The ONE & ONLY 2012 Politics/Election Thread

[TIGninja]

So we will eventually become this?

That's totally fvckin AWESOME!!!!!!

Which would bring us to what we think life is all about. Is our only reason for being to serve the collective?

[jds215]

There's no argument. Dubya pushed cut taxes, lowered interest rates, and manipulated the mortgage underwriting market to create a bubble when the US should have had a mild recession during an election year. The government is supposed to use fiscal and monetary stimulus to moderate the natural economic cycle, not make it worse.The risk we have today is a collapsed US dollar. There needs to be a credible plan to both raise taxes and trim spending to put the budget on a long-term path to be balanced. The longer we wait, the worse the collapse is going to be.

the government should not be in the business of intervention in the economy period. They merely distort the market by redirecting resources to areas the market would not normally direct them. The market attempts to correct these distortions and then is blamed for the problems, with more government always being the answer.

The fed reserve is responsible for the creating the business cycle and government programs perpetuate and excaserbate these effects on the economy. Because the market is always attempting to correct the imbalances the central planners are constantly fighting problems they themselves are responsible for creating.

Bernanke under obama is following the same protocol as greenspan and bush, but on a larger scale.

[jds215]

Huh. This was a really odd way to begin the founding document, then:



Sounds like a "collectivist" manifesto!

you may want to do some more research on collectivism and indivisualism.

[GeoffD]

the government should not be in the business of intervention in the economy period. They merely distort the market by redirecting resources to areas the market would not normally direct them. The market attempts to correct these distortions and then is blamed for the problems, with more government always being the answer.

The fed reserve is responsible for the creating the business cycle and government programs perpetuate and excaserbate these effects on the economy. Because the market is always attempting to correct the imbalances the central planners are constantly fighting problems they themselves are responsible for creating.

Bernanke under obama is following the same protocol as greenspan and bush, but on a larger scale.

I vehemently disagree with this. Capitalism is unstable. Without government regulation, we would alternate between boom and bust constantly. The problem is when you have morons with their hands on the controls. Dubya was awful and created the problems we have now. Obama isn't doing a stellar job either.

[leaftye]

I vehemently disagree with this. Capitalism is unstable. Without government regulation, we would alternate between boom and bust constantly.

Agreed. It could be called human nature. Whatever it is, if it's left alone, that's what happens.

Having the government regulate this is part of trying to make a society function, or rather, to keep it from destroying itself.

Does it do it perfectly? Hell no. Some people would rather we give up. They prefer being defeatists. I'd rather try to find a way that works.

[Sporin]

Bazinga.

[Vision33r]

Oil is a global commodity. The US is 20% of the world economy. We have basically zero control over crude oil pricing. The price at the pump is also affected by the futures market but that's swings of pennies per gallon in price swings due to market speculation.

Obama has no more and no less control over world oil prices than Dubya did. Prices mostly relate to demand and political instability in the oil producing regions of the world. If case you haven't noticed, there's speculation that Israel is going to nuke Iran or vice versa. That is why crude prices spiked.

The prices jumped the last 14 months also due to the Feds monetary policy. Every time that Bernankee guy cranks up the dollar print presses the gas price goes up. Must be really great to be in the gas industry where you get the tax breaks, low interest rate loans, and gas price spike all due to the Feds actions.

There's no argument. Dubya pushed cut taxes, lowered interest rates, and manipulated the mortgage underwriting market to create a bubble when the US should have had a mild recession during an election year. The government is supposed to use fiscal and monetary stimulus to moderate the natural economic cycle, not make it worse.

The risk we have today is a collapsed US dollar. There needs to be a credible plan to both raise taxes and trim spending to put the budget on a long-term path to be balanced. The longer we wait, the worse the collapse is going to be.

Obama had the chance to fix it in 2008 but instead rolled out Obamacare. Now if he wins the election he will raise taxes for sure and it maybe more painful this time than the last recession.

[A.Wilder]

The prices jumped the last 14 months also due to the Feds monetary policy. Every time that Bernankee guy cranks up the dollar print presses the gas price goes up. Must be really great to be in the gas industry where you get the tax breaks, low interest rate loans, and gas price spike all due to the Feds actions.

gas prices go up if a Saudi sneezes. Using gas prices to gauge politicians is just idiotic, imo.

Thought this was pretty funny.

[pentaxshooter]

Bazinga.

I love this graphic. It's like the creator doesn't see the irony within it. I'll let you guys figure it out.

[TIGninja]

gas prices go up if a Saudi sneezes. Using gas prices to gauge politicians is just idiotic, imo.

The price of oil goes up because the value of the dollar goes down. The value of the dollar goes down because they keep printing off piles of them to "stimulate the econ". They have been able to get away with this policy because the dollar has been the worlds reserve currency and their had to be enough dollar in circulation for the whole world to buy oil. Now that the oil is being traded in currency other than the dollar the value of the dollar has tanked and the price of oil and gold has gone waaaaay up. Get used to it, because its only going to get worse.

[BRealistic]

I love this graphic. It's like the creator doesn't see the irony within it. I'll let you guys figure it out.

What.. that Democrats have to be literate to read that?

[Righteous Bucks]

Hopefully the newest in a laundry list of Obama scandals finally dismantles him.....don't be holding your breath for ABC, CBS, CNN, BSNBC, NBC, to cover the story, they'll bury it like every other piece of information the American electorate should have known about Obama before the 2008 election.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...nor_scandal_be


"romney has a swiss bank account though"

sheeeeeiittt. whose going to invest in America when the growth rate is as pathetic as it is, and having our credit downgraded by this inexperienced amateur administration......

- War on Women didn't work for the Democrats
-Tax returns didn't work
-Swiss bank account didn't work
-Dog in a kennel on the roof didn't work

Class warfare is mildly working, any Obama supporter you talk to wants to talk about the "rich", not about the state of the economy.

I had an african american voter tweet me today about the unemployment number of 7.8% "now what?" like he "GOT ME" ----so of course, i responded with every other economic indicator that is WORSE than Jan 21, 2009, wrapped in a sandwich of his scandals and waste: Solyndra/ Fast and Furious/ Benghazi / GITMO / trying terrorists in America / White House computers hacked...
Of course he claimed as a black voter he's not voting based on race - So i had to ask based on his premise,

"How high would unemployment have to be for you to vote for Romney" <---- NO ANSWER.

Forget that even if we assume the 7.8% number is accurate:
Obama gave us back the unemployment he inherited, 7.8% in jan 2009.

Thank you for your service and not LOWERING unemployment. No credit for doing no improvement to the economy.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000


and now we're hearing about Big Bird 24-7........i actually am in disbelief we're having a conversation for the election based around Big Bird.

[Righteous Bucks]

I love this graphic. It's like the creator doesn't see the irony within it. I'll let you guys figure it out.

let's talk about anything but the elephant in the room, the economy.

let's run on swiss bank accounts, tax returns, big bird, war on women, i've never seen a politician so hellbent on retaining power as Obama.

will do ANYTHING to retain power, then again anyone familiar with Chicago politics knows this already.

[dubraycer36]

Conservative dogwhistle(s)

[what]

Still waiting for an answer to my question, Righteous Bucks.

I did find a compilation on Ryan's math....

[westsideseal]

let's talk about anything but the elephant in the room, the economy.

let's run on swiss bank accounts, tax returns, big bird, war on women, i've never seen a politician so hellbent on retaining power as Obama.

will do ANYTHING to retain power, then again anyone familiar with Chicago politics knows this already.

It's called politics. Maybe you've heard of it. You know, people campaign to maintain their position by attempting to convince the electorate that they're better than the alternative. I don't think running for re-election is some kind of anomaly.

[StormChaser]

let's talk about anything but the elephant in the room, the economy.

let's run on swiss bank accounts, tax returns, big bird, war on women, i've never seen a politician so hellbent on retaining power as Obama.

will do ANYTHING to retain power, then again anyone familiar with Chicago politics knows this already.

- Dow Jones at a 4-year high
- Corporate profits at an all-time high
- Unemployment lower than anytime since Obama took office.

[Tornado2dr]

I had an african american voter tweet me today about the unemployment number of 7.8% "now what?" like he "GOT ME" ----so of course, i responded with every other economic indicator that is WORSE than Jan 21, 2009, wrapped in a sandwich of his scandals and waste: Solyndra/ Fast and Furious/ Benghazi / GITMO / trying terrorists in America / White House computers hacked...
Of course he claimed as a black voter he's not voting based on race - So i had to ask based on his premise,

Oh, just some random AA "voter?"

You're hilarious.

[PlatinumGLS]

Bazinga.

I love it

[VadGTI]

Oh, just some random AA "voter?"

You're hilarious.

What, you don't get random texts from African-American voters? I'm currently embroiled in a debate with one who texted me early this morning!

[Tornado2dr]

What, you don't get random texts from African-American voters? I'm currently embroiled in a debate with one who texted me early this morning!

Absolutely not. I'm not even sure how "those people" could even get my phone number!

[cockerpunk]

so you agree that neither party has attempted to actually reduce the size of an (at the time and today) already too large government, no? Which would mean both parties are responsible for the lack of spending cuts, right?

yet he did, by perpetuating the irresponsibility of government fiscal policy.

Cut the deficit in half? laughable.

sadly,Romney would be no different.

no, i do not agree that the government has been too large for the last 100 years.

[MK2*GTI*GUY]

[DJKhakiPants]

Just curious... raise your hand if your political beliefs have been swayed because of comments within this thread

[what]

Just curious... raise your hand if your political beliefs have been swayed because of comments within this thread

It's not necessarily about changing people's beliefs, it's about finding common ground to stop the clusterf u ck that is our government.

Of course, that is unlikely since all any of our "leaders" really care about is their reelection and/or who they can use their political connections to whore for once they "retire".

[westsideseal]

Just curious... raise your hand if your political beliefs have been swayed because of comments within this thread

That's not the point. We're here because we want to argue, and it's much more convenient to argue in anonymity than in real life with real people.

[lojasmo]

Originally Posted by Righteous Bucks
I had an african american voter tweet me today about the unemployment number of 7.8% "now what?" like he "GOT ME" ----so of course, i responded with every other economic indicator that is WORSE than Jan 21, 2009, wrapped in a sandwich of his scandals and waste: Solyndra/ Fast and Furious/ Benghazi / GITMO / trying terrorists in America / White House computers hacked...
Of course he claimed as a black voter he's not voting based on race - So i had to ask based on his premise,

OOOOkay. Do you realize EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of those policies were instituted under the previous administration? EVERY ONE!

[what]

Random (well, somewhat related to the "I got a txt from a black dude") questions:

Some of you say it's wrong for african-americans/blacks to vote for Obama based solely on his race.

Is it wrong to vote against Obama based upon his race?

Is it wrong for mormons, to vote for Mitt based upon his religion/cult?

Is it wrong to vote against Mitt based upon his religion/cult?

Are all four premises above the same?

Why are we here?

[2.FOH!!]

That's not the point. We're here because we want to argue, and it's much more convenient to argue in anonymity than in real life with real people.

No it's not.









BTW:

Pew survey: Barack Obama no longer the front-runner in 2012 campaign
4:24 pm October 8, 2012, by jgalloway

One of the most prestigious polling operations in the nation, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, this afternoon declared that Democratic incumbent Barack Obama is no longer the front-runner in the 2012 presidential campaign:

By about three-to-one, voters say Romney did a better job than Obama in the Oct. 3 debate, and the Republican is now better regarded on most personal dimensions and on most issues than he was in September. Romney is seen as the candidate who has new ideas and is viewed as better able than Obama to improve the jobs situation and reduce the budget deficit.

Fully 66% of registered voters say Romney did the better job in last Wednesday’s debate, compared with just 20% who say Obama did better. A majority (64%) of voters who watched the debate describe it as mostly informative; just 26% say it was mostly confusing.

In turn, Romney has drawn even with Obama in the presidential race among registered voters (46% to 46%) after trailing by nine points (42% to 51%) in September. Among likely voters, Romney holds a slight 49% to 45% edge over Obama. He trailed by eight points among likely voters last month.

The Pew poll was conducted Oct. 4-7 among 1,511 adults, including 1,201 registered voters (1,112 likely voters). One of the factors in Romney’s gains:

While shifts are evident across many demographic groups, there has been a notable change among women voters: In September, just 42% viewed Romney favorably, while 60% had positive impressions of Obama. Today, about half view each of the candidates favorably (51% Obama, 48% Romney).

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insid...2012-campaign/

[joness0154]

No it's not.









BTW:



http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insid...2012-campaign/

The sample size for the post-debate survey was half of the pre-debate survey.

[VarianceVQ]

Twitter:

Nate Silver ‏@fivethirtyeight

So the Pew poll really is a huge data point for Romney. But his polling today was pretty mediocre without it.

---

1m Nate Silver Nate Silver ‏@fivethirtyeight

How much difference did the Pew poll make? We had Romney win % rising to 24.4% from 21.6% today. Without Pew, he'd have made no gain at all.

Article:

Amid Volatile Polling, Keep an Eye on Election Fundamentals
By NATE SILVER

After a summer in which the polling in the presidential race was exceptionally stable — with Barack Obama generally holding a lead of about two percentage points in national surveys — the numbers since the party conventions have been a wild ride.

Mr. Obama got a bounce coming out of Charlotte, and it had some staying power — with his national lead appearing to peak at about five or six percentage points. But polling released immediately after the debate seemed to suggest that Mr. Romney had drawn into a rough national tie.

By the weekend, however — after the release of a favorable jobs report last Friday — Mr. Romney’s bounce seemed to be receding some. Tracking polls released on Monday by Gallup and Rasmussen Reports actually showed a shift back toward Mr. Obama, although another poll by Pew Research showed Mr. Romney with a four-point lead among likely voters.

Polling data is often very noisy, and not all polls use equally rigorous methodology. But the polls, as a whole, remain consistent with the idea that they may end up settling where they were before the conventions, with Mr. Obama ahead by about two points. Such an outcome would be in line with what history and the fundamentals of the economy would lead you to expect.

Because economic data can be as noisy as the polls, the FiveThirtyEight forecast model uses seven different economic statistics to calibrate its predictions. Some of these make a more favorable case for Mr. Obama than others. The stock market has shown very strong growth over the course of his term, especially in the past six months. Inflation has been low, although gas prices have sometimes been an exception. And the manufacturing sector of the economy has been reasonably sound.

G.D.P. growth, however, has been sluggish — and growth in take-home income has been worse, barely keeping up with population growth. Although consumer spending on some products like cars is up, a broader-based measure called personal consumption expenditures shows that Americans aren’t spending all that much.

The one measure that has been closest to the consensus of the data, however, is jobs growth, as measured by the increase in nonfarm payrolls. (This should be distinguished from the unemployment rate, which is calculated through a separate survey and which is subject to a higher degree of statistical error.)

The economy has added an average of 146,000 jobs per month so far this year, according to the government’s latest figures. That is slightly higher than the average gain in past election years. Since1956, monthly job growth has averaged 135,000 in January through September.

However, because the population and the labor force are now larger than they once were, the economy needs to add more jobs to keep pace with it. As measured on a percentage basis, jobs have grown by 1.0 percentage points since December, slightly below the election-year average of 1.4 percent.

There are four election years — 1956, 1960, 2000 and 2004 — when jobs growth was broadly similar to the trend this year. The 1956 election serves as a reminder that the economy isn’t everything: Dwight D. Eisenhower won in a landslide. But the 1960 and 2000 elections were virtual ties, while George W. Bush won by 2.5 percentage points in 2004.

A more systematic way to analyze the data is to chart the rate of jobs growth against the margin of victory or defeat for the incumbent party. If past trends hold, that analysis predicts a very narrow victory for Mr. Obama — by 2.1 percentage points over Mr. Romney, similar to Mr. Bush’s margin of victory in 2004.

But the exact math is probably not as important as the broader conclusion: that the economy is line with Mr. Obama being a very modest favorite.

Had Mr. Obama been on track to win by five or six percentage points, then we could say that Mr. Romney was underperforming the fundamentals.

In Denver, however, Mr. Romney presented himself as an acceptable and competent alternative. Challengers also generally profit from the first debate: in 8 of the 10 election cycles since 1976, the polls moved against the incumbent, and a net gain of two or three percentage points for the challenger is a reasonably typical figure.

At the same time, incumbent presidents just aren’t that easy to defeat. Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are now hovering around 50 percent and don’t seem to have been negatively affected by his performance in Denver. Although Mr. Obama’s approval ratings may be slightly lower among those most likely to vote — meaning that Mr. Romney could win with a strong turnout — historically that number has been just good enough to re-elect an incumbent. (Mr. Bush’s approval ratings were in the same range late in 2004.)

In some ways, then, the election might not be quite so unpredictable as it appears. There was reason to believe that Mr. Obama’s numbers would fade some after his convention — and the first debate has quite often been a time when the challenger drew the race closer.

[valfaw]

Absolutely not. I'm not even sure how "those people" could even get my phone number!

pro-tip

obamaphones come pre programmed with white folk phone numbers...

[dubraycer36]

I had an african american voter tweet me today about the unemployment number of 7.8% "now what?" like he "GOT ME" ----so of course, i responded with every other economic indicator that is WORSE than Jan 21, 2009, wrapped in a sandwich of his scandals and waste: Solyndra/ Fast and Furious/ Benghazi / GITMO / trying terrorists in America / White House computers hacked...
Of course he claimed as a black voter he's not voting based on race

OOOOkay. Do you realize EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of those policies were instituted under the previous administration? EVERY ONE!

Solyndra - Recieved $535 Million taxpayer dollars from the Obama administration. Yes they started up during Bush's tenure, but they received no specific funding from his administration, only as part of a sweeping program of funds made available to all types of companies that were doing "green" energy production research
See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

Fast and Furious - This program started under the auspices of the DOJ, during the Bush administration in 2006 near the end of his tenure as president. The argument put forth, is not who started it, rather, who fvcked up? I don't recall President Bush refusing to turn over documentation to Congress or the Supreme Court, after being ordered to do so.

Benghazi - What program was this? What did the Bush administration have to do with it?
Are you suggesting that Pres. Bush is responsible for the attack(s) on our embassies and the death of our ambassador?

Gitmo - I happen to think that this place is needed. JMHO

Terror trials in the U.S. - This was President Obama's idea, along with Eric Holder. What for? Why make this an issue? Also, I would like for you to point out exactly where in our Constitution, it says that we MUST accord our rights to foreign terrorists

White House computers hacked - So President Bush is a hacker now? Furthermore; how is this even a policy?


*edited to satisfy VarianceVQ's obsession with lingustic nuance.*

[VarianceVQ]

White House computers hacked - So President Bush is a hacker now?

Who said that fell under "policies"?

[dubraycer36]

Who said that fell under "policies"?

Lojasmo.

I quoted him. He typed it. Not me.