Mitt Romney VS President Obama (1 Viewer)

[Joe8915]

I found this a little interesting:
Below are charts listing the top ten sources of donations from overseas, by country (including those linked to U.S. military post offices):

Barack Obama

Country Amount
UK $246,675
France $110,025
Switzerland $66,601
Canada $53,616
U.S. Diplomatic $50,030
U.S. Army $45,311
Japan $30,660
Germany $28,338
China $19,000
U.S. Navy $13,800


Mitt Romney

Country Amount
UK $219,000
Hong Kong $104,500
Singapore $16,000
China $10,000
Switzerland $9,700
Poland $5,000
U.S. Army $4,318
Thailand $3,500
France $2,500
Spain $2,500

 

[Steve R.]

We just saw this film this past weekend. Surprisingly the Washington Post acknowledged its existence with a reasonably unbiased article: Documentary film ‘2016: Obama’s America’ came out of nowhere to burn up the box office I think the innovative perspective of this film comes from the fact that Dinesh D’Souza is from India, a former colonial state.

 

[Vassago]

Actually, I think most people vote for one guy because they can't stand the other guy. So they vote D or R because they really don't want R (if they voted D), or D (if they voted R). A 3rd party candidate essentially "doesn't count" in that context.

That's a horrible way to vote. You shouldn't choose something just because you don't like the other. That's like saying, I'll choose to walk on broken glass instead of lava. Especially if you go in blindly without even doing research on who you're voting for, just to not vote for the other guy.

Yes, I have looked into the Fair Tax. On paper it sounds good, but when you run the numbers, you'll see that the beneficiaries of such a tax plan are the rich and the incredibly poor. The middle class would take a hit compared to the current tax plan, and with all the years of draining the middle class to feed the rich, I don't think additional screws to the middle class is the way to go.

As far as individuals getting away without paying taxes, I'd be all for doing away with all sorts of taxes, and then instituting a VAT. That way, necessities would be not taxed or taxed at a low rate, while luxury items would be taxed heavily. That would capture all dollars legally spent, which would get the vast majority of individuals paying taxes.

I disagree based on the models I have seen. It seems research companies only seek to prove their own agenda nowadays rather than go in blindly without seeking a particular outcome. The second paragraph you quoted above is exactly how the Fair Tax is supposed to work. Necessities would not be taxed or taxed low. Luxury items would be heavier taxed.

If AHA was all he has gotten through, I would still consider him a successful president. I guess it is all in what is important to you.

I don't consider him unsuccessful. In a choice between him and Mittens, I would rather still have him as president. Mittens scares me more. But I can't in good mind cast a vote for him when I know there are better options.

People should be held accountable, I agree. But banks and other institutions should be as well. They shouldn't be able to take your credit card payment and apply it to your low-interest debt before they apply it to your higher interest debt. They shouldn't be able to bury hidden fees in small print.

The common person should not have to be a lawyer in order to be able to understand the rules/regulations.

Agreed. Regulations are necessary. I just fear an open market that is over-regulated by the government. Banks should be allowed to fail. Business should be allowed to fail. That is how the world works. Our tax money should not be used to bail them out, just for them to donate money to campaigns for re-election. How do you feel about that?

 

[Vassago]

We just saw this film this past weekend. Surprisingly the Washington Post acknowledged its existence with a reasonably unbiased article: Documentary film ‘2016: Obama’s America’ came out of nowhere to burn up the box office I think the innovative perspective of this film comes from the fact that Dinesh D’Souza is from India, a former colonial state.

Of course, the movie itself is completely biased. If you go into making a movie with a particular agenda in mind, of course your "research" can prove you are right. Michael Moore anyone?

 

[Steve R.]

Of course, the movie itself is completely biased. If you go into making a movie with a particular agenda in mind, of course your "research" can prove you are right. Michael Moore anyone?

Correct. I was debating with myself on whether to include a reference to Michael Moore. I actually found Michael Moore's Sicko to have some compelling arguments. In fact, even Forbes magazine unintentionally reiterated some of the positive points made by Moore about the European health care system being better than in the US.

To reiterate, the movie "2016" brings a perspective that the US ministry of politically correct thinking would not allow. Romney, appears guilty of this narrow provincial thinking when he refers to the "failed" economies of Europe, the need to start a trade war with China, and with the US needing to have the biggest military in the world.

Now that I have "kicked" Romney, I need to balance that out with with my agreement of D’Souza conclusion that Obama is willfully bankrupting the US.

 

[Adam Caramon]

That's like saying, I'll choose to walk on broken glass instead of lava.

We're all going to walk on broken glass or lava, you get to cast your vote for which. Until a 3rd party candidate actually wins, its doesn't make sense to most people to consider them a viable alternative.

Don't get me wrong, I wish it were. But history does not back it up. I really do not want the R's in control of the White House again. What is the best way to do that? Cast a vote for D. Casting a vote for I is incredibly likely to have 0 direct effect on who is in the White House.

The second paragraph you quoted above is exactly how the Fair Tax is supposed to work. Necessities would not be taxed or taxed low. Luxury items would be heavier taxed.

From my understanding of the Fair Tax, they send you a check based on your family situation 1/month that is intended to offset basic necessities. Then everything you buy is taxed a 1 flat rate.

My thoughts are more along the lines of all necessities are tax free, all luxuries taxed heavily. Essentially, those barely making enough to survive don't pay much in taxes, those making a lot pay the majority of the taxes in the country. In my opinion, this does 2 things.

1. No one gets "free" money from the government. You should never, under any circumstances, get more money in a tax rebate than you paid in (EITC for example).
2. Poor & lower middle class individuals will have opportunities to advance themselves (level the playing field a bit). Those who take advantage of it, great, those that don't can't live off of government money.

I don't consider him unsuccessful. In a choice between him and Mittens, I would rather still have him as president. Mittens scares me more. But I can't in good mind cast a vote for him when I know there are better options.

I understand that - there's a sort of purity to that mindset. Unfortunately, the politics of today are a dirty business.

Our tax money should not be used to bail them out, just for them to donate money to campaigns for re-election. How do you feel about that?

I would generally say that there should be no bailouts at all. A corporation should never be able to get so big that if it fails our entire economy is at risk.

Having said that, and while I was against the auto bailouts from that same standpoint, I think a lot of positives arose from the government stepping in.

 

[Vassago]

We're all going to walk on broken glass or lava, you get to cast your vote for which. Until a 3rd party candidate actually wins, its doesn't make sense to most people to consider them a viable alternative.

Don't get me wrong, I wish it were. But history does not back it up. I really do not want the R's in control of the White House again. What is the best way to do that? Cast a vote for D. Casting a vote for I is incredibly likely to have 0 direct effect on who is in the White House.

"Until a 3rd party candidate actually wins, its doesn't make sense to most people to consider them a viable alternative."

This statement confuses me. How can he/she win if you don't consider them and actually vote for them? This mindset is what needs to change.

And casting your vote for I is actually definitely going to have an effect on who is in the white house. There is much more to it than a popular vote. Arguably, casting a vote for Gary Johnson this year will take votes away from Mittens, whether Johnson can win or not, paving way for Obama to win if Johnson doesn't get enough.

 

[Adam Caramon]

This statement confuses me. How can he/she win if you don't consider them and actually vote for them? This mindset is what needs to change.

It is cyclical, I'll grant you that.

Arguably, casting a vote for Gary Johnson this year will take votes away from Mittens, whether Johnson can win or not, paving way for Obama to win if Johnson doesn't get enough.

Only if you were otherwise going to vote for R. If you were going to vote D, but then instead vote for I, and R wins, then you're likely to be quite disappointed. Ralph Nader comes to mind.

 

[Vassago]

Only if you were otherwise going to vote for R. If you were going to vote D, but then instead vote for I, and R wins, then you're likely to be quite disappointed. Ralph Nader comes to mind.

The point is, I would never say I was going to vote for either of them. I vote for who I vote for, not who I was going to. I was being a little sarcastic in my statement in that is the retort claimed by the GOP, trying to force Ron Paul supporters to back Romney. The truth is far more complex.

There is an ever increasing separation between the Dems and Pubs. This separation must be happening, or Ron Paul would not have been able to make the splash he did. I believe that a vote for Johnson is really more about balancing the scales to bring things a little more back to the center, even if he doesn't win. Our voices will be heard and the people in office will have to start thinking a little more outside their shallow hole if they wish to keep office in the future.

 

[Joe8915]

I found this a little interesting

 

[Vassago]

I found this a little interesting

Another very biased article. Comparing one day to one day can be very misleading. How about an overall average?

Gas prices in January of 09 did indeed dip to 1.83 because the price of oil dipped dramatically. HOWEVER, gas prices in June of 08 peaked well over $4, almost reaching $5 per gallon in some areas of the US. The gas prices today are reflected based on a combination of inflation and an increase of demand in China. This has driven the price of oil up. To quote the Republican party during the election in 08 when gas prices were higher than they are today, the President has NO control over oil prices.

That being said, since the very FIRST number on that list is highly misleading, I won't bother with researching the rest of it. It's obviously meant to be biased against Obama and his administration, I have no need for more of these trivial "facts."

 

[Joe8915]

I think the bottom line is our dollar is not worth nothing anymore. Its not if prices are going up, it just our US dollar not worth anything.

 

[Steve R.]

My daughter sent me these nifty quiz links: I Side With. And to think, she is supposed to be studying at college!!! She came out with 89% agreement with Gary Johnson.

No surprise, I had an 86% agreement with Ron Paul and 85% with Gary Johnson. Most of my divergence is based the fact that I favor of "big" government for protection of the environment and programs, such as NASA.

 

[Adam Caramon]

My daughter sent me these nifty quiz links: I Side With. And to think, she is supposed to be studying at college!!!

Interesting, my results:

91% Democratic

89% Green

44% Libertarian

25% Republican

79% President Obama

Seems pretty accurate.

 

[Vassago]

Gary Johnson 93%
Jill Stein 85%
Ron Paul 77%
Obama 63%
Romney 53%

Florida 64%
American 65%

Democrat 88%
Green 85%
Libertarian 81%
Republican 30%

Not surprising to me at all. The Republican party has gone so far away from their roots. Even Reagan is crying in his grave.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Based on early post-convention polling, it seems that the DNC gave President Obama a bigger boost than the RNC did for Romney. It will be interesting to see how it changes as the election draws closer.

 

[Joe8915]

Based on early post-convention polling, it seems that the DNC gave President Obama a bigger boost than the RNC did for Romney. It will be interesting to see how it changes as the election draws closer.

I concur, it will be very interesting. Now will have to see after the debates

 

[Mike375]

Betting agencies have Obama a very strong favourite.

At Sportingbet Obama is $1.31 and Romney is $3.35.

A couple of weeks ago Obama was still favourite but the gap was smaller...so lots of big bets have been recently placed on Obama.

 

[ColinEssex]

It said in the papers here that old mitt said that poor peoples views don't count and that he wouldn't do anything to help them.

Truly the voice of America, even with a daft name he can also make daft pledges.

Do you really want him as your president?

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

I think the bottom line is our dollar is not worth nothing anymore.

You shouldn't have a double negative, it should be -

A) our dollar is worth nothing.

Or b) our dollar is not worth anything anymore.

Col