Let the campaign begin!

VivaStPauli wrote:Equating true and false answers isn't being impartial, it's retarded.

You basically described CNN as a channel with that.

VivaStPauli wrote:and it's not considered partisan or biased to call a candidate, if he gets his facts wrong, and it usually happens to both sides.

The most watched cable news network is openly extremely conservative and supports the Republican party no matter what.

If Romney lies and the media calls him on it, here is what happens:

Fox - "The mainstream liberal media is once again ganging up on Mitt Romney yet again to further their progressive agenda." (See the link Amar posted)

The Fox networks have done an admittedly brilliant job of convincing (Read: brainwashing) a large portion of the population (primarily white christians living in the south) that Liberals "Are out to destroy America" (Seriously, they have convinced people that the goal of one of the TWO political parties is to destroy America. PLEASE THINK ABOUT THAT FOR ONE F*CKING SECOND) and they have been able to demonize anything in the center or left of the political spectrum. Fox is a cancer to the political landscape of this country.

By the way, if you are completely confused by the ridiculousness of this situation....Welcome to America

The GOP never ceases to amaze me lol

They're literally parsing words and using semantics when it comes to this "act of terror" bull. Does it really matter that much? That will make those 4 people any less dead and gone and it will not lead to a faster capture of their killers. That should be the focus and yet it's being politicized.

-------------------------------

As for the debate, I believe Obama won this narrowly. He smashed Romney in concerted spurts, but this was not a clear victory for me as he wasn't descriptive enough on what he'll do different in his 2nd term.

This is the Romney I was waiting to see: The cold, aloof CEO who doesn't good goddamn about anyone that isn't as rich as he is. He came off effortlessly like that and was a farcry from the populist, modernist facade from 2 weeks ago. This is man simply isn't likable. Now I don't believe that should be a required quality for this job, but even douchebags can inspire people sometimes. Romney simply cannot. That, for me, is a requirement if you want to lead this country.

------------------------------------

As for healthcare, I remember reading about London picking up the pieces after the Germans destroyed their city after WWII ended. The first thing, before anything else, that Winston Churchill ordered established was the NHS. He understood that in order to rebuild your city, you need to rebuild your people as a healthy people means a healthy city and a healthy country. I think that gesture was incredibly powerful and it scores just how different the priorities our between our 2 nations are.

"Life, Liberty and a Pursuit of Happiness"....we appear to have 2 of the 3 in abundance, but why not Life? It is an inalienable right and to sustain it, we must have healthcare to keep us well. What do the conservatives say about this? "Why should I pay for your healthcare?". That's the type of selfishness that has kept us from where we used to be. To still be called the United States when we have such a division in our ideology is simply farcical at best. We have not been a truly "United" country in a loooong time. How every other established successful country on this frakking planet understands this simple, simple truth that heathcare is a right and yet we, the so-called best, richest and most powerful nation on said planet, refused to care for nearly a third of its citizenry is frankly a stain upon the Declaration of Independence. It's a direct violation of that inalienable right.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:This would be just like if Van Rompuy proposed that there should be Euro wide universal healthcare for +300 MM people from brussels. Its not the EUs Job. Does that not sound like a radical idea?

You obviously do not follow what some European politicians suggest. Schäuble even wants Brussels to exert even more power over the national currencies atm, compared to which a European universal healthcare would be not even half radical...

Sir Winston Churchill was obviously a red socialist bastard, McLewis.


I'm still waiting to hear where Romney will get the funding for his proposed budget. Not raising taxes and not cutting the main expenditures, while ignoring that half the debt is on Republican heads anyway, but surely THIS group will find that magic cure... I don't want to steal the Daily Show's bit but they really nailed it with the FDR quote.


Also, Zuri, the US Government has been about helping those in need since just before World War II (and even before in some cases)... be it social projects in the US or aid abroad. Even the Republicans support a number of the social aid programs (SS a notable one).

@red

A study put out by the independent Center For Tax Policy released today took a look at how Romney is going to pay for his tax plan. Yesterday Romney indicated that capping itemized deductions is how he is going to pay for his plan.

Basically, if Romney gets rid of itemized deductions entirely, that will add roughly $2 Trillion in Revenue over 10 years.

That leaves Romney with a $3 Trillion deficit in his tax plan alone (before tackling the current debt)

Again, thats if he decides to get rid of itemized deductions ENTIRELY. What Romney has said so far is that he wants to "cap" itemized deductions. Unsurprisingly he has given 3 possible cap limits: 17k, 25k, and 50k. The deficit of his OWN TAX PLAN is even LARGER if he places a cap rather than getting rid of itemized deductions entirely.

Here is a link to the article, its a great read:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/10/17/how-much-revenue-would-a-cap-on-itemized-deductions-raise/


Fun fact: Under Romney's "middle class" tax cut, middle quintile gets $722 tax cut. Top quintile gets $12,182. Top 1% gets a $104,563 cut.

VivaStPauli if you're still around - this should properly show the complete and utter incompetence of our news media. This guy has basically been running for 8 years. He has had this "tax plan" for at least 2 years, and the media STILL hasn't called him on the fact that he is doing nothing but straight up lying when he says this tax deal is for the "middle class" or "revenue neutral." That's it. He is literally lying to everyone. Repeatedly. Over and Over. ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. And the media does absolutely nothing about it, instead they focus on the important issues, like whether the candidates are smiling enough/too much.

It is extremely important that Obama gets re-elected. The economy is recovering. Stocks are back to their highs from before the crash. The housing numbers that came out today were fantastic. Unemployment down. Things are headed in the right direction the absolute last thing we need is to turn everything on its head through this jackasses nonsense policies.

I'm not one of those people who thinks the country is going to crash and burn if Romney gets elected. But as of right now, if Romney does get elected there are two things I can say with absolute certainty with the information available right now: The national debt is going to increase, and the gap between rich and poor (which is bad enough already) is going to absolutely EXPLODE.

rwo power wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:This would be just like if Van Rompuy proposed that there should be Euro wide universal healthcare for +300 MM people from brussels. Its not the EUs Job. Does that not sound like a radical idea?

You obviously do not follow what some European politicians suggest. Schäuble even wants Brussels to exert even more power over the national currencies atm, compared to which a European universal healthcare would be not even half radical...

Wait, what is Schauble trying to do?

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

rwo power wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:This would be just like if Van Rompuy proposed that there should be Euro wide universal healthcare for +300 MM people from brussels. Its not the EUs Job. Does that not sound like a radical idea?

You obviously do not follow what some European politicians suggest. Schäuble even wants Brussels to exert even more power over the national currencies atm, compared to which a European universal healthcare would be not even half radical...

Wait, what is Schauble trying to do?

I found an English language article about it...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19984327

I lol'd at this site, honestly. For anyone wondering the specifics of Romney's tax plan...

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

rwo power wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

rwo power wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:This would be just like if Van Rompuy proposed that there should be Euro wide universal healthcare for +300 MM people from brussels. Its not the EUs Job. Does that not sound like a radical idea?

You obviously do not follow what some European politicians suggest. Schäuble even wants Brussels to exert even more power over the national currencies atm, compared to which a European universal healthcare would be not even half radical...

Wait, what is Schauble trying to do?

I found an English language article about it...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19984327

Oh thats been talked about a long time ago, supervising euro budgets through a committee is no way like unemployment benefits directly going from german pockets to greek ones like we have in the US

Only the rich are benefiting from America’s recovery
Permalink

Luxury retailers are smiling. So are the owners of high-end restaurants, sellers of upscale cars, holiday planners, financial advisers and personal coaches. For them and their customers and clients, the recession is over. The recovery is now full speed.

But the rest of America isn’t enjoying a recovery. It’s still quite sick. The finances of many Americans remain in critical condition.

The Commerce Department reported last Thursday that the economy grew at a 3 per cent annual rate last quarter (far better than the measly 1.8 per cent in the third quarter of last year). Personal income also jumped. Americans raked in over $13tn, $3.3bn more than previously thought.

Yet all the gains went to the top 10 per cent and the lion’s share to the top 1 per cent. More than a third of the gains went to 15,600 super-rich households in the top one-tenth of one per cent.

We don’t know this for sure because all the data aren’t in for 2011. But this is what happened in 2010, the most recent year for which we have reliable figures (courtesy of my colleague Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, who analysed tax returns) and nothing about the direction of this recovery has changed since then.

In 2010, 93 per cent of the gains went to the richest 1 per cent. Some 37 per cent gains went to the top one-tenth of one per cent. No one below the richest 10 per cent saw any gain at all.

In fact, most of the bottom 90 per cent lost ground. Their average adjusted gross income was $29,840 in 2010. That’s down $127 from 2009 and down $4,843 from 2000 (all adjusted for inflation).

Meanwhile, employer-provided benefits continue to decline among the bottom 90 per cent. The share of people with health insurance from their employers dropped from 59.8 per cent in 2007 to 55.3 per cent in 2010, according to the Commerce Department. And the share of private-sector workers with retirement plans dropped from 42 per cent in 2007 to 39.5 per cent in 2010. Yet the so-called “talent” in executive suites is getting gold-plated healthcare coverage for themselves and their families, along with deferred compensation and fat pensions subject to few, if any, taxes.

If you’re among the richest 10 per cent, a big chunk of your savings are in the stock market where you’ve had nice gains over the past two years. The value of financial assets held by American households increased by $1.46tn in the fourth quarter of 2011. And since 90 per cent of those financial assets are owned by the richest 10 per cent and 38 per cent by the top 1 per cent, the richest 10 per cent became $1.3tn richer and the top 1 per cent gained $554.8bn.

But if you’re in the bottom 90 per cent, you probably own few, if any, shares of stock. Your biggest asset is your home. And that’s a big problem. Home prices are down over a third from their 2006 peak and they’re still dropping. The median house price in February was 6.2 per cent lower than a year ago.

Which means if you’re in the bottom 90 per cent you’re likely to be even deeper underwater – owing more on your home than it’s worth. An estimated one in three homeowners with a mortgage are now holding their breath.

This is the most lopsided recovery in US history.

When the American economy began recovering from the depths of the Great Depression, the gains were widespread. From 1933 to 1934 the bottom 90 per cent gained 8.8 per cent in average income.

Yet recent recoveries have become more and more lopsided. The top 1 per cent got 45 per cent of Clinton-era economic growth and 65 per cent of the economic growth during the Bush era. So far in the Obama recovery, the top 1 per cent has pocketed 93 per cent of the gains.

But Washington doesn’t want to talk about this lopsided recovery. The Obama administration would rather focus on the recovery without mentioning whose it is. Perhaps it’s because almost all Democratic and independent voters are in the bottom 90 per cent.

Republicans would rather not talk about the lopsidedness of this recovery either because they’d rather not bring up the subject of inequality to begin with. Their reverse-Robin Hood budget plans cut taxes on the rich and slash public services everyone else depends on.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke – who doesn’t have to face voters on election day – says the US economy needs to grow faster if it’s to produce enough jobs to bring down unemployment. Well, yes. But he leaves out the critical point.

We can’t possibly grow faster if the vast majority of Americans, who are still losing ground, don’t have the money to buy more of the things American workers produce. There’s no way spending by the richest 10 per cent will be enough to get the economy out of first gear.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:
Oh thats been talked about a long time ago, supervising euro budgets through a committee is no way like unemployment benefits directly going from german pockets to greek ones like we have in the US

You realize your neat little analogy totally falls flat, simply because Germany is a federal state just like the US, and Europe isn't, right?

Meaning that unemployment benefits are going directly from Bavarian pockets to Berliner ones. This is considered normal in industrialized nations bar the US. Transfers between nation states are something entirely different.

Considering the different socio-economic structures, and differences between infrastructure, between US States, some kind of monetary transfer is bound to happen, simply because some states offer geographical advantages that others don't.

Wait, I sound like a Commie to your ears, don't I?

@Yuri - Yes the rich have recovered much faster than the poor, no doubt

The Romney Solution: Cut the taxes of the richest even further! Then, cut all funding for the social programs that help the poor! Brilliant! Problem Solved!

By the way, housing is recovering.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/10/18/housing-recovery-2/

Not to mention the fantastic numbers regarding startups from yesterday.



I think that whoever the next President is, they're going to be presiding over a period of serious recovery. Which is even more reason why I hope Obama wins. Thinking about Romney getting credit for a recovery that Obama laid the entire groundwork for is enough to make me want to claw my eyes out and tear off my ears.

Well, American presidents usually get 2 terms unless they f*ck up, if Obama doesn't get a 2nd term, it'll be 85% racism and 15% disillusioned progressives not turning out to vote.

Yeah I know that's putting a bit bluntly; but I must be permitted to issue a placative statement every once in a while.

VivaStPauli wrote:Well, American presidents usually get 2 terms unless they f*ck up, if Obama doesn't get a 2nd term, it'll be 85% racism and 15% disillusioned progressives not turning out to vote.

Yeah I know that's putting a bit bluntly; but I must be permitted to issue a placative statement every once in a while.

It's blunt, but true.

Saying its 85% racism is far far far too high. Voter turnout is far more of an issue.

The problem is that the radical conservatives turn out to vote in very high numbers, because as Fox News has discovered: Lying and Fear Mongering is an EXCELLENT way to get uneducated or poorly educated people to vote.

I don't mean that 85% of voters are racist, but that racism is a huge problem in overall turnout for Obama.

Of course you can not be a racist and vote against him, but I'm pretty certain that more than a few people vote against him because of racial bias, even though his policies would, in theory, benefit them.

CBarca wrote:I lol'd at this site, honestly. For anyone wondering the specifics of Romney's tax plan...

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

ROFL

VivaStPauli wrote:but I'm pretty certain that more than a few people vote against him because of racial bias, even though his policies would, in theory, benefit them.

Aye...If you aren't rich/well-off or a christian extremist, you're either a libertarian voting GOP cause you know the Libertarian candidate can't win (Like Yuri), or you're straight up voting against your own interests.

VivaStPauli wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:
Oh thats been talked about a long time ago, supervising euro budgets through a committee is no way like unemployment benefits directly going from german pockets to greek ones like we have in the US

You realize your neat little analogy totally falls flat, simply because Germany is a federal state just like the US, and Europe isn't, right?

Meaning that unemployment benefits are going directly from Bavarian pockets to Berliner ones. This is considered normal in industrialized nations bar the US. Transfers between nation states are something entirely different.

Considering the different socio-economic structures, and differences between infrastructure, between US States, some kind of monetary transfer is bound to happen, simply because some states offer geographical advantages that others don't.

Wait, I sound like a Commie to your ears, don't I?

The US was created to be a union between many states, there was a process for entrance just like the EU and most important mandates were about trade and protecting negative freedoms (right to free speech, due process, etc) Its size is also comparable to the EU. The criminal code is mostly up to states just like in EU. The size is also comparable.

Again tell me how would you feel about the german people funding greek or spanish welfare programs? As far as I can see the german people have been more than nasty one time bailout to nations even demanding by passing democracy.

I dont think you understand its never about communism its about statism and opportunity, I am not against socialism but for individualism and government based on rules and not the masses.

The EU is much closer to the Articles of Confederation than to the actual US under it's current constitution. So you're still comparing apples and oranges.

VivaStPauli wrote:I don't mean that 85% of voters are racist, but that racism is a huge problem in overall turnout for Obama.

Of course you can not be a racist and vote against him, but I'm pretty certain that more than a few people vote against him because of racial bias, even though his policies would, in theory, benefit them.

Obama received 69,456,897 votes in '08 thats the most in history, I would call that a great turnout.

Im guessing most people who would vote against him because he is half black are the racist populist conservatives which 90% of them reside in red states anyways, remember only votes that matter are in swing states .

The swing states are:

Colorado
Iowa
Nevada
Wisconsin
Ohio
Virginia
North Carolina
New Hampshire

Looking at red states and blue state Romney 79 electoral swing state votes to win and Obama only needs 33. Obama in 08 won all those swing states. If I remember correctly its mostly young adults and women who are deciding factors, over last 4 years we have won over alot of libertarians in the young adult side while women is a tossup because they tend to decide right before election.

Really, racism has nothing to do with this.

I mean we have Harry Reid who is a Mormon as Senate leader, John Boehner who is from German-Irish background and a poor family as speaker of the House, Mitt Romney who is also Mormon and Paul Ryan who is from Irish Catholic background as the main political leaders around Obama/Biden. None of these are of WASP backgrounds.

I believe you're misinterpreting his post... whether that's intentional or not I can't say.

RedOranje wrote:I believe you're misinterpreting his post... whether that's intentional or not I can't say.

What does he mean then?

And do you agree with him?

Id be interested in hearing McLewis's view as well

In other news

Gallup Poll Gives Romney Biggest Lead Yet
The Gallup polling group has given GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney the biggest lead yet over US President Barack Obama.

The Gallup Institute polling group has given GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney the biggest lead yet over US President Barack Obama.

According to the consulting firm, more than half of likely voters now prefer Romney for president, with only 45 percent backing Obama, the Washington Post reported Thursday.

A significant fact is that Romney is consistently moving ahead of Obama in each of the past seven-day rolling averages conducted after the October 3 presidential debate in Colorado, which focused primarily on the dismal state of the economy.

The second debate between the two contenders was held in Long Island, New York on October 16, in a Town Hall- style setting intended to test the body language of both. Only one question regarding foreign policy was allowed. Gallup cautions that the new numbers do not include data collected after that contest.

But the polling firm, usually very conservative in its assessments, shows in a voter model surveying likely voters that Romney now has a better chance of winning the November election.

I'm not going to paint whites with a broad brush and say if you're white and right-wing, you're probably not going to vote for Obama. It's just not that simple and I really do think people simple can't afford to just vote or not vote for this guy simply because he's different skin color than them. The problem that Obama is having with whites is that the same whites that voted for him 4 years ago along with a huge number of young voters(18-29) are now very skeptical and are actually thinking hard about if they're going to vote for him again. They're actually listening to what Romney has to say and that's not at all good for the President. So I agree a tad with Yuri in that race isn't playing as big a part in this as we think. Just ask Herman Cain or Allen West or Condi Rice who they will be voting for if you want validation of that.

However, we have to remember something. Despite his poor job approval numbers, Obama's likability has been consistently high and he remains to this day, an immensely popular president with all races. People love this guy personally, but it's his policies that he's been repeatedly skewered on.

Romney has taken advantage of this trend by boxing it up as "He's a great guy and he tried, but he failed and now it's time for him to step aside and let someone else have a go." I totally paraphrased that, but that's essentially the tact he's been trying and to be honest, that has resonated with white voters, mainly undecideds and independents, which is a bit worrying considering that Obama smashed McCain with the white vote 4 years ago.

I honestly don't know if he was misinterpreting Viva's post. I think he just misunderstood it honestly.

Also Yuri, there's now only 4 major swing states that the candidates will be focusing on: Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin.

Major Garrett (really don't like him btw) wrote a nice article that details the potential paths to 270 Electoral votes that both candidates can take, here's that part:

According to RealClearPolitics, Obama currently has 201 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. But that doesn't give Obama electoral votes from Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), or Wisconsin (10). Of these three, Romney advisers believe that only one, Wisconsin, is even theoretically winnable. Obama advisers believe they will win all three. That would put Obama at 247 electoral votes. If Obama wins Ohio (18), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), and New Hampshire (4) he would claim 281 electoral votes. That means he could afford to lose New Hampshire and Nevada and still eke out a razor-thin victory of 271 electoral votes.
Romney, according to RCP, has 191 electoral votes. If you add Florida (29), North Carolina (15), and Virginia (13), that brings his total to 248 electoral votes. Add Colorado (9) --which neither campaign is prepared to claim or concede--and Romney's total rises to 257 electoral votes. If Romney wins Ohio (18) in addition to these states, he would have 275 electoral votes. If Romney loses Ohio, he would need to win Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire to reach 273 electoral votes. There is a scenario where Romney could lose Ohio and New Hampshire but win Iowa and Nevada and one electoral vote from the 2nd Congressional District in Maine (the state allocates electoral votes by district vote) and capture the bare minimum of 270 electoral votes.

Full article if anyone wants to read it - http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-s-next-in-the-obama-romney-duel-20121017