The First 2012 Presidential Election Thread

[ColoGI]

Most of the time I would say Newsweek is a joke of a publication, but it appears that they got one correct.

LINK
]

That would be a compelling argument if the competition were anything other than third-raters. Since the sitting president's opponent is a third-rater not fit to run in any other election, there isn't much of a choice. That is: the choice is stay and decline, or change and decline much, much faster. My late father - a political campaign manager for two decades - is surely three feet deeper in the ground from spinning in his grave over the lowest-quality state of our national politics.

[Planit]

VP nominee Paul Ryan said as recently as last week he never asked for stimulus money because he was against it. It was found now he DID ask for stimulus money for 2 Wisconsin firms. Further he supported the stimulus when it was originally brought out by a former president by the name of Geo. W. Bush. Amazing...

[Blide]

Pretty funny how the Republican Senate candidate in Missouri might have single-handedly torpedoed his party's chances of retaking the Senate. McCaskill is probably the weakest Democratic senator running for reelection but her opponent give her this gift: Todd Akin: ‘Legitimate rape' victims rarely get pregnant.

[hilldweller]

Pretty funny how the Republican Senate candidate in Missouri might have single-handedly torpedoed his party's chances of retaking the Senate. McCaskill is probably the weakest Democratic senator running for reelection but her opponent give her this gift: Todd Akin: ‘Legitimate rape' victims rarely get pregnant.

Wow, that's one of the most twisted things I've ever heard.

[michaelskis]

Wow, that's one of the most twisted things I've ever heard.

Even I have to ask what the heck was he thinking. It was profoundly stupid and makes me wonder how a person like that is able to run for office.

He has sense recanted his statement, but onces something that stupid is said, it is outthere for ever.

[WSU MUP Student]

Even I have to ask what the heck was he thinking. It was profoundly stupid and makes me wonder how a person like that is able to run for office.

He has sense recanted his statement, but onces something that stupid is said, it is outthere for ever.

He claims to have misspoke, but hasn't said which part of his statement was said in error. That's hardly a recantation.

[Hink]

First of all, I am not voting for one party in Nov. It will be a split ticket. Second, you stated that there are things in the report that are clearly false. What are these. I agree that it is politically biased, but don't believe that here are any lies in the article as you present.

From the "Report":

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.”

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork.

The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

There are lots more... but I am tired of showing how partisan this piece was. Instead of reading it and saying - yea this is more junk... you read it and said - this is right. Which is what is hurting the political discourse. It confuses people instead of educates. It lies instead of informs. And it slants perception of reality, just enough so you can say well it is pretty true. I am not going to argue the points above, I just wanted to point out some of the pretty obviously blatant pieces....

[ColoGI]

He has [since] recanted his statement, but once something that stupid is said, it is outthere for ever.

No he hasn't. You generally don't recant your basic beliefs, especially when the rump wing is all taking the same position to excuse their stance on conception.

The GOP leadership has told him to back down or be forced out. Just one more nail in the coffin of the party in steep decline.

[Blide]

Akin also co-sponsored an anti-abortion bill with Paul Ryan... I think that's the real reason the GOP wants to force him out.

[beach_bum]

He claims to have misspoke, but hasn't said which part of his statement was said in error. That's hardly a recantation.

You know part of the problem with the general debate on abortion is the that there are too many people without medical degrees making very nuaced and technical arguements, like that of the Senate candidate or passing bills that require some kind of ultrasound or some type of waiting period. As a woman of childbearing age I am outraged at the unnecessary politic-ing that surrounds women's reproductive issues by mostly older men. When a young woman tried to testify about birth control she was called a slut...its a sad state of affairs. If we spent as much time debating real issues that impact large portions of the population as we do debating abortion, we would be alot further to solving those issues. You'll be hard pressed to find a woman under the age of 35 that votes for any of these guys.

[imaplanner]

That Akin guy is currently sitting on the Congressional Science and Technology Committe in the House of Representatives.

[michaelskis]

From the "Report":









There are lots more... but I am tired of showing how partisan this piece was. Instead of reading it and saying - yea this is more junk... you read it and said - this is right. Which is what is hurting the political discourse. It confuses people instead of educates. It lies instead of informs. And it slants perception of reality, just enough so you can say well it is pretty true. I am not going to argue the points above, I just wanted to point out some of the pretty obviously blatant pieces....

You are right... They are bias as hell. But you have shown that any of it was a lie.

[Mastiff]

You know part of the problem with the general debate on abortion is the that there are too many people without medical degrees making very nuaced and technical arguements, like that of the Senate candidate or passing bills that require some kind of ultrasound or some type of waiting period. As a woman of childbearing age I am outraged at the unnecessary politic-ing that surrounds women's reproductive issues by mostly older men. When a young woman tried to testify about birth control she was called a slut...its a sad state of affairs. If we spent as much time debating real issues that impact large portions of the population as we do debating abortion, we would be alot further to solving those issues. You'll be hard pressed to find a woman under the age of 35 that votes for any of these guys.

Well said. And further, having this debate along with gun laws, gay marriage and other social issues is how they faction the population and keep people from seeing the real issues. Politicians are better at slight of hand than any magician on the planet.

[ColoGI]

You are right... They are bias as hell. But you have shown that any of it was a lie.

"Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak."

nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return

the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

If these aren't intentional obfuscations then Ferguson is so bleedingly incompetent he needs a new job (not in journalism). As do the editors.

I could argue that these intentional obfuscations are lies, but there have been ~3.45 quadrillion bytes spilled on The Internets over this transparent mendacity today, so if someone is still defending this POS cheap hit job, purposely written to mislead and disinform, anything I write won't matter anyways.

[Maister]

You are right... They are bias as hell. But you have shown that any of it was a lie.

Yeah, Mike's right! And it's not coming from just those guys either! Why here's a link to news article where a well known and respected artist states Obama is a Muslim who hates the military! I want to know why more time and energy isn't being spent by Obama's campaign being on the defensive about these kinds of serious allegations!

[michaelskis]

Yeah, Mike's right! And it's not coming from just those guys either! Why here's a link to news article where a well known and respected artist states Obama is a Muslim who hates the military! I want to know why more time and energy isn't being spent by Obama's campaign being on the defensive about these kinds of serious allegations!

I have said it before and I will say it again. Entertainers need to stay out of politics unless they are actually running for office. Hank Williams is a talented singer, but am positive that my 3 1/2 year old understands more about politics.

I also think that it is sad that one person will post a story about someone spitting on a Romney supporter and they are called a troll and when someone posts a negative article about Obama (bias as it is) it is called lies. But if someone posts or says something negative about Romney, it is like a bobble head display a baseball park as everyone nods. "Yesssss... Romney Bad.... Obama Better... Obama Better." "Hope and Change.... Hope and Change" There is a lot of American's that Hope they still have some Change in there pocket at the end of the day after Obama gets done.

Romney will not be able to save this country, but when Obama says this:


and this:


but the debt has increased. Then there was the open government idea where everything would be transparent and no more secrecy...


But it has gotten worse. If you look at the legislation page on the White House website and the congressional record, you will see that the waiting period was bull, that lobiests are everywhere, and that he has not been able to deliver.

Now you could argue that Obama never said any of that and that everything I said was lie, but that would not change the reality that our current president has not made things better. He has made things worse. I wonder what other people tell their children about the increase in national debt that they will have to pay back. Please, let me know so I can explain it to my two boys who will be paying for the spending spree of both the last, and this President's spending spree.

[Mastiff]

So everyone should stop "wasting their vote" on D's and R's and vote Independent or Libertarian, eh? I like it.

[imaplanner]

I . I wonder what other people tell their children about the increase in national debt that they will have to pay back. Please, let me know so I can explain it to my two boys who will be paying for the spending spree of both the last, and this President's spending spree.

Well if your concern really is the debt, Romney is not your guy. Independent analyses have found that the Romney plan would be worse for the debt than Obama's plan. So vote for Romney, but then you can explain to your kids that you voted for even more increases in debt.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-federal-debt/

[michaelskis]

Well if your concern really is the debt, Romney is not your guy. Independent analyses have found that the Romney plan would be worse for the debt than Obama's plan. So vote for Romney, but then you can explain to your kids that you voted for even more increases in debt.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-federal-debt/

The independent analysis was done by a guy who once worked for the democrats. Obama has had more than 3 years and it has gotten worse when he said it would get better. Will it take another 4 for you to realize that he was lieing to you?

As for who to vote for, it's not about a party but a better candidate. We don't have satesmen anymore. I would encourage everyone to read the federalist papers, the Constitution, and Democracy in America by Tocqueville before they vote in November. All of them are over 100 years old and available for free on google books, iBooks, or Amazon Kindle Reader. It is bad on both sides and it is once again a situation that we are voting for the lesser of two evils.

I personally will vote for Romney but in 3 years the national debt is a penny more than it is whe he takes office, I will be one of thousands who will be demanding someone better in the White House.

[ColoGI]

Well if your concern really is the debt, Romney is not your guy. Independent analyses have found that the Romney plan would be worse for the debt than Obama's plan. So vote for Romney, but then you can explain to your kids that you voted for even more increases in debt.

]

Don't forget that Rand-toter Ryan. He'll trash the numbers and raise the debt too.

Neither of these third-raters gives a rat's @$$ about the debt. No one sane believes they are serious about reducing the debt. Their party doesn't either, all they want to do is oust the Kenyan muzzy and get more power for their few donors. Not hard to comprehend. Not hard at all.

[WSU MUP Student]

If folks are genuinely concerned about the debt, they need to start paying much more attention to who they send to the Capital Building and not the White House. In the end, it is congress who has the power of the purse and approves or denies spending requests.

[Blide]

I personally will vote for Romney but in 3 years the national debt is a penny more than it is whe he takes office, I will be one of thousands who will be demanding someone better in the White House.

I'm curious how you think this is even realistic. The discrepancy between revenue and expenditures is so great that you'd likely crater the economy if you tried to close it in 3 years time. People are already screaming about the 6% across the board cuts and job losses that sequestration will cause in January. Just imagine if those cuts were at 35% which is probably what they'd need to be at to close the budget deficit. There's no way any sane politician will do that if he has any hopes of getting reelected.

[ColoGI]

There's no way any sane politician will do that if he has any hopes of getting reelected.

Actually, they are trying that now in several countries in Europe - one presumes they'll blame someone else (like the lib'rullllls) come voting time.

Nevertheless, we know austerity doesn't work. History and current events tells us that. Only the pandering politicians and undereducated voters think austerity or reigning in debt during recession will fix our current problems.

[michaelskis]

I'm curious how you think this is even realistic. The discrepancy between revenue and expenditures is so great that you'd likely crater the economy if you tried to close it in 3 years time. People are already screaming about the 6% across the board cuts and job losses that sequestration will cause in January. Just imagine if those cuts were at 35% which is probably what they'd need to be at to close the budget deficit. There's no way any sane politician will do that if he has any hopes of getting reelected.

That is the point! I want someone in office who is more focused on doing the right thing and less focused on getting reelected. I hate to say it, but it is likely that that person will end up being a one term president.

It is like when you break a bone in your body. The doctor needs to set it before it can heal correctly and setting it huts like hell but it needs to happen.

It is sad that we sit by and watch politician after politician come and go, and we all agree that Washington is broken but so few are willing to do anything about it. Instead we listen to the media feed us half truths and just accept that things are the way they are and won't even contact our representatives, senators, or president to express our concerns.

[Hink]

I'm curious how you think this is even realistic. The discrepancy between revenue and expenditures is so great that you'd likely crater the economy if you tried to close it in 3 years time. People are already screaming about the 6% across the board cuts and job losses that sequestration will cause in January. Just imagine if those cuts were at 35% which is probably what they'd need to be at to close the budget deficit. There's no way any sane politician will do that if he has any hopes of getting reelected.

I think his argument is that if the debt is a penny higher than what it is when he takes office. Not to get the debt to zero. But the problem is that is not even feasible. The path we are on does not deal with the fact that there is an increase in spending budgeted every year. Without an increase in taxes AND a reduction of spending we are not going to see tangible reductions in the debt. I am pretty sure there is a plan that would help the debt though... it is called the Simpson-Bowles plan. Any guess on who was against that? Yep, Paul Ryan.