Romney vs. Obama?

[TCPeppyTc]

If the election were held today, who would YOU vote for?

[ballisticwaffles]

The Old One Cthulhu, High Priest of the Elder Gods, Of Yog-Slothoth and Shub-Niggurath and of Azathoth and Nyarlathotep, and In his house R'lyeh He slumbers until the stars align. But even Cthulhu will die cold and alone as the universe ends.

Why vote for a lesser Evil?

[sroberson]

The Old One Cthulhu, High Priest of the Elder Gods, Of Yog-Slothoth and Shub-Niggurath and of Azathoth and Nyarlathotep, and In his house R'lyeh He slumbers until the stars align. But even Cthulhu will die cold and alone as the universe ends.

Why vote for a lesser Evil?

I guess to make things suck slightly less?

I guess I know the outcome of this discussion, but i'll bite anyways. Obama. Sorry, but Romney just strikes me as someone to try and do more exploitative money grubbing and cause more damage as a whole. The far right is scary and hypocritical as get, not to mention some of them have a propensity to eating their shoes

BUT WAIT! POPULAR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAYS! SO WHO CARES?! They are already counting up the votes before they even take popular polls let alone the actually election! Not to mention the fact that whoever has the most money and best catch phrases seem to win both anyways.

Vote for Alice Cooper!

[ballisticwaffles]

YES POPULAR VOTE DOESNT MATTER BECAUSE MY CANDIDATE DOESNT GET CHOSEN! BOOHOO AHOOHOOHOOOOOOO/

Seriously though, that Florida recount was a thing that could have easily been avoided if more voices had been raised in protest, of which there were few and scattered. It can be assured that if we pay enough attention than it will not happen again.

Also i vote for Romney, Obama can go the way of Nasa, which he caused the end of.

[sroberson]

YES POPULAR VOTE DOESNT MATTER BECAUSE MY CANDIDATE DOESNT GET CHOSEN! BOOHOO AHOOHOOHOOOOOOO/

That awkward moment when Bush Jr. lost the popular vote but won the election anyways...Yeah...Popular vote really doesn't matter. Electoral Congress controls it. And I don't think the death of NASA (which isn't really dead) is grounds for deciding a president. Misguided decision? Maybe. But at least Obama doesn't have a financial vested interest in the United States economy failing.

[ballisticwaffles]

That Akward moment when John Quincy Adams won the election without popular vote. Considering that the Popular vote has decided 39 Presidents (i dont count washington considering it was literally unanimous on his selection to lead the new country] I would say it doesnt matter. Thats right, It has happened four times. Ill even list them.

John Quincy Adams didnt have the popular vote

Ruthiford B Hayes Didnt have the popular vote

Benjamine Harrison Didnt have the popular vote

And Bush didnt.

only four times in our history as a country has the popular vote not counted.

Yea, totally obsolete.

And as to my Presidential Choice, Obama irked my by cutting of Access to Space and the Technilogical Advances that come from the act of getting up there. So misguided, no. Idiotic is more the term.

[Mr. Krystal]

There's a very good reason the President is not elected by popular vote. It's the same reason Congress exists in addition to the House of Representatives. That is: if the President was elected via popular vote, any Presidential hopeful who was smart would completely ignore any people in midwestern states and anyone who doesn't live in a large city. If you only have to convence the majority you're the best for the job, you would only convence those people who were in densely packed, highly populated cities. You would end up with a long line of Presidents that ONLY appeal to those people and the ideals of peoples who live in big cities, regardless of party. By making the vote based on the Electoral College, you have a much greater chance of getting politicians who will at least try to become familiar with, and take into account, those citizens who have such wildly different lifestyles, needs, and goals.

I will vote for Romney. He's the worst Republican I've seen in a long time, and he'll run circles around Obama in pretty much every single subject that matters. When faced with a bad choice and a worse choice, the answer is to pick the bad choice. Last election, faced with a similar choice, Republicans chose to sit at home and not vote. They got exactly the outcome they deserved. I don't think they'll make the same mistake again.

[Harlow]

I don't think Romney will win.

Obama isn't that great either, but I prefer his take on the social aspects.

[Dr. Orange]

Romney is for all the things I'm against.That and It's hard to take him seriously. So I'm for Obama. But if I could, I'd vote for Paul Ryan for President. xD

[CrypticQuery]

I'd go with Obama once more; he isn't the greatest, but he certainly is better than Romney. The extension of corporate tax-cuts, eagerness for heightened conflict in the Middle East/Syria [among numerous other things] is why I have a distaste for Romney's policies.

[sroberson]

I'd go with Obama once more; he isn't the greatest, but he certainly is better than Romney. The extension of corporate tax-cuts, eagerness for heightened conflict in the Middle East/Syria [among numerous other things] is why I have a distaste for Romney's policies.

Yet ironically...No matter what the current policy is on the Middle East and violence there, the Republicans at this point will spin it so it looks like Obama is the devil. I recall hearing how they believed that Obama was trying to pull troops out too soon, then at the convention they complained it wasn't fast enough, but never really made a proposal of what they would like to do.

[Thu'um]

Yet ironically...No matter what the current policy is on the Middle East and violence there, the Republicans at this point will spin it so it looks like Obama is the devil. I recall hearing how they believed that Obama was trying to pull troops out too soon, then at the convention they complained it wasn't fast enough, but never really made a proposal of what they would like to do.

And this doesn't happen with all politics?

["User"]

Does it really matter who wins? The President is a lame duck. Anything he wants to accomplish goes through Congress anyway which is a complete gong show. Nobody will be successful as the American head of state as long as Congress is full of politicians who only have their own self-interests at heart.

Public service, a once noble profession, has been hijacked by a hoard of unscrupulous ego-maniacs only interested in bolstering their personal bank accounts and securing a big fat pension.

Americans have forgotten those famous words spoken years ago by another Democratic president - "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". Too many entitlements and too many entitled in the US. Your future is not about which person is elected president. It's about what YOU will do ensure your future.

[Thu'um]

Americans have forgotten those famous words spoken years ago by another Democratic president - "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". Too many entitlements and too many entitled in the US. Your future is not about which person is elected president. It's about what YOU will do ensure your future.

god yes

[Sarita]

Does it really matter who wins? The President is a lame duck. Anything he wants to accomplish goes through Congress anyway which is a complete gong show. Nobody will be successful as the American head of state as long as Congress is full of politicians who only have their own self-interests at heart.

Public service, a once noble profession, has been hijacked by a hoard of unscrupulous ego-maniacs only interested in bolstering their personal bank accounts and securing a big fat pension.

Americans have forgotten those famous words spoken years ago by another Democratic president - "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". Too many entitlements and too many entitled in the US. Your future is not about which person is elected president. It's about what YOU will do ensure your future.

I don't agree with User often on political matters, but holy SHIT do I agree here. The President is NOT what is wrong with this country at this point.

ETA: I kinda want to do what that Alaskan city did and get a bunch of people to write in an animal for president (they did it for their mayor). I volunteer my cat.

[sroberson]

I don't agree with User often on political matters, but holy SHIT do I agree here. The President is NOT what is wrong with this country at this point.

ETA: I kinda want to do what that Alaskan city did and get a bunch of people to write in an animal for president (they did it for their mayor). I volunteer my cat.

I will second that comment on electing a cat! I thought the exact same thing when I heard about that happening to tell the truth. Thought I would much rather have a leader that was more interested in chasing dustballs across the white house than insider trader or other crap.

[Mr. Krystal]

Unfortunately, has become "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what can the government force onto you." That list gets bigger every year.

I'm so sad for those of you voting for Obama, I really am. You (your age group) is the one of the most harmed by Obama's policies. I hope for your sakes you come to see this and prepare. I'm already on my way to making sure he and governing bodies like him can't harm me much more than they already have.

[Faisul]

What, by trying to implement universal health care? Or the fact that taxes have actually gone down during his administration? I'd say that last point is a major failing of his administration, but whatever, I'm just a feelthy socialist from a borderline third-world country whose economy is based on the exports of sticks and potatoes. What do I know!

Oh, I do know this: Get Romney into the white house, and get ready for Dubya II: The Revenge of the Right

EDIT: Elect the cat, yes. Expect a hardline policy towards dogs and the purrsecution of mice

[Quoux]

Romney. Oh gosh do I love politics.

I dislike alot about Romney, and he is certainly not something I am too proud to call "president". He has very strange hair, he talks a bit funny (the speech curse of the republicans) and he is very Liberal in his political views. He may call himself conservative, but so far I haven't seen it. But at least I can call him a president.

I knew Obama was gonna be a drop from the beginning. It started on his talks about racism. I haven't picked up a newspaper lately, what's the going price for an average black male? Oh wait, that's right. We stopped doing that. So he probably should too. Once you put a value on a life, it becomes hostage negotiation, which is exactly what Obama has done, by trying to put a value on peoples lives in a rhetorical manner that means absolutely nothing in the way of progress. And in any case, a human life costs about 1.5 million (Which is the cap in the state of Texas) regardless of color. No matter how much Obama thinks a person is worth, he won't save the economy. Favoring equity over efficiency will bring our economy down to the point where we are only making money to supply ourselves and to supply people on welfare, which will be a growing number (130,000 people) due to the lack of efficient use of the scarce resources and products. EVERYONE has limitless wants and needs, which includes people on welfare. However, now the Paycheck Tax will solve the welfare situation by taking more of my money. Except, it's my money and I need it now!

Besides, troops are in middle east, unemployment is worse, and economy is failing, as well as he has been unable to lead at all or fulfill promises. AND STOP IT ALREADY WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL.

[Mr. Krystal]

What, by trying to implement universal health care?

Universal health care is a bad thing. The idea is just dandy: free health care for all! Except that it's not free. It's pre-paid health care, where everyone is required to prepay, whether they want it or not. It will cost at least as much as it does now because the government, and additional regulation, is going to be inserted into every aspect of the health care system, moreso than it is today. Government is second-to-none with regard to creating inefficiencies. No private company has simply "misplaced" billions of dollars like the government has. And though it's often tempting to believe that a large entity like the US government could use it's "buying power" to lower costs, this will not happen because of the before-mentioned inefficiencies and the inability for government management to accurately price commodities or services, historically. The government could try to resort to regulating the prices, but that has the negative consequences of reducing the immediate supply (the price is lower than it should be, too many people consume) and reducing the long-term supply (doctors quitting for easier, higher paying jobs, while people planning on a carrier in medical care will be more likely to pick something else). As with all other forms of government control of health care, it will start off appearing to work well. Then over time, it will decline both in quality and availability. Meanwhile, research and development on new medical procedures and medicines will grind to a near stand-still, now that there is little to no profit to be had by developing new life-saving technologies. As always when the US government tries to force people to help themselves and others, the rich and productive will be largely unaffected, as they can just visit another country with a large private health care industry and very nice beaches, perhaps the Cayman Islands. Meanwhile, those people who are poor or middle-income (currently) will find their options shrink considerably. Coupled with a stagnant economy, those who would otherwise be able to pull themselves out of poverty through hard work and saving will be unable to do so effectively.

Or the fact that taxes have actually gone down during his administration?

I did some research and found that this is not the case. Tax brackets have not changed since 2003, when they were lowered, continuing a trend of lowering taxes since 2000. The tax brackets are set to revert to their 2000 levels at the end of 2012, increasing taxes on almost all brackets (people).

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Those stories I found saying that taxes had been lowered under Obama were making the claim from the Government's perspective. That is: the government has been receiving less tax revenue since Obama took office. That's true. However, this is largely due to the fact that the economy is doing terrible right now. When people make less money overall, taxed income of course go down. Many people are doing so badly in this economy, that they are reverting to lower tax brackets, which on paper makes it look like they're paying less taxes. I could pay less taxes too, all I'd have to do is stop making any money. But that's not really a solution.

[Faisul]

Universal health care is a bad thing.

Hahahahaha

Ok, for serious now. I appreciate the civility of your post but not its content. The idea that universal health-care is somehow 'pre-paid' is an oversimplification. Yes, a portion of your various taxes may end up in the (public) healthcare industry, but the taxes asked are in no way as much as care would cost should UH be nonexistent. Are you satisfied with the disproportionate costs of relatively crucial healthcare and insurance in the US? I say disproportionate, because it is, compared to other industrialized nations with universal health care. If not universal health care, what would you do to lower the cost of health services, especially for the poor? The free market won't lift a finger.

And your predictions of government inefficiency causing the medical society to grind to a halt is a pretty large pill to swallow. The government is inefficient not because it's the government, but because it's beholden to a lot of people who shouldn't even be involved in politics, but is, because of $. Yes, it has bureaucratic inefficiencies as well, but come on. Your argument screams of BIG GOVERNMENT paranoia and I'm getting the feeling you know it.

And I have a pretty big dog in the fight in that the last time I visited a privatized health institution, I ended up having to have my toe chopped off. Maybe that makes me a biased anti-money communist but shucks, it was my toe!

But thanks for clearing up that tax stuff, I guess. Now, is that only for the lower to middle class, or are the top earners affected as well?

[Drasiana]

Romney is wishy-washy. He says what he thinks the people who own him want to hear. There's trying to appease public opinion, then there's having such limited backbone in your own belief that it can change at the drop of the hat. And while I disagree with the Republicans on principle, Romney managed to quash any decency in his campaign by taking on Paul Ryan as his running mate. While Romney might have the public image conflicts of a high school girl, Ryan is the embodiement of everything that anyone with a sense of empathy hates about the Republicans.

Obama didn't wave a magic wand and fix everything--that would've been a lot to ask, cleaning up eight years of Bush while dealing with the crazies who spent more time demanding a copy of his birth certificate instead of putting that effort into actually accomplishing something--but he's certainly a better person, and if I can figure out how to vote this year (lol dual citizenship how does that work), he's the one that's getting mine.

edit: also wtf @ "Romney's a liberal" my card-carrying conservative grandpa thinks the Republicans are bonkers

[DZComposer]

Romney. Oh gosh do I love politics.

I dislike alot about Romney, and he is certainly not something I am too proud to call "president". He has very strange hair, he talks a bit funny (the speech curse of the republicans) and he is very Liberal in his political views. He may call himself conservative, but so far I haven't seen it. But at least I can call him a president.

Take it from a boma-fide liberal: Romney is not a liberal, he is a oligarch. He takes what positions he needs to get elected, and enacts policies that enrich him and his wealthy friends (Gee, I wonder why he isn't running on his gubernatorial record...).

I knew Obama was gonna be a drop from the beginning. It started on his talks about racism. I haven't picked up a newspaper lately, what's the going price for an average black male? Oh wait, that's right. We stopped doing that. So he probably should too. Once you put a value on a life, it becomes hostage negotiation, which is exactly what Obama has done, by trying to put a value on peoples lives in a rhetorical manner that means absolutely nothing in the way of progress. And in any case, a human life costs about 1.5 million (Which is the cap in the state of Texas) regardless of color. No matter how much Obama thinks a person is worth, he won't save the economy. Favoring equity over efficiency will bring our economy down to the point where we are only making money to supply ourselves and to supply people on welfare, which will be a growing number (130,000 people) due to the lack of efficient use of the scarce resources and products. EVERYONE has limitless wants and needs, which includes people on welfare. However, now the Paycheck Tax will solve the welfare situation by taking more of my money. Except, it's my money and I need it now!

Obama is buying black people? What?! I don't even know where to start with that one.

Firstly, the payroll tax does NOT fund welfare, it funds Medicare and Social Security ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICA ). These are NOT welfare programs. When you reach the appropriate age (if if you get disabled for Social Security), you are guaranteed those benefits. You are paying now for your health and retirement later.

Secondly, Obama does not, has never, and likely never will equal pay for all work. He talks a game of fair CHANCE (but not a guarantee), but sadly he has not managed to get any policies through congress that address that.

Income taxes fund a good chunk of government programs, but if you look at safety net programs like TANF, these kinds of programs only consumed about 11% of the 2011 budget. Military spending is 20%. We spend almost twice as much money on warfare than we do on welfare.

Also, the majority of welfare recipients are white, despite the racially-loaded language the first half of your argument is full of.

Besides, troops are in middle east, unemployment is worse, and economy is failing, as well as he has been unable to lead at all or fulfill promises. AND STOP IT ALREADY WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL.

Google "Filibuster." Senate Republicans have been requiring a 60% vote to bring things to the floor. This is why many of Obama's promises are unkept. Not that he didn't try, but rather Newt Gingrich met with a bunch of Republican Senators and House reps (Incl. Paul Ryan) on the night of Obama's inauguration and invoked the insurgent strategy of the Taliban in terms of obstructing the president.

Obama proposed a jobs bill. Senate filibustered it.

Also, the economy is not getting worse. It is largely stagnant, with a slight uptick.

Universal health care is a bad thing. The idea is just dandy: free health care for all! Except that it's not free. It's pre-paid health care, where everyone is required to prepay, whether they want it or not. It will cost at least as much as it does now because the government, and additional regulation, is going to be inserted into every aspect of the health care system, moreso than it is today. Government is second-to-none with regard to creating inefficiencies. No private company has simply "misplaced" billions of dollars like the government has. And though it's often tempting to believe that a large entity like the US government could use it's "buying power" to lower costs, this will not happen because of the before-mentioned inefficiencies and the inability for government management to accurately price commodities or services, historically. The government could try to resort to regulating the prices, but that has the negative consequences of reducing the immediate supply (the price is lower than it should be, too many people consume) and reducing the long-term supply (doctors quitting for easier, higher paying jobs, while people planning on a carrier in medical care will be more likely to pick something else). As with all other forms of government control of health care, it will start off appearing to work well. Then over time, it will decline both in quality and availability. Meanwhile, research and development on new medical procedures and medicines will grind to a near stand-still, now that there is little to no profit to be had by developing new life-saving technologies. As always when the US government tries to force people to help themselves and others, the rich and productive will be largely unaffected, as they can just visit another country with a large private health care industry and very nice beaches, perhaps the Cayman Islands. Meanwhile, those people who are poor or middle-income (currently) will find their options shrink considerably. Coupled with a stagnant economy, those who would otherwise be able to pull themselves out of poverty through hard work and saving will be unable to do so effectively.

Medicare's overhead costs are 3% of revenue. Not one private insurer is that efficient because they need to profit.

Most new innovations in medicine come through federally-funded grants.

Records show that the US healthcare systems costs twice as much as the rest of the developed world, and has WORSE outcomes.

It works in other countries, and it works quite well. Doctors still practice medicine, patients get the care they need, and no one goes bankrupt over healthcare costs.

The idea that people will not be able to progress economically if they have government-sponsored health care sounds like a non-sequitur to me, especially since health care in the current system is so freaking expensive as it is.

I did some research and found that this is not the case. Tax brackets have not changed since 2003, when they were lowered, continuing a trend of lowering taxes since 2000. The tax brackets are set to revert to their 2000 levels at the end of 2012, increasing taxes on almost all brackets (people).

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Those stories I found saying that taxes had been lowered under Obama were making the claim from the Government's perspective. That is: the government has been receiving less tax revenue since Obama took office. That's true. However, this is largely due to the fact that the economy is doing terrible right now. When people make less money overall, taxed income of course go down. Many people are doing so badly in this economy, that they are reverting to lower tax brackets, which on paper makes it look like they're paying less taxes. I could pay less taxes too, all I'd have to do is stop making any money. But that's not really a solution.

You forget the payroll tax cut (which I disagreed with because it drills a hole in Social Security if it is made permanent). Also, this broad-board tax increase you speak if will only happen if congress does nothing by the end of 2013.

[sroberson]

Also, the majority of welfare recipients are white, despite the racially-loaded language the first half of your argument is full of.

Admittedly, while the overall percentages leans towards Caucasians taking up the largest portion of welfare, Caucasians also represent in the area of 72.4% of the population while Black Americans represent around 12.6%. (OK OK, my source it Wikipedia admittedly, please correct me if I am wrong). I am not sure on how to find statistics that isolate recipients to each race but I get the feeling it would tell a story that advances racist and conservative rhetoric. Don't get me wrong, I am not meaning to play race cards or anything because there are plenty of cultural problems that create this issue and fingers can be pointed a thousand different directions - all of which having some truth to each of them.

Income taxes fund a good chunk of government programs, but if you look at safety net programs like TANF, these kinds of programs only consumed about 11% of the 2011 budget. Military spending is 20%. We spend almost twice as much money on warfare than we do on welfare

And to think, Romney wants to increase military spending by several trillion dollars more...I wonder if he has any friends in the military industrial complex that would love nothing more than to try and tackle our "major geopolitical foes". I'm trying to remember a few good quotes on our insane spending on military but not on citizen welfare...but the only good one that comes to mind is yet another Megadeth lyric "Who'd believe we'd spend more. Shippin' drugs and guns than to educate our sons"

On the topic of American health care vs. socialized medicine (and those who oppose the idea): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko . Give the movie a shot. I know Michael Moore is very liberal leaning and probably tried to hide the problems that he did run into just to make America look worse...but there is something to be said about one of the final scenes in the movie when he tries to get a boat of sick American citizens and brings them to Cuba where they get free health care with no questions asked because they couldn't afford the care here in the States. The idea that we can hold people hostage, either fork over the incredible amount of money to inflate the payroll of administrative staffing of medical facilities, or die. That's it. Even the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay get health care. Tax paying citizens do not. Something is very wrong. Affordable Health Care act may not be perfect, but our previous/current-ish system was plain wrong. Besides, even if I wasn't a huge fan of the health care bill, I am still not a fan of a political platform like the Republicans using extreme defeatist language saying what they will take away from citizens but never telling us what they will do.

[Thu'um]

I didn't know it was the american way to pay for others health care.....