Obama Vs. Romney: 2012 US Election

[BigLutz]

His plans are to drastically change everything in a four-eight year term. He wants to rework the education system from the ground up which isn't going to happen that quickly. He claims to want to separate money and the government when they government is mostly responsible for our debt in the first place.

And how does that suddenly get our economy working again? What progress has he suddenly made in the first four years to get that done? He failed on the Stimulus, he wasted a year on Health Care Reform, and he nearly defaulted us. In none of that seems to be a concentrated effort to do the things you listed.

 

[Old Soul]

Support for population control, is probably not the best argument you can make for Planned Parenthood funding. But honestly, our economy is the dumps, Obama has not shown any ability to improve it. Is funding for Planned Parenthood the biggest thing on our minds right now?!

maybe not for someone where it doesn't hit close to home. i mean sure "population control" is an icky icky word that has some pretty negative connotations, but when you have actually lived in and experienced hopeless ghettos where all women seem capable of doing is popping out babies, planned parenthood sure is one hell of a perk man. and think about it, funding planned parenthood is an investment. more planned parenthood clinics = less welfare whores sucking off the governments teet.

 

[Dragonicwari]

I haven't payed to much attention, but something I did notice was that Obama (according to my dad) and Romney (according to me) have stated that the other has no plan to get us out of debt... I feel like no matter who I vote for most (ignoring the abortion thing) things will end up the same way.... Though I think I'm voting for Obama because Romney seems to only like the upper class people

 

[iFi Salamander]

And how does that suddenly get our economy working again? What progress has he suddenly made in the first four years to get that done? He failed on the Stimulus, he wasted a year on Health Care Reform, and he nearly defaulted us. In none of that seems to be a concentrated effort to do the things you listed.

I'm talking about Romney not Obama.

Fun fact: Romney supported both Obama's Stimulus Package, and Health Care Reformation in 2009

Though I think I'm voting for Obama because Romney seems to only like the upper class people

More accurately his policies ensure poor people will stay poor, and rich people will stay rich by limiting financial aid and things like Welfare. Though that is just conservatism running its head.

 

[BigLutz]

maybe not for someone where it doesn't hit close to home. i mean sure "population control" is an icky icky word that has some pretty negative connotations, but when you have actually lived in and experienced hopeless ghettos where all women seem capable of doing is popping out babies, planned parenthood sure is one hell of a perk man. and think about it, funding planned parenthood is an investment. more planned parenthood clinics = less welfare whores sucking off the governments teet.

Then why not just go with forced sterilization?

I'm talking about Romney not Obama.

Then why use it in a quote entirely in the context of Obama, with absolutely no mention of Romney?

 

[iFi Salamander]

Then why not just go with forced sterilization?



Then why use it in a quote entirely in the context of Obama, with absolutely no mention of Romney?

You already know the answer, mixed train of thought.

 

[Old Soul]

Then why not just go with forced sterilization?

*pauses for a moment*

okay broski, pal, friend, compadre, amigo, why not just flat out tell me where you are going this one lol

 

[randomspot555]

Honestly, just to give the big wigs of the party something to do.[/qupte]

Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel: "I've never read our party's platform"

I still haven't completely decided, though it has nothing to do with pessimism, both candidates are just pretty terrible. After reviewing the stances and pros and cons it feels like a lose/lose situation either way. If I do vote it will be for Obama though because Romney is insufferable if you are poor.

There are also other elections going on. Down ballot races often get decided with the dozens or hundreds of votes. One of my local city legislators won her re-election bid by 39 votes. Another school board election in my county 4 years ago came down to 12.

um, romney wants to cut off all federal funding to organizations like planned parenthood. if you don't believe me i can find exactly where he said it. say what you want about abortion being eeeeeeviiiiiil or whatever, but organizations like planned parenthood offer many more services other than abortion that help prevent pregnancies to women that are on the low of the socio-economic ladder. the cut off of all federal funding would mean hundreds of clinics across the nation would be forced to close down and you'd most likely see the populations in these areas spin out of control.

This is based off of money being fungible. Qualifying for this money for cancer screenings means they have more general funds to dedicate to abortion. This means that, without govt funding, PP would have to make a choice of what to do with their general funds: Fund medical services and birth control, or fund abortion.

What this law does, such as the similarl aws passed in a few states (including Indiana) doesn't eliminate cancer screening funding. It just means you can't do it at Planned Parenthood.

I have absolutely no problem with cutting off funding to PP.

No and what I said has nothing to do with your point. Kind of why I quoted specifically what I did. I even agreed with you that we need to up our space game and how would should have a boosted interest in science, etc. I commented on how Newt is not a good example for the example of NASA and space. A lot of people have a 'vision' but does that mean it is good? No. He is not a good example because he said that he wants the US to own and claim the moon, which would cause international dispute. I could give you a new world, a better one in almost every way, we just need to kill a couple million people first in order for it to happen, but hey I've got that vision and that's all that matters. (I'm not being serious)

The fact that you're going into detail shows you missed my point. There's nothing to "Agree" with in my post because I never said I favor expanding NASA. There's other visionaries out there, I just picked Gingrich and space off the top of my head. The little details of it don't matter. The point I was making is that Gingrich had a legit, thought out vision for NASA, unlike either candidate has for anything else. Unlike Clinton's vision for welfare in 1996. Unlike Reagan's vision for essentially the entire federal government in 1980.

I haven't payed to much attention, but something I did notice was that Obama (according to my dad) and Romney (according to me) have stated that the other has no plan to get us out of debt...

Well, they really don't. There are important issues, and having trillion dollar annual deficits is unsustainable. But government can hold long term debt and can carry it in ways that households and businesses can't.

I mean short of stopping all government services, there's no way to make a big impact on the national debt. And doing something that drastic arguably will hurt economic growth.

Even Paul Ryan's budget doesn't get us to a balanced budget until something like 2040, and that budget assumes a pretty rosy economic picture in a year or two.

 

[Pesky Persian]

Our economy turned around in less than four years in the 80s, the same in the 90s, and in the 00s. And that one had a major terror attack to effect it. What is so special about this time other than a poor President?

To be quite frank, I can't tell you what the difference is because I'm not an economist and I haven't done that much research. However, I do know that things change over time. The global economy has been pretty bad lately from what I've seen. (I hate politics and talk of money, which is why I don't generally get involved in these kinds of debates.) I just honestly believe that with the state of our economy now and the global economy as a whole (and I'm sure economics across the globe effect the U.S. too), I don't think either Obama or Romney will turn things around that quickly, especially when it seems both parties are at each other's throats more than ever now. What exactly is Romney going to do to turn the economy around anyway?

Like I said, I'm more concerned with social policies than I am economics. I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying that, but that's how I feel. And while I'll agree with you that population control is a bad argument for Planned Parenthood, I still think cutting off funds to it is a terrible idea. It's a great place for people of lower socioeconomic status to go to for preventative care. The free STD/STI tests, pregnancy tests, cancer screenings, etc. are a great way to catch potential healthcare issues early in order to keep them from being a burden on the healthcare system as a whole later on. I'd much rather those people go to Planned Parenthood for their free testing rather than clogging up the emergency department of the closest hospital.

 

[waterboy62311]

. And he seems like a genuinely nice man, and doesn't always throw insults and attack all the time. /QUOTE]

Ok time to debunk this one immediately. Romney had a rally in Pittsburgh a while ago. A local baker made basic pastries, to provide for the event, obviously he took a whole staff and about 2 or 3 days unpaid for this. Romney looks at it and says to get rid of them, they look like theyre from 7-11. You call that kind of treatment to your supporters nice?

 

[Cosmical El Amarna]

randomspot555, I apologize for missing your point and getting off topic. I still think Newt and space was a bad example though. Just because someone has a plan it does not mean that it is a good one and I'd rather have someone who is still thinking or who hasn't submitted one yet than going with one that sucks. You could have used a much better one, but like you said it was off the top of your head that you wrote Newt.

 

[Heldigunner1]

Obama has been shown to be a proven failure in the art of politics, he has led us into a state of malaze and has largely lost the trust of Congress, in many ways he is already a lame duck.

how did he lose the trust in congress when they never gave him a start, and when they did it was like like pulling teeth. The tea party doesn't like obama, that is a well established fact, not all republicans are as one minded as the republican tea party. Being many of the congressional republicans are part of the tea party, they wouldn't let obama succeed, of course you'll lose if your playing against a stacked deck. Yes, not everything Obama has done has succeeded in fact somethings he has done was been simply stupid, but show me one person who has made the correct choice 100% of the time.

All Romney has shown me is, he wants the middle class to pay more the upper class pay less and to repeal everything Obama has done in washington. That is what he showed me during his speech at the republican convention. Romney hasn't told us any plans as to how he will fix the economy. If it isn't a tax cut, Romney has shown he just doesn't know what he's doing.

Obama has shown me he has a steady plan, targeting the middle class Americans who of which, make up the bulk of how our economy grows. If you don't have the middle class working, how are new things going to be made, who will teach; as far as the elderly who can not afford the medicine are you just going to let them die.

 

[randomspot555]

Ok time to debunk this one immediately. Romney had a rally in Pittsburgh a while ago. A local baker made basic pastries, to provide for the event, obviously he took a whole staff and about 2 or 3 days unpaid for this. Romney looks at it and says to get rid of them, they look like theyre from 7-11. You call that kind of treatment to your supporters nice?

And Obama is an angel, right?

You're likeable enough at a Dem 2008 debate.

It also doesn't take 2-3 days to bake cookies. Even professional baked cookies. It takes like, 1-2 hours. Tops.

Never did Cometstarlight say Romney is 100% nice and perky all the time every day of the week. He just said "he seems like a genuinely nice man". You pointing out one time he wasn't nice and implying he's always a jerk is a huge leap in logic you're making.

randomspot555, I apologize for missing your point and getting off topic. I still think Newt and space was a bad example though. Just because someone has a plan it does not mean that it is a good one and I'd rather have someone who is still thinking or who hasn't submitted one yet than going with one that sucks. You could have used a much better one, but like you said it was off the top of your head that you wrote Newt.

The point was Newt had a vision and Romney and Obama do not. If you want to debate that Obama and Romney do have a vision, lemme know.

 

[Cometstarlight]

. And he seems like a genuinely nice man, and doesn't always throw insults and attack all the time. /QUOTE]

Ok time to debunk this one immediately. Romney had a rally in Pittsburgh a while ago. A local baker made basic pastries, to provide for the event, obviously he took a whole staff and about 2 or 3 days unpaid for this. Romney looks at it and says to get rid of them, they look like theyre from 7-11. You call that kind of treatment to your supporters nice?

Do you have any actual proof to back this up, or are you making it up on the fly? Or perhaps you heard from CNN or some other channel? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just looking for the facts, not an obscure situation that may or may not be true.

And as long as we are on people being unpaid; Obama had a group of his people staying at a hotel and then his group left without paying the multiple Ks that they had partied away. I'm trying to relocate the article now.

And Obama is an angel, right?

You're likeable enough at a Dem 2008 debate.

It also doesn't take 2-3 days to bake cookies. Even professional baked cookies. It takes like, 1-2 hours. Tops.

Never did Cometstarlight say Romney is 100% nice and perky all the time every day of the week. He just said "he seems like a genuinely nice man". You pointing out one time he wasn't nice and implying he's always a jerk is a huge leap in logic you're making.



The point was Newt had a vision and Romney and Obama do not. If you want to debate that Obama and Romney do have a vision, lemme know.

I'm a she, but that's beside the point XD

 

[Old Soul]

This is based off of money being fungible. Qualifying for this money for cancer screenings means they have more general funds to dedicate to abortion. This means that, without govt funding, PP would have to make a choice of what to do with their general funds: Fund medical services and birth control, or fund abortion.

What this law does, such as the similarl aws passed in a few states (including Indiana) doesn't eliminate cancer screening funding. It just means you can't do it at Planned Parenthood.

I have absolutely no problem with cutting off funding to PP.

i dont think your point is either here nor there considering ryan nor romney are very fond of birth control either. if you say you don't want government to fund money to a certain organization because "i do not believe abortion is right" for example, well that's cute i guess, but lots of catholics don't believe even condoms or birth control are right either. i suppose "population control" wasn't the best word i could have used considering the negative connotations, but my point is more less about preventing people from helplessly relying on welfare before it happens. what is the quickest way to get on welfare? losing your job or having a baby. mainly the latter. if the ultimatum you explained is true, cutting off funding for planned parenthood is much more a crusade against abortion than it is about necessary financial cutbacks. if that being the case, conservatives should take their own advice about social issues not being as important as the economy.

 

[iFi Salamander]

Do you have any actual proof to back this up, or are you making it up on the fly? Or perhaps you heard from CNN or some other channel? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just looking for the facts, not an obscure situation that may or may not be true.

And as long as we are on people being unpaid; Obama had a group of his people staying at a hotel and then his group left without paying the multiple Ks that they had partied away. I'm trying to relocate the article now.





I'm a she, but that's beside the point XD

I am pretty sure that fact he wants to screw over low-budget and mid class households for wealthy benefit is a good sign he is a pretty awful person. He also wants to expand the military which is pretty counterproductive.

i dont think your point is either here nor there considering ryan nor romney are very fond of birth control either. if you say you don't want government to fund money to a certain organization because "i do not believe abortion is right" for example, well that's cute i guess, but lots of catholics don't believe even condoms or birth control are right either. i suppose "population control" wasn't the best word i could have used considering the negative connotations, but my point is more less about preventing people from helplessly relying on welfare before it happens. what is the quickest way to get on welfare? losing your job or having a baby. mainly the latter. if the ultimatum you explained is true, cutting off funding for planned parenthood is much more a crusade against abortion than it is about necessary financial cutbacks. if that being the case, conservatives should take their own advice about social issues not being as important as the economy.

I don't foretell the issue on abortion changing much. Romney claims even if he is elected he wants to enforce choice. He is a Christian and dislikes abortion, but he doesn't want to bring it into politics.

Of course more likely than not he is just saying that now to get votes from the large number of pro-choice advocates.

 

[randomspot555]

how did he lose the trust in congress when they never gave him a start,

BigLutz is right, though. Obama, even when he had a D Congress, was really bad with communicating with them. And if he couldn't work well with a D Congress, then it is no surprise he's worked poorly with a half R Congress.

The tea party doesn't like obama, that is a well established fact,

GOP sure didn't like Clinton either. He still got things done. Having opposition not liking you isn't an excuse for inaction.

Obama has shown me he has a steady plan,

And that is....?

targeting the middle class Americans

And what does this mean, in terms of policy?

as far as the elderly who can not afford the medicine are you just going to let them die.

Medicare Part D covers prescription drugs.

 

[Old Soul]

also, i don't see why we have to choose between social issues and the economy. its not as if an administration is only capable of doing one single thing at a time. the civil rights movement for african americans was in full swing in the midst of the vietnam war. brushing aside all social issues and saying "uh yeah, well, it'll be dealt with later there's bigger more important stuff to do" just seems kind of disingenuous.

 

[randomspot555]

I am pretty sure that fact he wants to screw over low-budget and mid class households for wealthy benefit is a good sign he is a pretty awful person.

But according to Romney's belief, he thinks his policies will help those households.

If someone's politics makes them an "awful person", well, I don't think you were ever gonna like him in the first place.

He also wants to expand the military which is pretty counterproductive.

You say this as if Obama is planning on cutting the military in some way.

i dont think your point is either here nor there

It is very relevant. Keep providing the funding for the medical procedures to be done else where.

What's wrong with that?

considering ryan nor romney are very fond of birth control either.

If by "fond" you mean aren't proposing any changes, sure.

if you say you don't want government to fund money to a certain organization because "i do not believe abortion is right" for example, well that's cute

It is "cute". It is also my belief that taxpayer money shouldn't be used to fund abortions, directly or otherwise.

i guess, but lots of catholics don't believe even condoms or birth control are right either.

Your point?

if the ultimatum you explained is true, cutting off funding for planned parenthood is much more a crusade against abortion than it is about necessary financial cutbacks. if that being the case, conservatives should take their own advice about social issues not being as important as the economy.

Please do not address me as "conservatives" and don't imply that I said something I didn't. Social issues are important. The Democrats just spent 4 days celebrating abortion-on-demand. It is such a double standard that when Democrats use social issues, some people fall all over themselves praising them. But when conservatives do it, people often in the media freak out and accuse them of bringing up social issues as a wedge.

 

[GrizzlyB]

To answer the OP, I'm voting for Romney. Swing state vote, hella.

1) Economy.
2) Eh, kinda, but not really. I'm registered as unaffiliated, and vote for many Democrats, but on the whole, I lean more Republican.
3) No, it won't be.
4) I guess I'd have to say I'm more partial to Obama's social policies at face value, and Romney's economic ones. But I also feel that a president has a marginally greater say in how our country interacts with the rest of the world (ie economic affairs) than purely internal issues (ie social issues). I'm also not sold on the whole Romney-is-a-misogynist thing, because it's not as if it operates independently of the economy or anything.

I still haven't completely decided, though it has nothing to do with pessimism, both candidates are just pretty terrible. After reviewing the stances and pros and cons it feels like a lose/lose situation either way. If I do vote it will be for Obama though because Romney is insufferable if you are poor.

Even if you hate the presidential candidates and don't want to vote for either of them, you should still register and vote for all of your more local politicians; after all, they're almost guaranteed to affect you, personally, more than any president.

Well you must already be wealthy, or you have no clue what these policies are.

OMFG TRUEST FACT EVER I AGREE LOL

But really, I'm fairly poor myself (well, at any rate I'm sure as hell not rich), but that doesn't mean I want my country to be. Sometimes you vote for things that go against your own personal beliefs for the greater good. Well, actually, everybody does that every time, unless you ever find a candidate you agree with 100% on everything.

Anyone who says that can't be taken seriously, ever.

I'm getting the weirdest vibe here that, while you're clamoring for women's rights, you're simultaneously ignorantly shutting one down who has done nothing more than express that her train of thought doesn't line up with what you expect out of women. Woo, chills!

Ok time to debunk this one immediately. Romney had a rally in Pittsburgh a while ago. A local baker made basic pastries, to provide for the event, obviously he took a whole staff and about 2 or 3 days unpaid for this. Romney looks at it and says to get rid of them, they look like theyre from 7-11. You call that kind of treatment to your supporters nice?

Wait, Romney is THAT OUT OF TOUCH with voters. **** this, I'm going to vote for Obama, because at least I could see myself getting a beer with him.