Romney vs. Obama

[ElasticNinja]

What benefits do the people at the top reap from the government that the people on the bottom don't?

Education and healthcare for their employees (as opposed to them paying for this themselves lassez faire 1850 style)
Infrastructure for their business
A secure operating environment for their business
Subsidies low paid workers keep business costs down
A stable currency and economy
Government sponsored R&D
Government investment and stimulus
a highly developed society
Social safety net for employees
Legal protections for them and their business
Start up subsidies and tax breaks
Respect for rule of law

Certainly in indirect ways, wealthy people benefit monetarily more from governments.

 

[Android26]

I'll have to go with my man Obama on this one

 

[Richard Stallman]

I voted for Obama in 2008 but I seriously doubt I will again. The man is certainly not doing as poorly as the right-wingers are claiming, but the unfortunate fact is that the US political system as a whole is broken. The entire thing needs to be thrown out before any real "change" can actually take place. By voting with the belief that you are helping bring change, you are merely counting on a broken system to fix what is broken. Quite a glaring paradox, and one that I think is certainly doomed to failure.

Obama's major mistake was the NDAA act. That alone significantly eroded my trust and made it all the more obvious that all presidents are merely tools of the corporate-controlled Congress and military-industrial complex.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I voted for Obama in 2008 but I seriously doubt I will again. The man is certainly not doing as poorly as the right-wingers are claiming, but the unfortunate fact is that the US political system as a whole is broken. The entire thing needs to be thrown out before any real "change" can actually take place. By voting with the belief that you are helping bring change, you are merely counting on a broken system to fix what is broken. Quite a glaring paradox, and one that I think is certainly doomed to failure.

Obama's major mistake was the NDAA act. That alone significantly eroded my trust and made it all the more obvious that all presidents are merely tools of the corporate-controlled Congress and military-industrial complex.

I'm probably not voting at all this year and have pretty much lost all faith in system. It's so broken beyond repair at this point it's ridiculous. I continue to be amused by the optimism of the Ron Paul fanboys across the web who are convinced that Paul will mount a serious challenge to Romney at the convention and that if he should somehow manage to get nominated that the party would unite behind him and he's the only one who can beat Obama. Here I am seriously leaning toward staying at home and they're convinced that their guy is the Messiah who can save us all. Have I lost it or have they? Or both?

 

[ylexot]

Ron Paul has a theoretical chance at the convention. He has been less concerned with the primary votes and more concerned with getting delegates who support him going to the convention. If Romney doesn't have a majority to lock up the nomination in the first round, the delegates are no longer bound to voting for Romney in the next round(s) and can switch to Paul...if they want. It'll be interesting to see if he can pull it off, but I'm not going to hold my breath. If he wins, I'll vote for him in the general. If not, I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Of course, being in MD, our delegates are going to Obama no matter who I vote for.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Ron Paul has a theoretical chance at the convention. He has been less concerned with the primary votes and more concerned with getting delegates who support him going to the convention. If Romney doesn't have a majority to lock up the nomination in the first round, the delegates are no longer bound to voting for Romney in the next round(s) and can switch to Paul...if they want. It'll be interesting to see if he can pull it off, but I'm not going to hold my breath. If he wins, I'll vote for him in the general. If not, I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Of course, being in MD, our delegates are going to Obama no matter who I vote for.

Romney is virtually a lock to get enough delegates. I've heard rumblings from the Paul camp that they're trying to get delegates who are pledged to Romney to not vote at all on the first ballot. That way they deny Romney a majority.

Paul's strategy annoys me TBH. His strategy seems like he wants to give the middle finger to the voters, scam his way to the nomination, then hope and pray that everyone will unite behind him. Even if all that goes his way, I don't see the party backing him at all.

Sadly, I live in KS and we are voting Republican if Adolf Hitler came back from the grave and ran as a Republican. It makes me sad.

 

[FJR1300]

Ron Paul supporters are standing up for something they believe in, in order to change the system people have to rally behind a candidate that truly wants to change the status quo. Sitting at home won't get it done, I give them props for putting the time in and trying to actively change the political landscape.

Sure, they and Ron Paul alike have a tremendous uphill battle and that's understating things. But if no one tries and just caves in to business as usual, well that's what we'll always have. Ron Paul will probably never be elected to the office of president, but maybe his courage to buck the system and alienate himself will inspire someone that will one day be elected. We need people like him to pave the way, change takes place very slowly but it does happen...in our last election we had a woman and a black man that were very viable candidates, who would have seriously imagined that possibility when Bush was last elected? Who knows what we might see in 2016?

 

[ylexot]

Technically, the convention isn't about the voters. It's about the party choosing their candidate...which why I find Dems voting in Rep primaries and vice versa to be a weird concept. It used to be that people didn't even vote in primaries.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Ron Paul supporters are standing up for something they believe in, in order to change the system people have to rally behind a candidate that truly wants to change the status quo. Sitting at home won't get it done, I give them props for putting the time in and trying to actively change the political landscape.

Sure, they and Ron Paul alike have a tremendous uphill battle and that's understating things. But if no one tries and just caves in to business as usual, well that's what we'll always have. Ron Paul will probably never be elected to the office of president, but maybe his courage to buck the system and alienate himself will inspire someone that will one day be elected. We need people like him to pave the way, change takes place very slowly but it does happen...in our last election we had a woman and a black man that were very viable candidates, who would have seriously imagined that possibility when Bush was last elected? Who knows what we might see in 2016?

I see no problems with people trying to get Paul elected. It's the method they're using to get him elected that I have problems with. While all the other candidates are out trying to appeal to the masses, Paul and company are trying to scam the system. That's my problem with his campaign.

 

[Richard Stallman]

I'm probably not voting at all this year and have pretty much lost all faith in system. It's so broken beyond repair at this point it's ridiculous. I continue to be amused by the optimism of the Ron Paul fanboys across the web who are convinced that Paul will mount a serious challenge to Romney at the convention and that if he should somehow manage to get nominated that the party would unite behind him and he's the only one who can beat Obama. Here I am seriously leaning toward staying at home and they're convinced that their guy is the Messiah who can save us all. Have I lost it or have they? Or both?

I personally can't stand either Paul or his supporters. Most of Paul's ideology is briefly tempting at first glance, but when you really delve deep into his philosophy, he's either completely clueless or correct but helpless to actually effect that change. Libertarian economics seems to me more of a religion than an actual set of proposed economic policies. (The "free market" is their deity that will fix everything.)

I think the biggest problem with Paul and most Libertarians in general is his failure to recognize anything other than the government as the source of all our economic hardships. They blame the government for literally everything. This wouldn't be so bad if they were merely singling out the current US Government's policies specifically (in which case I would be inclined to agree) but Paulites in fact believe government in general is usually always bad. I'm very distrustful of Libertarian economics as I believe it would lead to monopolistic dominance of the market by corporations due to Libertarian unwillingness to regulate the market and thus protect consumers from anti-competitive business practices. And in addition, low wages and prolonging the status of the United States as the only major developed nation without a single-payer healthcare system.

/conclude mini-rant.

 

[ylexot]

This seems like a good time for Keynes vs. Hayek...Round 2:

 

[FJR1300]

I see no problems with people trying to get Paul elected. It's the method they're using to get him elected that I have problems with. While all the other candidates are out trying to appeal to the masses, Paul and company are trying to scam the system. That's my problem with his campaign.

I'm not sure that scam is an appropriate description...is he doing anything that is against the rules or simply using every available tool in the box? If you know of a tactic that he is using that is illegal, I'd honestly be interested in hearing about it, I'd lose respect for what he's trying to accomplish if he can't do it within the rules, though I probably wouldn't blame him since I'm convinced that his opponents have broken some rules at one time or another.

What of the former candidates giving their support to Romney, haven't they let their voters and supporters down? Yesterday they tell us what a terrible president Romney would make, today he's the best man for the job.

Paul takes a lot of flak for his ideas, I think mostly because those ideas cannot work in our present form of government, which really illustrates the problem with our government since he is a constitutionalist. The real problem is that the government that has evolved in this country does not work with the document that is supposed to guide our government's actions.

RP may not be the answer to all that ails our country, but after decades of the same old Republican vs Democrat self-serving politics, I'm ready to try something different. Einstein's definition of insanity has never rung more true than when it comes to politics in America.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I'm not sure that scam is an appropriate description...is he doing anything that is against the rules or simply using every available tool in the box? If you know of a tactic that he is using that is illegal, I'd honestly be interested in hearing about it, I'd lose respect for what he's trying to accomplish if he can't do it within the rules, though I probably wouldn't blame him since I'm convinced that his opponents have broken some rules at one time or another.

What of the former candidates giving their support to Romney, haven't they let their voters and supporters down? Yesterday they tell us what a terrible president Romney would make, today he's the best man for the job.

Paul takes a lot of flak for his ideas, I think mostly because those ideas cannot work in our present form of government, which really illustrates the problem with our government since he is a constitutionalist. The real problem is that the government that has evolved in this country does not work with the document that is supposed to guide our government's actions.

RP may not be the answer to all that ails our country, but after decades of the same old Republican vs Democrat self-serving politics, I'm ready to try something different. Einstein's definition of insanity has never rung more true than when it comes to politics in America.

Perhaps I could've picked a better word. I meant scam in the sense of trying to scam a phone number at a bar, not scam in the sense of trying to scam an old lady out of her life savings. Paul is essentially trying to game the system instead of trying to appeal to the voters. That is what irritates me. The other candidates are no doubt trying some of the same scams, but they're also trying to appeal to the voters as well and their scamming and scheming is a backup plan not a Plan A.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I'm probably not voting at all this year and have pretty much lost all faith in system. It's so broken beyond repair at this point it's ridiculous. I continue to be amused by the optimism of the Ron Paul fanboys across the web who are convinced that Paul will mount a serious challenge to Romney at the convention and that if he should somehow manage to get nominated that the party would unite behind him and he's the only one who can beat Obama. Here I am seriously leaning toward staying at home and they're convinced that their guy is the Messiah who can save us all. Have I lost it or have they? Or both?

Hope you have a chance to vote for 3rd party or nonaffiliated candidates. I try to vote for non-lunatic candidates not associated with the duopoly parties or at least one whose funding leads one to believe this is not a bought and sold candidate. :beer:
​

 

[A.Nonymous]

Hope you have a chance to vote for 3rd party or nonaffiliated candidates. I try to vote for non-lunatic candidates not associated with the duopoly parties or at least one whose funding leads one to believe this is not a bought and sold candidate. :beer:
​

The Libertarian candidates around here tend to be nutjobs. We've got one guy who runs for Senate or Congress or the governorship every single year. His main campaign platform is that he wants to legalize drugs. He's literally running around in a bright red conservative state that voted for Santorum saying, "Vote for me!! I want to legalize drugs!!!" He gets single digits in the election if that.

The other third party candidates that have run in recent years are thoroughly unqualified. I remember one of them was like a 19 year old college sophomore running for Senate. Ummmm. No. I'll pass on the teenage senator thank you very much. The local offices seem to be dominated by the same people every year as well. They change which offices they're running for, but it's all the same people. Our county commissioners voted to raise taxes a few years ago and every single one of them that was up for re-election got tossed out. Then they turned around and ran for city council or mayor or some other local office the next time around. Nothing changed.

 

[gamblor01]

The Libertarian candidates around here tend to be nutjobs. We've got one guy who runs for Senate or Congress or the governorship every single year. His main campaign platform is that he wants to legalize drugs. He's literally running around in a bright red conservative state that voted for Santorum saying, "Vote for me!! I want to legalize drugs!!!" He gets single digits in the election if that.

Portugal decriminalized all drugs back in 2001 and since then their health officials say that their number of "problematic" addicts has decreased by half. Here is a real-world example proving that treatment works better than punishment.

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal - Forbes



But I'm not surprised you're jaded by politics. You're in Kansas you say? Ah yes...Kansas. The state where governors aren't doing any actual work because they are too busy getting teenagers sent to the principal's office for things they post on twitter.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Portugal decriminalized all drugs back in 2001 and since then their health officials say that their number of "problematic" addicts has decreased by half. Here is a real-world example proving that treatment works better than punishment.

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal - Forbes



But I'm not surprised you're jaded by politics. You're in Kansas you say? Ah yes...Kansas. The state where governors aren't doing any actual work because they are too busy getting teenagers sent to the principal's office for things they post on twitter.

That's a completely different thing though because of the cultural differences. In either case, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of legalizing some drugs. It's just that running that as your main platform is stupid because a) we have way more important issues to address than legalizing drugs and b) you're just inviting your opponents to paint you as a whackjob.

 

[OutofDate1980]

The Libertarian candidates around here tend to be nutjobs. We've got one guy who runs for Senate or Congress or the governorship every single year. His main campaign platform is that he wants to legalize drugs. He's literally running around in a bright red conservative state that voted for Santorum saying, "Vote for me!! I want to legalize drugs!!!" He gets single digits in the election if that.

The other third party candidates that have run in recent years are thoroughly unqualified. I remember one of them was like a 19 year old college sophomore running for Senate. Ummmm. No. I'll pass on the teenage senator thank you very much. ...

Sounds like you have a few offbeat candidates to vote for.:ridinghorse:

Remember, one is trying to disturb the status quo. It's better than not voting, as that helps the status quo.​

 

[gamblor01]

That's a completely different thing though because of the cultural differences. In either case, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of legalizing some drugs. It's just that running that as your main platform is stupid because a) we have way more important issues to address than legalizing drugs and b) you're just inviting your opponents to paint you as a whackjob.

Totally agree.

 

[ElasticNinja]

That's a completely different thing though because of the cultural differences.

Cultural differences? They have a more relaxed alcohol to alcohol, but thats about it, and it certainly wouldnt account for a having of incidences.

 

[TxGoat]

So Romney wants to take credit for the Chrysler/GM bailout and the FOP (Fox Ole Party) claims that Obama can't run on the fact that he issued the order to kill Bin Laden....

Is the GOP and Faux News mad because now they can't claim that Obama and the Democrats are soft on terrorism?

Not to claim that all this political BS posturing isn't one sided. Obama coming out for gay marriage sounds like he's trying to pander to the gay and lesbian voters.

December can't come soon enough....

 

[Richard Stallman]

Remember, one is trying to disturb the status quo. It's better than not voting, as that helps the status quo.

All of the current candidates would "help the status quo" with their respective policies. Even Paul would have his hands tied even if he were to be elected President. Presidents can't just take office and rule as dictators, there's that pesky Senate, Congress, and Supreme Court that has to approve. And with Paul as radical as he is, nothing would get done.

 

[A.Nonymous]

All of the current candidates would "help the status quo" with their respective policies. Even Paul would have his hands tied even if he were to be elected President. Presidents can't just take office and rule as dictators, there's that pesky Senate, Congress, and Supreme Court that has to approve. And with Paul as radical as he is, nothing would get done.

That is my main beef with Paul. He has no support within his own party. If your own party treats you as an outcast, it's insane to think they'll suddenly embrace you if you're elected. Obama could skewer Paul just on that alone. At least Obama will sometimes work with the GOP. Paul won't work with either party.

I do like a lot of Paul's policies. My thought is that what we are trying is not working. Why not try something radically different? I don't see anything fundamentally flawed with what he's preaching. It's how he's conducting his campaign that I think is flawed. Attempting to appeal to the delegates despite what the voters are expressing is not a formula for success IMO. I predict that he'll do what he did last time around and take his delegates and hold his own convention for no other reason than to spite Romney. I find that behavior childish as well. But politics is often that way to be fair.

 

[FJR1300]

I disagree that RP keeping his delegates and holding his own convention is childish, I think he avoids being a hypocrite like all other candidates. Every candidate in the race does / did not think that Romney is the best man for the job. By doing this, RP doesn't pander and he doesn't flip flop, I think that is an admirable trait.

He most definitely could win more mainstream support if he played the game the way it has always been played, but he's trying to offer a different approach. If he was 30 years younger he might one day get his point across to enough people to become a serious threat and I'd be very surprised if he wasn't fully aware of how slim his chances are when he runs for President.

I think it's too dismissive to say that he wouldn't get anything done if elected, if the congressmen and senators deadlocked every single initiative RP brought, they would risk losing re-election, there would have to be some give and take. And let's not forget, there are some things that the President can do without approval of the house and senate. Even if he did not accomplish a single thing that required cooperation, since many of us do not want the same tired old GOP or DNP policies...would that necessarily be a bad thing?

I'm not so much of a Ron Paul supporter as I am an opponent of the status quo.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I disagree that RP keeping his delegates and holding his own convention is childish, I think he avoids being a hypocrite like all other candidates. Every candidate in the race does / did not think that Romney is the best man for the job. By doing this, RP doesn't pander and he doesn't flip flop, I think that is an admirable trait.

He most definitely could win more mainstream support if he played the game the way it has always been played, but he's trying to offer a different approach. If he was 30 years younger he might one day get his point across to enough people to become a serious threat and I'd be very surprised if he wasn't fully aware of how slim his chances are when he runs for President.

I think it's too dismissive to say that he wouldn't get anything done if elected, if the congressmen and senators deadlocked every single initiative RP brought, they would risk losing re-election, there would have to be some give and take. And let's not forget, there are some things that the President can do without approval of the house and senate. Even if he did not accomplish a single thing that required cooperation, since many of us do not want the same tired old GOP or DNP policies...would that necessarily be a bad thing?

I'm not so much of a Ron Paul supporter as I am an opponent of the status quo.

I don't think it's hypocrisy to release your delegates. To me, it's like losing a game. You can shake the winners hand in the middle of the field or you can take your ball and storm home. In politics, the party is bigger than the man. By releasing their delegates and endorsing the winner, the candidates show that the party is bigger than the man. It's how the game is played and it's the classy move IMO. You admit defeat, congratulate the winner and go home. By taking his delegates and leaving, Paul makes the man bigger than the party and is basically taking his ball and going home. By attempting to persuade delegates who are pledged to Romney to not vote for him (as Paul is doing) he's attempting to win the game by cheating after he's lost fair and square. (Yes, I realize what he's doing isn't technically illegal, but it's not a perfect analogy)

While you're right that Paul could accomplish some things without Congress, he wouldn't. He's a very strict constitutionalist guy and doesn't believe in passing laws by executive order the way Presidents for the past several generations have done. He doesn't believe the White House and the Congress should sit down and talk about the budget. To him that's something the Congress hashes out and then the President either signs or vetos it. At the end of the guy he's a guy who his own party doesn't care for right now. I can't imagine that changing if he's suddenly in the White House.