2012 US Presidential Election discussion.

Jeff Head said:

I gave you my thoughts on that. You did not agree with it...apparently felt it did not answer what you define as evidence...

Click to expand...

I STAND CORRECTED, Jeff. in your third reply, you did answer my question! i admit that i got so distracted by the length and tone of your non-answers to my question that I missed your answer.

Jeff Head said:

Many women have come foreard in support of Romney on these gender equity in the work place issues. Read the transcripts of the GOP convention...but to date, not one has come forward stating that he was anything but fair as regards gender equity in the work place regading pay or positions.

Click to expand...

that's all it would have taken from the first. the testimony of women who worked for and with mr. romney, of course, is evidence. i haven't personally witnessed the evidence, but i accept it as such, and, i'll take your word as to the content.

all the haggling about who accused who of what, how much money was spent by who, who ate a dog, and burdens of proof, was absolutely unnecessary and distracting. nonetheless, that doesn't excuse me for having missed your answer, regardless of when it was provided.

fair?

Obama tries to buy more votes from the middle class with huge and endless social programs AKA government spending whereas Romney seems to be tougher on foreign policy and promises the moon to the military without revealing any concrete plan to finance it.

Had most Americans really understood what needed to be done to address domestic issues, then Ron Paul would have been president a while ago.

Just watching this 3rd debate, it's quite amazing how clueless Obama is when the talk turns into economy. Romney actually sounds pretty good.

The entire trade war issue with China is kind of interesting. If you listen to Romney previously, I think in the bottom of his heart, he knows that declaring China a currency manipulator will lead to a trade war, which is going to be horrible for both nations. I read something from a talk he gave in 2009, he seems to understand the issues around trade balance quite well. However, he seems to be doing this for pure political purposes. It's going to get to a point where if he gets elected, what is he going to do? There are reasons why Bush and Obama have resisted labeling China as a currency manipulator despite heavy pressure from their own parties. So, Romney would be between doing something really damaging or breaking campaign promise on the first day.

Outside of that, Romney agreed with pretty much all of Obama's foreign policy initiatives.

Outside of that, Romney agreed with pretty much all of Obama's foreign policy initiatives.

Click to expand...

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.

cn_habs said:

Obama tries to buy more votes from the middle class with huge and endless social programs AKA government spending whereas Romney seems to be tougher on foreign policy and promises the moon to the military without revealing any concrete plan to finance it.

Had most Americans really understood what needed to be done to address domestic issues, then Ron Paul would have been president a while ago.

Click to expand...

Romney also will not do anything to regulate the parasitical financial industry here in US.

I just watched the last debate, both candidates have surprisingly good view about China. They both said they would want to work with China, and both nation have many common goals. Their problem with China is mainly economic, which can be solved in a civilized manner, can't stay they have the same attitude with Iran.

This gives me hopes after all the months of China bashing from both sides.

tphuang said:

Just watching this 3rd debate, it's quite amazing how clueless Obama is when the talk turns into economy. Romney actually sounds pretty good.

The entire trade war issue with China is kind of interesting. If you listen to Romney previously, I think in the bottom of his heart, he knows that declaring China a currency manipulator will lead to a trade war, which is going to be horrible for both nations. I read something from a talk he gave in 2009, he seems to understand the issues around trade balance quite well. However, he seems to be doing this for pure political purposes. It's going to get to a point where if he gets elected, what is he going to do? There are reasons why Bush and Obama have resisted labeling China as a currency manipulator despite heavy pressure from their own parties. So, Romney would be between doing something really damaging or breaking campaign promise on the first day.

Outside of that, Romney agreed with pretty much all of Obama's foreign policy initiatives.

Click to expand...

I think if he gets elected, he would have a secret talk with Chinese leadership to come up with a compromise where both side can save face. I think China would probably increase the RMB value a little bit, so that Romney can claim success. But they won't increase too much so to cause massive unemployment for the nation.

China have already raised the value of RMB for most than 25% since few years ago, I think they are actually planning to increase it more. I won't be surprised if they been holding the last planned increase, just for in case if Romney gets elected.

tphuang said:

Just watching this 3rd debate, it's quite amazing how clueless Obama is when the talk turns into economy. Romney actually sounds pretty good.

The entire trade war issue with China is kind of interesting. If you listen to Romney previously, I think in the bottom of his heart, he knows that declaring China a currency manipulator will lead to a trade war, which is going to be horrible for both nations. I read something from a talk he gave in 2009, he seems to understand the issues around trade balance quite well. However, he seems to be doing this for pure political purposes. It's going to get to a point where if he gets elected, what is he going to do? There are reasons why Bush and Obama have resisted labeling China as a currency manipulator despite heavy pressure from their own parties. So, Romney would be between doing something really damaging or breaking campaign promise on the first day.

Outside of that, Romney agreed with pretty much all of Obama's foreign policy initiatives.

Click to expand...

I agree.

If Romney does get elected, declaring China a currency manipulator on day one will undoubtedly insult Xi's new leadership leading to the start of an escalating trade war which will in turn make sure the American and world economy never recover from the crisis of 2008. He of all accomplished businessmen must know the benefits of international trade and the laws of comparative advantage.

jackliu said:

Romney also will not do anything to regulate the parasitical financial industry here in US.

Click to expand...

and, THAT is IT, in a nutshell!

cn_habs said:

I agree.

If Romney does get elected, declaring China a currency manipulator on day one will undoubtedly insult Xi's new leadership leading to the start of an escalating trade war which will in turn make sure the American and world economy never recover from the crisis of 2008. He of all accomplished businessmen must know the benefits of international trade and the laws comparative advantage.

Click to expand...

the statement is a bald-faced lie. first of all, the timing of that declaration is determined by some foreign policy review process, not by the presidential inauguration. secondly, as this article in the nyt reports, american jobs depend upon exports to china. it would be irresponsible to arbitrarily threaten an already precarious balance.



china does arbitrarily limit the range in which it's currency floats and that does afford it unfair advantage, not only against the united states, but especially against other emerging economies. nevertheless, to take such a broad measure when more specific, and less potentially damaging measures, would probably send a sufficient message, would be foolhardy, and won't happen.

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...

Yeah, he is definitely very polished. It helps to be running for president for the past 5 years. He was definitely trying to appear more moderate. Outside of the two libertarian candidates (Paul and Johnson) and the libertarian leaning one (Huntsman), he was the most moderate of all the Republican primary candidates. And frankly, he got nominated because he has the best shot against Obama of all of them.

Out of all the debates, it's clear to me both Romney and Ryan understands how the market works and how to run business far better than Obama and Biden. Obama/Biden appears far more comfortable talking about anything not related to economy. If you look at the good moment Obama/Biden had, it was pretty much any time they were talking about their foreign policy accomplishment.

But I think what I said before still holds quite well. Romney doesn't have a plan right now that makes any sense to me. The same issue that haunts American economy is not going away with the plan he has, which is this huge budget deficit. You can stimulate the economy by cutting taxes and use stimulus spending, but that just kicks the can down the road unless you address the fundamental issues.