes, and Obama is leading in all of them, to the point that Pennsylvania already appears as "leaning Obama" in the RealClearPolitics map, which, as you know, works by taking all credible polls anywhere and calculating the average- Obama is ahead in PA (20 votes) by more than the margin of error. Just counting the non-swing states where Obama is safely leading, he has 201 electoral votes more-or-less secured. By giving up in these three other ones, it could put Obama up to 247. Out of 270 required to win.

- But let's look at another Swing state, Virginia. In the polls, Obama leads Romney alone by barely a point. But they aren't going to be alone in the ballot. Oh no.

Virgil Goode Jr., ex-republican, is also appearing in the ballot.
As the presidential candidate of the Constitutional party.

And the latest polls say that he's going to take a huge chunk of the votes from Romney. Making it Obama 49%, Romney 35%, Goode 10%. Virtually handing that state to Obama. That means 13 more votes. 260 out of 270.

- On top of this, the Republican National Convention was a slight failure. Romney got a 1% increase in polls during their week. Obama, so far, has recovered all that and added some extra 5% bounce in the latest Rasmussen/CNN/Gallup polls afetr the Democratic NC. So we can safely say that the 2012RNC was the first convention in several decades to not help their candidate in the polls. Awesome.

Don't forget Ohio! Right now he's got around a 5-6 point lead or so here, Ohio's unemployment & such has been falling for some time and the recovery has been accelerated here because of of the Auto Industry revival. Ohio has 18 electoral votes.

[Scarf]

What confuses me even more than the things Went brought up (which are admittedly quite odd) is why Romney/Ryan can't seem to figure out what they are for and against. Romney said in an interview that he's okay keeping the provision of the health care law regarding preexisting conditions, but then a day later his campaign put out a statement that said they wouldn't. Then Ryan said he thought states should decide of they want to legalize marijuana and a day later the campaign said that also wasn't the case.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Scarf

What confuses me even more than the things Went brought up (which are admittedly quite odd) is why Romney/Ryan can't seem to figure out what they are for and against. Romney said in an interview that he's okay keeping the provision of the health care law regarding preexisting conditions, but then a day later his campaign put out a statement that said they wouldn't. Then Ryan said he thought states should decide of they want to legalize marijuana and a day later the campaign said that also wasn't the case.

Well, there are two things at play. There's the party's platform and then there's the candidate's own platform. They don't have to agree 100% and, I would guess, usually don't. It wasn't long ago where we had Republicans primaries going on, right? Different candidates from the same party who did not agree with each other.

So, that isn't necessarily too strange to me. That on certain days they seem to be themselves and on other days echo official party positions is probably just what the campaign tells them to do.

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

Well, there are two things at play. There's the party's platform and then there's the candidate's own platform. They don't have to agree 100% and, I would guess, usually don't. It wasn't long ago where we had Republicans primaries going on, right? Different candidates from the same party who did not agree with each other.

So, that isn't necessarily too strange to me. That on certain days they seem to be themselves and on other days echo official party positions is probably just what the campaign tells them to do.

Shouldn't the candidate platform and the party platform be sort of similar anyway? But this isn't really him vs. the party since it's his own remarks that he's contrasting. It's him vs. his own campaign.

In other news, that anti-union law from Wisconsin got thrown out by the courts recently, which should prove a big blow to Scott Walker and Republicans there in general.

In Iowa anti-voting laws were also blocked by the courts. They were prevented there from introducing new voter ID laws (read: voter suppression) and the courts said they couldn't also purse voter roles. It was a good day for checks and balances, but sadly there are plenty of states which might still have their restrictive laws in place when the election comes.

[Mr. X]

In other news, Romney just shot himself in the foot... Again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1829455.html

Specifically, this.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "All right -- there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.

[_Dean_]

There's one word that can sum up the entirety of the history of American presidential elections, and the forbidding of this one: "Illuminati".

...loljk

Terrible enough to say, I don't want either parties to win. I cannot stand Barrack Obama. He is by far the worst president this country has ever seen.

No, I am not a super right-winged conservative. No, I haven't seen every broadcast of Bill O'Reilly. Yes, I do love beer.

Indeed as some have said in this discussion, Romney/Ryan can't decide on crap. Period. They're for gay marriage, they're against gay marriage. For abortion, against abortion. It's insane. However, I am entirely for their foreign policies. America CANNOT come against Israel; and, if you ask me, not helping is just as bad as being on the other side of the front line. Barrack Obama will do everything he can to win this election even if it means keeping troops over seas to "help" Israel. Israel and Iran will go to war before this election is over. And when it is over and if Obama is re-elected, we will not be fighting with Israel.

That's enough to lose my vote, Mr. Obama.

[Mr. X]

Staying out of war is bad?

I'm all for supporting out allies, and sending our forces out to aid them, but only if they are the ones attacked.

Any reasons for thinking Obama to be the worse president, or are you just going along with the conservative mob on this?

[Zet]

Originally Posted by _Dean_

There's one word that can sum up the entirety of the history of American presidential elections, and the forbidding of this one: "Illuminati".

...loljk

Terrible enough to say, I don't want either parties to win. I cannot stand Barrack Obama. He is by far the worst president this country has ever seen.

No, I am not a super right-winged conservative. No, I haven't seen every broadcast of Bill O'Reilly. Yes, I do love beer.

Indeed as some have said in this discussion, Romney/Ryan can't decide on crap. Period. They're for gay marriage, they're against gay marriage. For abortion, against abortion. It's insane. However, I am entirely for their foreign policies. America CANNOT come against Israel; and, if you ask me, not helping is just as bad as being on the other side of the front line. Barrack Obama will do everything he can to win this election even if it means keeping troops over seas to "help" Israel. Israel and Iran will go to war before this election is over. And when it is over and if Obama is re-elected, we will not be fighting with Israel.

That's enough to lose my vote, Mr. Obama.

You haven't provided one legitimate reason for not liking Obama, and why he is the worst President. War is War and always will be War, and believe it or not but the President does not have a magical lever in his office that controls tax, war, oil, etc. etc..

[Livewire]

Originally Posted by _Dean_

There's one word that can sum up the entirety of the history of American presidential elections, and the forbidding of this one: "Illuminati".

...loljk

Terrible enough to say, I don't want either parties to win. I cannot stand Barrack Obama. He is by far the worst president this country has ever seen.

No, I am not a super right-winged conservative. No, I haven't seen every broadcast of Bill O'Reilly. Yes, I do love beer.

Indeed as some have said in this discussion, Romney/Ryan can't decide on crap. Period. They're for gay marriage, they're against gay marriage. For abortion, against abortion. It's insane. However, I am entirely for their foreign policies. America CANNOT come against Israel; and, if you ask me, not helping is just as bad as being on the other side of the front line. Barrack Obama will do everything he can to win this election even if it means keeping troops over seas to "help" Israel. Israel and Iran will go to war before this election is over. And when it is over and if Obama is re-elected, we will not be fighting with Israel.

That's enough to lose my vote, Mr. Obama.

Ok well

Ryan and Romney were NEVER for any form of marriage equality, don't know where you pulled that one from. But you are kind of right, Romney & Ryan don't know their own platform yet, lol.

And have you noticed Romney was universally mocked, from England to Israel, on his little foreign tour? And this was before his Libya comments or his secret donor taping debacle gaffe. I shudder to think at what his idea of foreign policy is. And from the looks of your post, you don't know what foreign policy is either. What troops "helping Israel" are you talking about? They're a fundamental ally, and a bastion of defense against hostile Islamist countries like Iran. If it comes to war, which is still a big if, Israel will annihilate Iran easily with all the cutting edge defense tech they get from the West. There is an ARMADA of Bristish, French, Saudi & American ships in the Persian Gulf doing training exercises. Ahmadinejad isn't that stupid.

The "Obama is the worst president ever" line pretty much disqualifies you from having a legitimate, informed opinion on American politics. The worst one was the last guy. Interestingly enough, I have nearly a decade worth of dead soldiers, broken families, foreclosed homes, and squandered educations to support my claims.

[_Dean_]

Ya got me. I don't know jack about politics. Sorry for posting where I don't belong ahaha.

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by Livewire

The "Obama is the worst president ever" line pretty much disqualifies you from having a legitimate, informed opinion on American politics. The worst one was the last guy. Interestingly enough, I have nearly a decade worth of dead soldiers, broken families, foreclosed homes, and squandered educations to support my claims.

The dead soliders aren't entirely Bush's fault though. The blame for that can also go to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush.

[Went]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

In other news, Romney just shot himself in the foot... Again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1829455.html

Specifically, this.

Allow me to add the entire quote:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax ...

"My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

And now my question is: who in the name of hell is managing his campaign? I mean, if he does win it will be in spite of them, not thanks to them.

@foreign policy: Well, Romney's secret recipe to solve and prevent all wars and foreign protests is incredibly simple: showing "resolve". When the radical islamic followers see Romney, they will think "Oh my god, this guy sure has resolve!" and stop burning flags and attacking the personnel of embassies.

A shame Romney will be the first president with that flavour of "resolve" in centuries.

[Jaegir]

Originally Posted by Went

"My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

He's already said he's not worried about the very poor because they have "safety nets".

And he said that on live tv.

[Jay_37040]

Originally Posted by Jaegir

He's already said he's not worried about the very poor because they have "safety nets".

And he said that on live tv.

He's suggesting that people who are poor are lazy and who expect others to care for them so they won't have to. Talk about disconnected from reality!

[Scarf]

I wonder if Romney has any chance of winning the presidency now. I know there are some in the right-wing base who want to hear him talk more like he did in the video, but the stuff he's been recorded saying doesn't seem like it would sit will with swing voters and independents. Romney's behind in most of the swing states like Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Colorado, (according to RealClearPolitics) and The only swing state where Romney has a lead is North Carolina.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Went

"My job is not to worry about those people."

I think what he said was incredibly stupid, but also not surprising. He's known to speak out of both sides of mouth and cater to whatever crowd he's talking to at the time. Most politicians do

So in that instance? Rich folks. Friends of his. Financial backers and supporters. Do they want to hear that he cares about them or the poor? Certainly not the poor, that's not their interest. Later when he visits Florida (probably a great number of those 47% not paying taxes supposedly are elderly) he's going to be talking about how he supports them and protecting Medicare and whatever which else.

Besides... 47% is receiving some kind of support, yes. Not paying taxes though? No. More like half of that. Interestingly though, there would of course be a certain element of the poor or those who just don't give a damn - but also the elderly like I mention, and when you look at the demographics a lot of southern states. He's talking about his core voting base XD

With all that said though, I didn't take the "my job isn't to worry about these people" as having concern for them or not in his potential role as president. I took it as, "I can't get them to vote for me. I won't bother. I need you [people in the room] to lend me your support and get me elected"

I find his Israel stuff more interesting, really. For all the nonsensical flack he's given Obama on not being a good friend to Israel, Romney essentially says "Too tough to solve. I'll kick the can down to whoever the President is that follows me"

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

~

So in that instance? Rich folks. Friends of his. Financial backers and supporters. Do they want to hear that he cares about them or the poor? Certainly not the poor, that's not their interest. Later when he visits Florida (probably a great number of those 47% not paying taxes supposedly are elderly) he's going to be talking about how he supports them and protecting Medicare and whatever which else.

~

I find his Israel stuff more interesting, really. For all the nonsensical flack he's given Obama on not being a good friend to Israel, Romney essentially says "Too tough to solve. I'll kick the can down to whoever the President is that follows me"

I believe that there really is a substantial number (don't know the exact number) who really don't pay federal income tax because they are too poor or they get tax deductions of some kind. Lots still pay state taxes, and of course sales tax. So I think it's true in a sense that lots of people don't pay certain taxes, but some of them are the kind of people who would vote for Romney.

All the other stuff he said about people being lazy, etc., is of course awful and wrong.

Also, to be fair, I think Romney was being critical of the peace process and saying that previous presidents have kicked the can down the road, not that it's what he planned to do. Of course, he doesn't have his own solution that I'm aware of so pointing out that others haven't solved the problem isn't doing him any good either.

[AlexTheRose]

I think Romney is making it too easy for Obama to win. Romney really isn't that smart, and for him to make it as the final Republican candidate is a bit too out of whack. Taking that into consideration, and Republican senators and reps being the shrude people they are, I think Obama is in for something very interesting besides your regular presidential election. Remember those "Bush Cheats '04" bumper stickers? Yeah. Who says it can't happen again?

If by chance something crazy happens, don't expect me to not quote the crap out of this post lol. XD

[Mr. X]

New, potentional, ****storm for Romney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...738_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...?tid=obnetwork

Turns out, Romney decided to not file for all his deductions, just so his tax rate wouldn't fall under his earlier stated 13%. Had he taken all his deductions, he'd have had a ~10% tax rate.

“limited their deductions of charitable contributions to conform to the governor’s statement in August, based on the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.”

This is made even worse because of some of his earlier comments, back in January, about him paying all his required taxes and not a dollar more.

At a Republican presidential primary debate in January, on the same night he released his 2010 tax returns, Romney scoffed at the notion that he would pay more taxes than is legally required.

“I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more,” he said. “I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.”

[Went]

Well, then the only coherent thing for him to do is leave the race, as he is, in his own words, "unfit to be a president".

Although when was the last time Romney did anything rational during this campaign?

[Scarf]

Romney's only shown his taxes from the time he was already sure he would run for president and be in the public spotlight. Anyway, he still has a few years to get that 2 million back from the government. So he can do this after the election, and probably will.

[-ty-]

Can I add yet another humorous blunder to the Mittens campaign:

After Ann Romney's plane started spewing smoke, the plane took an emergency landing in Denver, and he said,

“I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were. When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly. The windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. You can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open."

The main reason airplane windows don't open is because there isn't enough oxygen at cruising altitude to keep passengers alive. (The fear of window or cabin failures, which would lead to potentially fatal hypoxia, is why many planes are equipped with emergency oxygen masks.)

Later, he said it was all a joke, but I am not sure by the context of that discussion that he is actually joking!

Also, Mittens released tax returns a week or so ago.
He pays a 14 percent tax...but wait, he donated 30 percent of his money to charity!
Oh, but wait, the examiner also noted that in the 2009 tax return he had a similar percentage of charitable donations; 80 percent of which went to the Church of Ladder Day Saints. He also received a huge tax deduction because of this "charitable" donation. That tax break should not be afforded to the LDS Church, they are essentially a political special interest group. That tithe money should have come out of his own pocket, without receiving any government assistance to lower his effective tax by 3 million. These loop holds essentially allow the wealthy to direct their money into their own subjective causes at the expense of the nation as a whole. Not to mention, it is not equitable that my parents pay an effective federal tax rate of 17% when he is paying 14% with plenty of wealth to spare. Ugh, I am not completely sold on Obama, but without hesitation I would vote for him if I am posed with the question of Romney or Obama?

I don't know if any of this post makes any sense; I am practically falling asleep.

[Went]

Romney's campaign and well, his entire presidential race deserve a deep, deep study because it's been an extraordinary disaster considering Obama's apparently weak position. To make a comparison, the average price of an Obama ad on TV is $125, as opposed to Romney's $900. And the incumbent payrolls twice as many grassroots supporters and campaigners than Romney, despite both having the same budget for that. Clearly there is something wrong somewhere.

Anyway, Romney right now is losing the national vote and, depending on the poll you look at, all the swing states or all but one. And he's trailing in the key state of Ohio by close to 10 points. The last train for Romney departs tomorrow night, and he needs a masterpiece of a debate or Obama to dance in his underpants on TV for it to be truly relevant.

[Scarf]

It is pretty strange, given that every single thing Obama does gets criticized, that Romney isn't doing better. But I think it's not just his own failures - spectacular as they are - but the party's as a whole. Republicans are 89% white people. That alone should tell you something about their focus and priorities.

Originally Posted by Went

To make a comparison, the average price of an Obama ad on TV is $125, as opposed to Romney's $900.

That's because anything coming directly from a campaign gets special preference as far as costs, but anything outside (like, say, an ad from a Super PAC) gets no special privilege. Since more of Romney's support is coming Super PACs he's getting the worse deal even though he might have more money.