1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Obama Vs. Romney: 2012 US Election

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Floette, Sep 5, 2012.

?

Do you support Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

  1. Mitt Romney

    86 vote(s)
    27.2%
  2. Barack Obama

    230 vote(s)
    72.8%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ebilly99

    ebilly99 Americanreigon champ

    Of course it does. Let the economy go over the cliff and in 2014 we can kick out the last of the GOP. Then decrease taxes to everyone who makes under 250,000 a year and cut military spending, Create a stimulus plan and cure the recession. How can the GOP ever win its way back if that happens. Best thing to do when you are in a lions den is attack the Gazelle as well. If you can act like a Lion long enough the Hyenas will make it back . If GOP wants to survive they need to let Obama do as he wants and just give a verbal shout that they are doing it against there conscious. Then when it fails they can take back over in 2014.
     
  2. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    Except Obama's plan is so horribly bad, that it would be better to go over the cliff than to pass it. Also you assume that the GOP in the next few years will be blamed for this. Especially when the Democrats have more seats to defend than the GOP in the Senate in 2014.
     
  3. ebilly99

    ebilly99 Americanreigon champ

    Lets assume that Obama's plan is worse then going over the cliff. Can you prove it 100%? If not then how do you expect americans to see it when they see that the one plan to stop the financial problem is voted down. Also in a PR battle the Democrats are better equipped than Republicans. It won't matter the amount of seats if the GOP gets the label as the ones who killed the economy. Better to go with the flow and hope for the best while voicing the worst. Best case scenario the economy doesn't take a hit. Worst case and the Republicans can take the house and senate in a few years.
     
  4. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    It gives away the ability to raise the debt ceiling away, one of the key tools that Congress has to haggle over spending, it promises nothing in terms of dealing with entitlements, and it does not significantly address our spending problems. The fact that it gives away the ability to raise the debt ceiling alone makes it worse than going over.

    You assume that the Democrats will win this PR battle, right now many Democrats are looking like they WANT to go over the fiscal cliff, while the Republicans are struggling to stave it off. Such a thing does not bode well for a long term PR battle.
     
  5. ebilly99

    ebilly99 Americanreigon champ

    The debt ceiling would more then likely be negotiated out if deals were to begin. However the Democrats are willing to cut entitlements by 400 billion, A great start. However Republicans are unwilling for any tax hikes. This must be resolved and the american people would blame the Gop by 54 percent.
     
  6. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    If we are to take Obama's plan it would give the President full control over the debt ceiling.

    Might want to look a wee bit closer there.

    "President Obama embraced $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other entitlements, to be worked out next year, with no guarantees."

    If there are no guarantees then they are not really willing to cut it are they? They only need to dismiss anything the Republicans propose in the 400 billion in savings and just say "We could not reach a deal" and move on.

    And you honestly think that will remain as the Democrats continue to show a willingness to go over the fiscal cliff?
     
  7. 7 tyranitars

    7 tyranitars Well-Known Member

    As long as the republicans don't want tax increasements for the richest 2% then yes.
     
  8. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    And people are going to care in the middle of a new recession? ( Not like the last one really ended ). Or in the Red Republican Areas these Senators are from? "Hey I know my family is in the crap right now because the Democrats wanted to go over the cliff, but damn those Republicans for not making those evil rich pay more"
     
  9. 7 tyranitars

    7 tyranitars Well-Known Member

    Yes or like this: Why couldn't those republicans make the rich people pay a little bit more so that we wouldn't be in this mess! Why are those republicans defending the rich?
     
  10. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    Except having the rich pay more does not effect the raising or lowering of the middle class tax rate, which is what is going to hit the middle class the most. Especially since going over the Fiscal Cliff with DRASTICALLY raise taxes on the Rich, and will do alot to hurt the economy, no matter how much Democrats talk about how returning to the Clinton Era Tax rates will somehow magically bring about Clinton Era growth.
     
  11. ccangelopearl1362

    ccangelopearl1362 Well-Known Member

    If I may propose an even darker view, then here’s mine: “Those businessmen have made our values, our livelihoods, our identities meaningless. We can’t survive under them, so we must destroy everything they built… permanently.”. “Retribution through redistribution” could be nightmarishly effective to use as a slogan, if we’re thinking even further. Call it the logical depth or conclusion to the activities of Barack Obama’s supporters, and depending on how strident those activists become, they could overwhelm even the President himself, as well as, say, Vice-President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and any of their other associates inside Washington, D.C., as Inauguration Day 2013 approaches… and then leaves our memory. All we’ll have to do at this point is continue measuring the American people’s attitudes, and it looks like Gallup will have done just that.:

    Gallup: Frank Newport: Democrats, Republicans Diverge on Capitalism, Federal Gov’t

    Small business and entrepreneurs appear to be the main consensus between Democrats and Republicans, but the differences on big business and socialism are much sharper. Interestingly, Americans as a whole think more positively about the last two terms, while moderates are just about split on rating the federal government itself.:

    • 94% of Republicans or Republican-leaning voters and 88% of Democrats or Democratic-leaning voters having a positive image of free enterprise
    • 72% of Republicans of Republican-leaning voters and 55% of Democrats or Democratic-leaning voters having a positive image of capitalism
    • 49% of Americans rating big business positively in January 2010 vs. 58% rating it positively in November 2012
    • 39% of Americans rating socialism positively vs. 54% rating it negatively
    • 32% of conservatives, 52% of moderates, and 75% of liberals rating the federal government positively

    “Practically, these data suggest that politicians seeking the most positive overall reaction from voters should choose to use the term "free enterprise" rather than "capitalism" in describing America's prevailing economic system and preface mentions of the word "business" with the adjective "small."”, concludes Gallup, and I don’t have a problem with such vocabulary. Money and weapons for international jihadists, on the other hand, could be an entirely different story.:

    New York Times: U.S.-Approved Weapons Transfer Ended Up with Libyan Jihadis
    Daily Telegraph: William Hague: Britain has evidence that Assad preparing chemical weapons for use in Syria

    Call it the most realistic conclusion conceivable: the country that owns Al-Jazeera and hosts Yusuf Qaradawi as the all-important link between the Obama administration and jihadists in both Libya and Syria. “The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement” to either Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani or his subordinates to get the weapons flow up and running. If sending those weapons to Syria wasn’t enough, then some might have also gotten sent to… Mali. The weapons were designed in France or Russia, but American officials had to alert nearby North Atlantic Treaty Organization air and naval forces to avoid interdicting the cargo planes and ships with the weapons aboard. As for Syria, well, all that Bashar Al-Assad needs is to think that those weapons of mass destruction of his are in danger of imminent capture by any Sunni supremacists lurking nearby, and once that happens, we’ll know the rest. Fortunately, it seems that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Al-Nusra Front have been excluded from the new opposition group now up for global recognition, but it could be too late already. Like Iran, those jihadists believe that total collectivism through Sharia is their society’s only option for survival, and given the advancements worldwide, Muhammad Morsi, Abdelhakim Belhadj, and so on are not wrong at all, just evil and tragic.:

    Fox News Channel: Egypt Panels Recommends Referendum Be Held on Time
    Ahram: Morsi supporters and the opposition: Two different Egypts

    The Egyptians have one more week before that referendum of theirs on that draft constitution, but since Morsi wants it shielded from any judicial challenge, his opponents are, perhaps to put it mildly, dissatisfied. There’s no consensus yet, according to some observers, and the Egyptian people don’t appear to have had much time to study the thing. The split probably doesn’t help matters any, and should the Muslim Brotherhood fail to consolidate its operations, the Salafis could step in, anyway, further endangering even the sheikhdoms along the Persian Gulf. I will blame no one here for starting to get the idea that Islam’s at a precipice.:

    British Broadcasting Corporation: Social media brings change in Gulf despite efforts at control

    Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan has a new decree saying that citizens who use the Internet to “deride or damage” any institutions related to the United Arab Emirates, such as the seven emirates, “face up to three years in prison”, while foreigners may simply be deported. He issued the decree hours after admission of the UAE onto the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, and Emirati activists appear to have stopped freely broadcasting their views altogether. Throughout the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, though, ordinary people are finding their own ways to challenge the current system, thereby nudging free expression into Islam’s backyard. If spontaneity becomes a general rule in this country, as well, then Republicans in Michigan could be among those thinking ahead.:

    Fox News Channel: Michigan Republicans Draw Union Ire with Sudden Votes on Right-to-Work Legislation

    I would have to wonder how interesting the measure in question should be for the rest of the country, and Governor Rick Snyder definitely approves of it. Labor unions naturally argue that this legislation would allow workers to stay clear of union dues, and people in Wisconsin and Indiana should be watching closely, as should President Barack Obama and Senators Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz themselves. Maybe we political junkies here should start focusing on various names to recall in this overarching trend.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  12. Silver Soul

    Silver Soul Well-Known Member

    So, anyone thinks there should be a filibuster reform?
     
  13. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    I can't see why the Democrats are pushing for this, the House will act as a check against anything the Senate passes even with taking out the filibuster. And with the chances great the Democrats lose the Senate in 2014, it is merely giving the Republicans more power for when they take the majority in both houses of Congress.
     
  14. Avenger Angel

    Avenger Angel Warrior of Heaven

    Why do liberals defend Obama when he spends more on personal vacations than the entire royal family combined? Taxing the rich is meaningless either way if the money gained from taxes is invested stupidly. Besides, the rich have plenty of means to hide their money and assets so they'll dodge the higher taxes. It's a meaningless pursuit. In the end, no one feels like throwing their hard-earned money at Obama so he can go blow it all away on a lavish vacation, as a gift to some country that isn't going to change their mind about hating us, or on another stupid social program we really don't need and serves no purpose.

    Pay off the debt, quit fooling around, manage and invest the money wisely, and show some damn responsibility. That's why I can't stand this moron. He's parading around as a phony celebrity with a blank check rather than as this country's leader, and we're all paying for it.

    Taxing the rich or not, we'll still be in this mess either way, and it's going to stay that way until serious management changes are made. The rich are probably better off keeping that money.
     
  15. Arlo

    Arlo ...and so on...

    Just a note - national level politicians, REGARDLESS OF PARTY, work explicitly and exclusively for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy and influential patrons and cronies, and all statements otherwise are propaganda meant to keep the populace content with their ongoing rape at the hands of the power/wealth elite, so that they'll continue to vote the politicians into office, so that they can continue to work explicitly and exclusively for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy and influential patrons and cronies. That comforting propaganda most often hinges on a blinkered focus on the failures of the "other" party, of which failures there are plenty, since all national level politicians work explicitly and exclusively for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy and influential patrons and cronies. This is why virtually all political discourse takes the form of condemnation of the "other" party rather than lauding the virtues of ones own - because the "other" party, whichever one it is, is eminently worthy of condemnation, and one's own party, again whichever one it is, has no virtues to laud.

    Any discussion of US politics that does not start with that understanding is of about as much use as a discussion of the optimum wingspan of a fairy.
     
  16. Silver Soul

    Silver Soul Well-Known Member

    Actually, one of the options would be to reform the filibuster into more of a stand up and talk method. Basically just stall the vote by talking.

    Well if the Republicans want to win the majority of the Senate, they must avoid getting Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock types because we know how that turned out this election.
     
  17. miles0624

    miles0624 Wrath of Fire

    Ok. I hate to defend Obama. No Really, I do hate defending him. However, Obama has not spent more vacation time than his predecessor. His total spending on vacations is roughly 8 million dollars for his first term. That is counting the police on overtime, use of air force one, etc. This idea that the president is spending ludicrous money is asinine. Little tiny bloppers can give Justin Bieber 54 million dollars last year alone, but give our president 8 million dollars over eight years and you think is is just too much. Wow.

    2. So because the rich can hide their money, we shouldn't increase their taxes? Because we don't have a balanced budget, we shouldn't ta people? My parents payed just about 35 percent in taxes last year. If I remember correctly, their total came out to around $44,000. My Mom's a stay at home and my dad makes 135k. We pay our fair share of taxes to keep this country afloat and don't claim many ta deductions. I think the only ones they get are the house, marriage, kids, and my college books. While we don't believe in raising taxes, saying they shouldn't be raised because you don't believe in the spending is an asinine statement. (Even though I agree with you.)

    3. Yes, we will still be in this mess, but we need to take every step to get out of it. I believe that if we taxed the rich higher, that we would only be brining in 64 million a year more. While it barley dents our budget, every step we take makes a difference.

    4. I actually completely agree with your statements. It is just that there are a couple of flaws with this belief. ^.^
     
  18. WizardTrubbish

    WizardTrubbish much more beastly

    Why do people attack Obama for all his vacations? He actually hasn't taken that many. It's half of what Reagan took and a third of what Bush took. How he chooses to spend his pay check has nothing to do with his his effectiveness as president.

    So you want to pay off the debt without raising taxes? How does that work?
     
  19. 7 tyranitars

    7 tyranitars Well-Known Member

    Well you can increase punishment on tax evasion.
     
  20. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    And you willing to have the Democrats only have that when they are in the minority?

    Considering how many "moderate" Democrats are up in red states, that may be the only thing left for Democrats to hope for to save their majority.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page