Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
US Presidential Election
Daozen
Veteran
With less than 2 weeks to go, thought I'd start a thread to discuss this ...
* Who should win? Why?
* Who will win? Why?
* If you were President, what would you do different to either Obama or Romney?
* Who should win? Why?
* Who will win? Why?
* If you were President, what would you do different to either Obama or Romney?
0
Comments
Many states have early voting and voting by mail. I voted yesterday morning here in Colorado...quite crowded.
I am voting for Obama. When I was young I was a Republican, but that party has gone way, way, way conservative. Eisenhower, Nixon, the first George Bush...couldn't be nominated in today's Republican Party.
I want to keep the Supreme Court in balance. Democrats care more about every-day people. I approve of Obamacare...and beyond. And Romney lies. I listened to most of the GOP primary debates, and the Romney I heard then doesn't sound at all like the Romney I heard in the recent debates with Obama. Romney identifies himself with his father. Really? I remember George Romney. He was an Eastern Liberal Republican who identified with other liberal Republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller and William Scanton. Romney is a smart, spoiled rich man.
If the election were held today, I think Romney would squeak by into the presidency. A week and a half from now, I'm not at all sure.
Where in Colorado are you? I spent a year in Denver about 5 years ago....lovely spot! Go the Rockies!!
Manitou Springs (Garden of the Gods) is a pretty cool place from memory.
Sorry - way off topic. I'll leave you guys to discuss your election.
May the best (better?) man win!!
Romney still needs to win Ohio and he's still behind there.
Most likely, Romney is a moderate masquerading as a conservative, but who knows.
Anyway, I've used sites like votesmart.com, politicalcompass.org and isidewith.com to help show me where I stand and I'm definitely for Obama, based on the opinions that I have.
Can't say who will win because nobody knows for sure.
As for if I was president? Well it's such a broad question for me that you'd have to be specific about most things. And to be honest, a lot of my answers to someone's specific questions would probably be weak as hell. Not because I'm an idiot, but because I have a hard time thinking some of this stuff out for whatever reason.
lol I still feel like I'm putting myself down.
But anyway, Obama ftw.
His policies are flawed, but human hearted.
Anyway, I've said all along that Romney will be the nominee and Obama will win and I'll stick to that.
@Bunks Not sure why elections are held on a weekday to begin with but there's little chance it will change. A Republican strategy is to make it harder for people to vote since the people who vote Republican are generally better able to jump through the hoops to cast their vote. In fact this time around there is a push for something called voter ID which would fix the potential for in person voter fraud which only occurs something like %.0009 of the time but would potentially disenfranchise %10 of the population most of who would vote Democrat.
Romney because people will see he's the guy to fix the economy.
And if I were Romney I'd let go of the gay thing and the abortion thing and let go of some of his foreign "nation building" ideas.
I'm not American though, so I don't get a vote
I am actually terrified of Romney winning. As a gay person and a woman, I don't trust him in the least. Obama isn't perfect, but at least I don't have to question his integrity. Romney is about as bad as it gets for us. -From Think Progress' article regarding the Log Cabin (Gay Republican) finally deciding to endorse him after previously rallying against him.
Stein and Honkala, on the other, not only support a single-payer healthcare system (which I feel would be more inclusive and efficient that either Obamacare or Romney's Massachusetts' equivalent), raising the minimum wage, imposing an immediate moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, repealing the Patriot Act and the NDAA (which included the section on indefinite detention), protecting women's reproductive rights, promoting LBGTQ equality, and cutting the defense budget by 30-50%, but they also support electoral reforms such as getting rid of the Electoral College and replacing our 'winner take all' system with instant runoff voting and proportional representation. This is a very difficult choice for me to make, though, and I'm extremely torn. The question confronting me this year (as it does every year) is what's more important to me as a voter: voting for the person and policies that I think best represent my ideals, interests, and vision for the future, or voting for the person out of the two front-runners who's closer to my ideal candidate/voting for whomever has the greatest chance of preventing the person I like least from getting into office.
On the one hand, I believe that everyone should vote for whom and what they want, what they believe in; and I simply want better than what the two-party duopoly is offering. On the other, there's little chance that Stein will win, and out of a choice between Obama or Romney, I think Obama is the better option. This would make my choice seem that much easier; but when calling into question our two-party, winner-take-all system (which I feel to be outdated), it's not that simple. For one, neither the Democratic or Republican Party seems all that keen on making our representative system of government more proportional (and, in my opinion, more fair), which is something that's important to me. In addition, for many Democrats and 'progressives,' there's nothing Obama or any other Democrat can do to lose their support; and for all the people who say they side more with someone like Jill Stein, they'll never vote for an independent or third-party candidate unless they're better on the issues and more electable, albeit without their prior support.
While pragmatic from one point of view, this is precisely how the Democrats can so easily be pulled right by the Republicans (because they know they have the majority of the progressive vote no matter what), and it makes other alternatives difficult to organize because many progressives won't support them until they get electable, which they can't do without the help of progressives in the first place (e.g., votes in elections are important for third parties in regards to things like maintaining electoral ballot status in states, their campaigns need individual donations because corporate support is almost entirely split between the Democrats and Republicans, etc.). It's such a catch-22, and it drives me crazy, mainly because our outdated electoral system actively makes it so difficult for independents and third-party candidates like Stein to compete with Democrats and Republicans, particularly in federal elections. And yet, if nobody is willing to help support these alternatives and make it easier for them to get on ballots, in debates, etc., how will they ever get a national platform, become more 'electable,' and be put into a position where they're better able to push for electoral reforms?
So, in the end, you have a situation where the country and the Democratic Party is being drawn more to the right every year (as the Republicans move right, they pull the Democrats farther along with them, and centrists like Obama are portrayed as left/liberal even though Nixon was arguable more liberal than either Clinton or Obama), with each base supporting the shift, whether they like it or not, because it's easier and more pragmatic in their minds than saying enough's enough and supporting another candidate or party. But if nobody (particularly on the left) has a line, and the Republicans keep shifting further right, there's nothing stopping Democrats from doing the same. There's not going to be any real pressure on the part of progressives, no push back, no lost votes, only endless lamentations that voting for Democrats is the best they can do in a two-party dominated, 'winner-take-all' system. And when it comes to things like civil liberties, which are difficult to regain once lost, how much more pragmatism can we take? Which leads me to the point that pragmatism isn't always the best strategy. Sometimes pragmatism and the 'lesser of two evils' principle will inadvertently leave you with a greater evil, or else put you in the lead of a political race to the bottom.
As difficult as building a viable alternative to the status quo and changing election laws is (e.g., dropping the Electoral College and implementing an instant-runoff system or even a more proportional system), it's not impossible. But it'll only be possible when people put their time and effort into organizing it because it is such an uphill battle. It's not like electoral politics is a free market. The Democrats and the Republicans essentially have a monopoly, and they make it disproportionately difficult for independents and third parties to compete, or have their ideas heard and made a part of the political discussion. To counter that, they need more citizen support, not less. And that means possibly losing a few elections along the way. But even so, that doesn't mean it won't be worth it in the long run. That said, it's hard to vote my conscience when there's a real possibility that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, the LGBTQ community could potentially face more discrimination at the federal level, social security and medicare could be gutted more than it would under a second Obama administration, etc. In essence, in considering who to vote for for president, I'm trying to weigh every possible option and reality against the strength of my beliefs. So far Stein is winning out, but it's admittedly not by much.
As for who will win, I think Obama will win a second term because he's a better choice than Romney in terms of policy and competency, and and the Republicans have been shooting themselves in the collective foot with all these stupid abortion/rape comments lately. I'm going to refrain from answering the last question, however, because it'd take all day and these repsonses have character limits.
The platform is very clear both domestic and abroad and it is compassionate, and environmentally sound. It protects religious and spiritual liberty, and promotes proactive reproductive responsibility for both men and women.
I have another confession - I'm not American, so I won't be voting. But as a 'citizen of the world' I find myself following this election quite closely, knowing that, with our interconnected world, the leader of the US can make quite an impact.
If I DID vote, it would definitely be for Obama. I honestly can't imagine anyone believing the Romney will be good for the US or the world. He's a deeply cynical and manipulative man with an agenda that perpetuates extreme social conservatism and financial irresponsibility.
As to who will win, I tend to think that the bookmakers are more accurate than the polls, and, for the moment they still have Obama as favourite. Looks like it could be close though, and 10 days is a long time in politics.
http://history1800s.about.com/od/presidentialcampaigns/f/electionday01.htm
Basically, it seems it's an outdated tradition from the 19th century.
You'd have to think that a weekend vote would get higher turnout these days.
-Obama, probably. He knows how to market himself better.
-Just about everything? probably starting off with measures to grant more power to the presidency, make lobbying punishable by being stripped naked, having your face surgically altered, and records altered to make it seem like you're just another of the unwashed masses. Launch all nuclear weapons into the sun. Ignore corporate interests and crack down on them, hard. Make outsourcing something to be proud of by enforcing minimum wages and safe working conditions overseas. Anything approaching the definition of a monopoly shall be terminated. Nothing will be "too big to fail" if it should fail, I'll make damn sure it does so something new may rise from the ashes. Withdraw all troops from all corners of the globe, let all nations deal with their own issues. Cut down military spending by at least 50%, send that 50% and distribute it amongst medical research, agriculture research, and alternative energy research. Aside from the exchange of goods, resources, and ideas with other nations, adopt more of an isolationist (though not entirely) policy. Keep an eye and only an eye on the middle east, transfer what military we withdraw from around the world and establish fortifications and more of a presence along our borders and shores instead of dicking around on another countries soil to try and eliminate a threat before it arises, as if it ever would arise like we do now. If a threat comes to us, we'd blow it out of the water instead of bringing war to another part of the world. Never tell a lie, ever. Even if it leads to my impeachment/death.
They own both parties. I would promote pro-worker polices. The the exploitation that is capitalism in the US and hopefully an socialist state. Also end our Empire.
I'm voting for Obama. I have in the past voted for other candidates on smaller platforms, but unfortunately right now it's more important to me that Romney NOT get it. I think Obama is a good person, he stands for the things that are important to me even if all of his policies aren't ideal. There are things I downright disagree with him on, but Romney as president terrifies me. Honestly, the economy is about the least important thing to me, as I tend to think our current world economy is unsustainable and needs to change direction. I usually line up the most with Green party candidates, and I do like Jill Stein, but things are too close for me to feel comfortable voting for a candidate that won't have a chance. Obama is a very close second for me, and I really like him, and trust him, as a person. And while it might be minor to most of the rest of the country, the fact Obama stood up and said he was for gay marriage, wins huge points for me.
Who do I think will win? I have no idea. I'm sure I'll chew my fingernails to the bone waiting for election results, more locally than nationally.
What would I do differently? Couldn't tell you, because the president has little power on his own when he has a congress that purposely shoots down great ideas just to prove a point that they don't like him. I wouldn't want the job of president for all the money in the world.
I don't want Social Security to be dismantled or privatized, along with other safety-net programs. Taxes for upper-bracket earners need to get back to a functional level for society, which won't happen under any Republican administration. I just read on wiki that Bush's own Economic Advisement Council opposed his tax cuts, and 10 Nobel laureates in economics sent him a letter predicting that the tax cuts would "reduce the capacity of government to finance Social Security and medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure and basic research, ...[and would] generate further inequalities in after-tax income". So it was clear that the tax cuts would be ruinous for the economy (along with increased military spending, due to the Iraq war). There was no Social Security deficit until Bush's tax cuts were instituted, apparently. The problem was mainly of his own creation. That's really alarming. Who wants more of that kind of callous bad policy-making?
I forgot to mention that although I am currently without health insurance, through Obama's efforts, I received an extra year of COBRA insurance at the same group rate I had with my old job. This was a big deal to me.
the experience. haha. It's a powerful right, even if
my vote is in an electorial state. Even if my vote is a protest stance.
Even if I am in a photo-id state. Even if I am a Fed.
We have early voting here. It was rainy and chilly, and I was
fearing seeing a low turn out. But, there was a good number.
Waited about 1 hour. The line was able to stay inside the building,
so that was comfty! I always enjoy the voting line because of
the people watching.
Guessing who each other is voting for. haha. The melting
pot all in a line feeling like they can take over the world!!!
*slinging my cape over my shoulder*
Different generations, different genders, different dressers,
different races, different alot of things. I blended right in.
Here is the latest on the photo-id, just to keep everyone
updated on info: Poll tax? You decide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/us/tennessee-state-appeals-ruling-on-library-ids.html?_r=1
If any Feds are unsure about their right to vote, please
educate yourself on the issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/hatch-act-permits-range-of-feds-political-action/2012/09/25/a9d542fa-073f-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
Dont forget your sticker on the way out!
It makes you patriotic, dammit!
(The sign reads, "Portland City Club: Stepping on democracy one debate at a time.")
(Short version: Obama is holding on ... just).
@person Ventura wasn't allowed to debate because they thought he couldn't win. He was allowed into the debate because very vocal pressure from some groups in the state pushed for it, so they allowed it. MPR was one of the major players in getting Ventura debate time, but at the time he had 10% in the polls so he wasn't completely invisible, either. People wanted a change from the typical asshat career politicians between Coleman and Humphrey and they used their vote to get the change. I personally loved Ventura as governor, and I'd vote for him again. Unfortunately because of the rules in place on a national level, and because of electoral college, 3rd party candidates will rarely have high enough visibility to count. Hopefully that changes.
I feel that Romney is a much stronger man.
Aside from that, he seems to have a much better grasp of foreign policy and issues in the Middle East than Obama does. Everyone laughed when Romney said that Russia pose a great geopolitical threat, but it's frankly the truth.
He understands the problems with countries like Iran, which Obama doesn't seem to get at all. Obama seems to be under the (completely false) impression that we can just all be friends and deal with things nicely and quietly. We can take a look at the recent history of Iran and it's backhanded attempts at gaining nuclear power and see how Iran has taken advantage of our complacency and political correctness. (The Rise of Nuclear Iran by Dore Gold goes into this in great depth).
Romney made some remarks in the foreign policy debate that irked me somewhat, his ideas for foreign "nation building" seem childish and naive to me, but so do Obama's.
Romney seems to understand that the biggest issue facing America (within the country) is the state of the economy. He wants to give businesses and wealth makers the opportunity to thrive again whereas Obama appears to want to create even more government involvement. Government is not the solution to the economic crisis, the private sector is.
Romney loses me on some social issues, like abortion and gay rights. However, I feel that these issues are lower down on the priority list than national security and the economy, especially in our current global climate. Social issues like that can wait a while, IMO.
So that's what it really boils down to for me. National security and the economy. I think Romney is the better guy for the job. I like Obama, I think he's a nice man and a very intelligent man, but Romney has the edge by a long way.
"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, 'My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.' It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you 'disagree' with your candidate on these issues."
- Pulitzer and Tony winning playwright Doug Wright
It's disappointing that more people think the 'gay' issue is not relevant enough to change their vote, especially because the root of their decision is based on money. And for those that don't think he's that bad regarding homosexuals, read my earlier post in this thread. He has a terrible track record in addition to saying things that make me question whether or not he even views us as people.
Romney talking to a lesbian: "I didn't know you had families."
I can't tell if that quote is just extreme ignorance or if he meant it to be cruel.
How does this affect me personally? I've been with my girlfriend for 5 years and would like to get married, but don't see the point in doing it before it is completely recognized. We're a little stubborn like that. At the moment, my girlfriend is looking at applying for jobs in other states. Many states, my state (Michigan) included, do not cover homosexuality under job discrimination laws. This means, if your employer finds out you're gay, they can fire you simply for that reason. So, as we're investigating other states, we're realizing that depending on the hiring company, we may have to be careful. Whatever job she gets, she will be receiving benefits, of which I will get none because gay marriage is not recognized.
I watched this video and cried because, if things don't change for us, this could be us someday:
(The short story: Lesbian couple have lived together for 42 years, battled MS, partner dies... surviving partner was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes because our government doesn't recognize their marriage.)