2012 US Presidential Election discussion.

These debates are really for the uninformed. Obama tried to spin GM selling more cars to China under his watch. Yeah those cars that were manufactured in China. So he really can't take credit. If Hu Jintao was sitting at the debate table, he could spin that he saved GM since plummeting auto sales in the US was offset by China buying cars and not because of Obama. Then Romney brought up how a trade war wouldn't hurt the US because the imbalance of trade was so drastic. Can he name one Chinese household brand name in the US? The only ones that a trade war is going to hurt are his outsourcing buddies especially his number one donor, casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson, who's making more money from China than his US casinos these days. If a trade war won't hurt the US, he can go a lot further than just labelling China a currency manipulator. And see how he mentioned as a result of labelling China a currency manipulator on day one, he can punish with tariffs on certain sectors of Chinese trade considered unfair from the manipulation? Meaning he can label China all he wants but he then has to then specify what areas to punish on China. It's like when Bill Clinton was impeached by Congress. The next step was the process of actually forcing him out of office which never happened. The label of being impeached was superficial just like labelling China a currency manipulator. Thus Romney doesn't have to worry about being called a flip-flopper.

bd popeye said:

I caught the last hour or so and I have to agree with you. If Gov Romney aim was to soft pedal the issues he did a good job. I think he was trying to appear more moderate. IMO he was to soft on Pres. Obama. He should have put the hammer down.

One thing about Gov Romney, he is very smooth and polished. Very professional.

Click to expand...

One exchange that caught my attention was the exchange regarding Romney's plan for the US Navy. Despite Obama's contention that Romney's plan is not what the military has asked for, the US Navy leadership and planners have indeed, on numerous occassions, asked for a 320-350 ship Navy to address their furutre world-wide needs. Obama's comments are just factually inaccurate.

addresses this requirement in a very detailed, professional and measured way.

In addition, Obama's contemptuous and snide insults regarding Romney somehow being out of touch with the present and future needs of the Navy, stating that "we do not need horses and bayonettes anymore," and that "we have these things called Aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines that can go beneath the water," were equally mis-stated, and quite frankly sophmoric.

Is Obama not aware that at the start of the war in Afghanistan that our Special Forces allied with the Northern Alliance, and those Special Forces personnel fought from horse-back? They were able to get into places and laser-designate targets by using horses that otherwise would not have been designated. In fact, I believe at the 911 memorial there is a statue of one of our SPECOPS personnel on horse back for Heaven's Sake! In addition, ask any US Marine about the utility and need for Bayonettes. They are still necessary and used when there is any chance of close-in hand to hand fighting for the Army or Marines. IMHO, Obama revealed his own lack of knoweldge regarding these things byhis comments.

I cover all of this in an article I wrote today that will soon be published in multiple places called:



Romney made a conscience decision last night to stay above the fray and to present a much higher level and strategic plan for foreign policy, while pivoting to the economy which is the issue this election will ride on. His plans for the economy will balance the budget and end deficit spending. I believe as he did in Mass. that he will be able to get bi-partisan support for it too.

I personally would have liked to see him go after Obama more on the Benghazi debacle, and on issues like these comments of Obama. but he decided to not get dwon in the mud and in so doing, came across as more presidential. The audience Romney was speaking to was not his base, or Obama's base...it was the independents and his tactics may well have gained him even more ground on that front.

The only real thing Obama has had bipartisan involvement with was his own two budgets that he presented. Both times it was the most bi-partisan vote in US Congressional history. 100% of both the House and Senate voted against them...both times. Not even one democrat would vote for them because the budget was so rediculous with respect to unnsustainable deficit spending and debt...something his entoire four years in office has punctuated. He cannot run from those promises to cut the deficit and how important it was...and how terrible and "unpatriotic" Bush was for having a four trillion dollar deficit over eight years when he has now ammassed six trillion dollars in four. His own words come back to haunt him.

Jeff Head said:

The only real thing Obama has had bipartisan involvement with was his own two budgets that he presented. Both times it was the most bi-partisan vote in US Congressional history. 100% of both the House and Senate voted against them...both times. Not even one democrat would vote for them because the budget was so rediculous with respect to unnsustainable deficit spending and debt...something his entoire four years in office has punctuated. He cannot run from those promises to cut the deficit and how important it was...and how terrible and "unpatriotic" Bush was for having a four trillion dollar deficit over eight years when he has now ammassed six trillion dollars in four. His own words come back to haunt him.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to counter your other points, since we have our own opinions over matters.

This part is unfair. Bush took the budget surplus from Clinton and turned it into a huge debt by the end of his term. Obama took Bush's large debt and made it a whole lot worse. Bush came into power in the end of the dot com bubble, so he started off with a mild recession. Obama came in at the start of the largest economic depression since the Great depression. Different times, not fair to just add up all of their debts together.

tphuang said:

I'm not going to counter your other points, since we have our own opinions over matters.

This part is unfair. Bush took the budget surplus from Clinton and turned it into a huge debt by the end of his term. Obama took Bush's large debt and made it a whole lot worse. Bush came into power in the end of the dot com bubble, so he started off with a mild recession. Obama came in at the start of the largest economic depression since the Great depression. Different times, not fair to just add up all of their debts together.

Click to expand...

My point really is not about that. Obama knew what he was getting. He called it the worst economic crisis since the depression while he was campaigning. And while he was campaigning he also made these statements about the deficit spending. And how Bush was somehow "unpatriotic, and how he would cut it in half precisely becauuse it was so bad and unpatriotic. Those were his words and his promises. And they were made in the face of what he himself called a very bad situation.

Then he went out and did much worse in spending and did not even attempt to keep the promies he made.

Besides, if you take a hard look at the housing and then the stock market bubble, you find that it went completely over the edge after the 2006 mid terms when Pelosi and Reed came into power and pushed the thing over the cliff. Bush and the GOP tired seventeen seperate times to reign them in but they would have nothing to do with it and they had the votes to push those efforts aside...which is exactly what they did. The entire housing bubble was a result of the DNC (mainly) pushing for housing loans and then forcing banks to make those loans that people under normal loaning practices could absolutely not qualify for. Well, there was a reason they could not qualify for it...they were too much a risk. And when you multiply that by tens of millions, you end up with a crisis. So the DNC continued to push for Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac to garauntee them. They were simply buying votes and to heck with the consequences.

The banks would not hold onto those notes...so they sold them to other banks who thought they could make money off of them who ultimately sold them on the stock market for crying out loud to try and break them up into some kind of specualtion market.

So, when it came down the credit crisis pulled the stock market with it.

And who was at the heart of all of that...first as a community organizer for ACORN finding low income people to take those worthless notes because they could not qualify for them, then as a legal council for ACRON working out the legal procedures to make sure they could make it happen, then as a State Senator enabling the same in his state of Illinois, and finally as a US Senator working hand in hand with Dodd and Frank to push all of this stuff to the hilt? Yep, Barack Obama. He and Dodd benefited the most politically/financially from it all in terms of contributions to their campaigns from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was a real cronie game, dealing with tens of millions of loansd and trillions of dollars...most all of it bogus.

Up until that crash, actually despite the wars, Bush was presideing over a strong economy. All one has to do is check the numbers on growth up to 2006, the amount of money coming into the federal government,, unemployment, etc. But that all changed because of the housing and credit situation and the very people who were most responsible (and not totally because plenty of GOP reps got caught up in trying to buy votes with the same scheme), anyhow, the people most responsible for it were voted in to take charge of fiixing it. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. And that is why they have had a tough time fixing it, because they believed what they did was a good thing and they have, in essence, used the same policies to try and pick winners in the alternate energy market, in the auto market and elsewhere and have ended up simply spending us all the more into oblivion.

Anyhow. sorry for the rant.

Thanks for the opportunity to get it off my chest.

I am sure plenty of people can pick at what I said...and that is fine. But the essense is true and precisely what we have to change if we are going to avoid insolvency as a nation. Obama has shown us what he will do about it...it will be more of the same for the next four years and we will end up over 20 trillion in debt. Romney has a record of turning things like this around, and I am going to put my vote and money behind that record and the free market.

Well...today I cast my ballot for the early voting period! I don't like to wait in line come November 6. If you all are curious to know to whom I voted for...President Obama. I voted for him last time as well.

Equation said:

Well...today I cast my ballot for the early voting period! I don't like to wait in line come November 6. If you all are curious to know to whom I voted for...President Obama. I voted for him last time as well.

Click to expand...

Which state do you live in?

They're both bad which is why I'm undecided. Not like my vote matters because I live in California which is also why the electoral college is undemocratic. I love hearing some polticians talk about giving veto power in Congress to states with small populations because they don't have a say. Another undemocratic idea. That's why there's a Senate where each state no matter what the population has two senators each. It balances the House that represents more population.

George Washington said he didn't like political parties because people would become loyal to their party more than the country. That's what happening now. Both parties do the same things they accuse the other. And the reason why people don't see that is because of exactly what Washington said was going to happen. Towards the end of the Bush Jr. administration in office, I always heard from Republicans that the economy was Clinton's fault and that was eight years later. Indians have the courtesy culture where they will lie to you if they think you'd rather hear that because it sounds better. Same with the American public. Americans don't like compromise or negotiation because they see that as a sign of weakness. That's why the debate on world affairs is always about who's going to be tougher and not how you're going to solve the problem. Which is also why the US never has a realistic China policy. Obama said Romney sent jobs to China. But then he also says China steals jobs knowing full well that's a result of American corporations outsourcing exploiting cheap labor so they can make every penny they can. The US government has the power to stop outsourcing and the American people know it. After all the evil things they accuse of China, don't you think they can muster up something more than just labelling China a currency manipulator? It has to be because Americans know or feel helpless to do anything about it. Ironic on how they promote democracy. So the next best thing is to play victim of China. Obama knows the truth because he's President. Romney knows the truth because he's guilty of outsourcing jobs to take advantage of currency manipulation so he can make more money from it. That's the whole point of outsourcing.

Jeff Head said:

One exchange that caught my attention was the exchange regarding Romney's plan for the US Navy. Despite Obama's contention that Romney's plan is not what the military has asked for, the US Navy leadership and planners have indeed, on numerous occassions, asked for a 320-350 ship Navy to address their furutre world-wide needs. Obama's comments are just factually inaccurate.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

addresses this requirement in a very detailed, professional and measured way.

In addition, Obama's contemptuous and snide insults regarding Romney somehow being out of touch with the present and future needs of the Navy, stating that "we do not need horses and bayonettes anymore," and that "we have these things called Aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines that can go beneath the water," were equally mis-stated, and quite frankly sophmoric.

Is Obama not aware that at the start of the war in Afghanistan that our Special Forces allied with the Northern Alliance, and those Special Forces personnel fought from horse-back? They were able to get into places and laser-designate targets by using horses that otherwise would not have been designated. In fact, I believe at the 911 memorial there is a statue of one of our SPECOPS personnel on horse back for Heaven's Sake! In addition, ask any US Marine about the utility and need for Bayonettes. They are still necessary and used when there is any chance of close-in hand to hand fighting for the Army or Marines. IMHO, Obama revealed his own lack of knoweldge regarding these things byhis comments.

I cover all of this in an article I wrote today that will soon be published in multiple places called:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Romney made a conscience decision last night to stay above the fray and to present a much higher level and strategic plan for foreign policy, while pivoting to the economy which is the issue this election will ride on. His plans for the economy will balance the budget and end deficit spending. I believe as he did in Mass. that he will be able to get bi-partisan support for it too.

I personally would have liked to see him go after Obama more on the Benghazi debacle, and on issues like these comments of Obama. but he decided to not get dwon in the mud and in so doing, came across as more presidential. The audience Romney was speaking to was not his base, or Obama's base...it was the independents and his tactics may well have gained him even more ground on that front.

The only real thing Obama has had bipartisan involvement with was his own two budgets that he presented. Both times it was the most bi-partisan vote in US Congressional history. 100% of both the House and Senate voted against them...both times. Not even one democrat would vote for them because the budget was so rediculous with respect to unnsustainable deficit spending and debt...something his entoire four years in office has punctuated. He cannot run from those promises to cut the deficit and how important it was...and how terrible and "unpatriotic" Bush was for having a four trillion dollar deficit over eight years when he has now ammassed six trillion dollars in four. His own words come back to haunt him.

[video=youtube;DyLmru6no4U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U[/video]​

Click to expand...

Jeff, to be fair the actual number of ships was at it's lowest in 2007 under the Bush admin. As for Mitt working with Democrats in MA that is not entirely true. He had NO choice in that matter because 80% of the state legislature were democrats.

Also his views back then are also very very different than his views today. By todays standards he would be considered a very liberal Democrat had he still hold the same views he had then.
He is either pandering to the left (until recently) or he has pretty much did a 180% in terms of his beliefs in the last year.

I am also very concern about his lack of knowledge in world geography especially the mid-east. He said Syria is a gateway to the seas for Iran which is totally incorrect. That is not a misspoke.. that is just lack of knowledge.

I also do not believe that Romney will label China a currency manipulator on his first day BECAUSE if he does EVERYONE loses and the ensuing trade wars between the two countries will spell certain economic hardships for both countries and the entire world!!! I am thinking he did it to score political points and for that I give him a pass.. any american who actually believes he will do that and STILL vote for him IMHO would be an IDIOT!!!

With all the being said I am still on the fence about who I think will make a better president. I am one of the very few people left in this country that I think is still non partisan. I vote base on actual verifiable facts and not based on party loyalty, red meat rhetorics, TV speeches, talk show hosts, radio hosts or pundits.

kwaigonegin said:

Jeff, to be fair the actual number of ships was at it's lowest in 2007 under the Bush admin. As for Mitt working with Democrats in MA that is not entirely true. He had NO choice in that matter because 80% of the state legislature were democrats.

Also his views back then are also very very different than his views today. By todays standards he would be considered a very liberal Democrat had he still hold the same views he had then.
He is either pandering to the left (until recently) or he has pretty much did a 180% in terms of his beliefs in the last year.

I am also very concern about his lack of knowledge in world geography especially the mid-east. He said Syria is a gateway to the seas for Iran which is totally incorrect. That is not a misspoke.. that is just lack of knowledge.

I also do not believe that Romney will label China a currency manipulator on his first day BECAUSE if he does EVERYONE loses and the ensuing trade wars between the two countries will spell certain economic hardships for both countries and the entire world!!! I am thinking he did it to score political points and for that I give him a pass.. any american who actually believes he will do that and STILL vote for him IMHO would be an IDIOT!!!

With all the being said I am still on the fence about who I think will make a better president. I am one of the very few people left in this country that I think is still non partisan. I vote base on actual verifiable facts and not based on party loyalty, red meat rhetorics, TV speeches, talk show hosts, radio hosts or pundits.

Click to expand...

So I guess you will not be voting then.

Obama is the king at accumulating debt and clearly has no real fix for the economy as he tries to spend his way out of the recession. However, given the 2008 mess he inherited, no other president including the likes of JFK or Reagan, would have come out significantly better in the past 4 years.

Romney on the other hand has shown to be a backtracker and goofy beyond relief when it comes foreign policy. Who else can possibly insult the Brits, Palestinians then the Russians on a single trip this summer? And binders full of women? Also he sure isn't going pay for any of the hundreds of ships and planes he promised out of his own pockets and those of his billionaire friends.

Both candidates have been simply lying in the average American's face with a variety of promises. Still I don't think Romney can possibly do worse than Obama at growing the private sector and addressing the domestic economic issues.

It's simply absurd that most Americans under 30 know who Snooki is rather than Ben Bernanke or Lloyd Blankfein. This complete lack of financial education among the general populace is the biggest underlying issue for the developed world nowadays.