US presidential election

[Hanafuda]

So far I've failed to see him make anything worse ...

yeah, everything's going great.


(few days ago in Wash DC)

 

[Lacius]

yeah, everything's going great.
(few days ago in Wash DC)
*snip*

Rising gas prices are due to tensions with Iran and other things unrelated to Obama policies. If you're going to argue that Obama is making gas prices, or anything for that matter, worse, please support it with evidence.

 

[Hanafuda]

yeah, everything's going great.
(few days ago in Wash DC)
*snip*

Rising gas prices are due to tensions with Iran and other things unrelated to Obama policies. If you're going to argue that Obama is making gas prices, or anything for that matter, worse, please support it with evidence.

Those "tensions with Iran and other things" don't happen in a vacuum. A lot of it comes down to the Obama administration utterly failing to follow through on their promise of getting us the fuck out of the middle east and the 'war on terrorism' and letting them sort out their own problems. The tension with Iran is between Iran and the USA, Israel, etc. Maybe if the whole middle east situation had been handled better over the last three years the price of gas wouldn't have doubled in the same time.

Politics, in the end, is a simple thing ... if it happens on your watch, you own it. He asked for the big boy chair, and that means he's responsible for putting out the fires, either by making friends out of enemies, or making dust out of enemies. When you just make enemies angrier, and those enemies happen to be in the middle east, the price of gas goes up.

 

[Lacius]

Those "tensions with Iran and other things" don't happen in a vacuum. A lot of it comes down to the Obama administration utterly failing to follow through on their promise of getting us the fuck out of the middle east and the 'war on terrorism' and letting them sort out their own problems.

I agree with you that Obama could have done better in getting us out of the wars in the Middle East. However, we're out of Iraq and there is a time table for getting out of Afghanistan. No viable Republican candidate offers anything better in terms of leaving the Middle East.

Maybe if the whole middle east situation had been handled better over the last three years the price of gas wouldn't have doubled in the same time.

There has been no data linking Obama policies with increasing gas prices. Gas prices are highly variable and there is no quick fix. Most Republicans will tell you otherwise and claim that increased drilling will solve all our problems. They also laugh at ideas like investing in alternative energy sources and better fuel efficiency standards. When it comes down to it, the market is to blame. If you are going to argue that Obama's policies are to blame, please support it.

Politics, in the end, is a simple thing ... if it happens on your watch, you own it.

You're implying that, for example, policies already in effect are Obama's fault. By your logic, the debt problem is Obama's fault, even though we all know that Bush's policies that are still in effect are to blame. You're right, however, that that's how most people see it, which is evidenced by the declining poll numbers experienced by the rise in gas prices that are not Obama's fault. And despite this, some conservatives say that Obama is deliberately raising gas prices.

He asked for the big boy chair, and that means he's responsible for putting out the fires, either by making friends out of enemies, or making dust out of enemies. When you just make enemies angrier, and those enemies happen to be in the middle east, the price of gas goes up.

Keep in mind that gas prices are going up largely due to profit motive, not Obama policies. This is evidenced by the fact that the United States is exporting more oil than it's importing. Gas prices are a complicated issue. Remember that they were going up during the Bush administration as well. Neither President is really to blame. Obama policies have, if anything, stopped gas prices from being worse with the increased US oil production and increased efficiency standards.

 

[Hanafuda]

Lacius,

it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread by now how you're going to respond to anything negative about Obama, so why not just stop bothering with going through the motions? Instead of typing out all those repetitive denials and attempts to deflect all burdens and blames away from the President over and over again, you could just post this picture:

That way, we'd just automatically know that you'd come back in the thread with your standard comebacks, and we'd all save a lot of time.

 

[Lacius]

Condom shrimp Should I go on? This has been a problem for a long ass time, it didn't just magically start under bush, or Reagan this has been fought over for at least 100 years. When we say smaller government, this is what we are talking about, what possible benefit could studying the sex habits of a squirrel have on our nation? What about spending 85 million on at that court house in Florida? If that's not enough, have a look here. You can blame the war all you want, but the war isn't the only problem, and in fact before the elections in 2006, it was mostly conservative compared to years to come, check it out yourself.

Thank you for the links. I agree with you that wasteful spending is also an issue. And contrary to popular belief, the Obama administration has actually trimmed away wasteful spending, simplified systems, etc. in an effort to reduce the deficit. Billions in spending have been saved. While some of the things you listed above are arguably wasteful, however, they are insignificant when it comes to our actual deficit problem. While these things add up, cutting what you're talking about barely puts a dent in the deficit. Military spending, the Bush tax cuts, etc: Those are the vast majority of the problem. It is fortunate that the Obama plan is a combination of everything listed above, including increased revenue from getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, trimming away at wasteful spending, making various spending sacrifices, etc.

Because we had to massive amounts of spending tagged on by the democrats who controlled congress between 2006 and 2008, everyone hated George Bush, they were too stupid to realize "hey we are being set up to be raped by big government." I distinctly remember watching a program on tv, with a bunch of dumb ass kids on tv listening to this guy on the stage screaming "who are we going to vote for? Obama!" and everyone on mtv screaming " we hate bush!" I thought obama pledged to go through the budget "line by line" but what he really was saying was, "I am the worlds biggest troll." You can continue to blame the people who were trying to run a tight ship all you want, but those who aren't actually paying attention, will always be raped and those who actually give a shit about the country they reside in will learn to watch over the shoulder for the molester. I've already told you about 211 trillion, that's with a T we are in debt, continuing to ignore the simple fact that, we ARE BROKE does not fix the situation, WE NEED TO FIX IT NAOW! But attempting to distract us on petty side issues will only make the issue worse.

It is common knowledge that it was Bush decreasing revenue and increasing spending (wars, etc) that caused our deficit and debt problem. If you could include specific numbers about how the Democrats added any significant amount to the deficit during 2006 and 2008, that would be great. And to say that the Republicans were trying to run a tighter ship is baseless. George W. Bush was fiscally irresponsible when he increased spending and decreased revenue substantially. Mitt Romney's budget isn't any better. Obama is the only viable candidate who has a legitimate plan that actually trims away at the deficit over time. It is also fair to say that Obama is the only viable candidate who has a plan that does not increase the deficit.

Also, the condom thing is a state issue and isn't relevant.

@[member='Smiley'], maybe we could afford help with cancer if we hadn't spent all of that money on useless shit, I am sorry to hear of your helth situations, but I can not help that, and neither can anyone on this forums or anyone on the net for that matter.

If by "useless shit," you mean Bush tax cuts, the wars, etc, then yes, you are right.

Lacius,

it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread by now how you're going to respond to anything negative about Obama, so why not just stop bothering with going through the motions? Instead of typing out all those repetitive denials and attempts to deflect all burdens and blames away from the President over and over again, you could just post this picture:
*snip*
That way, we'd just automatically know that you'd come back in the thread with your standard comebacks, and we'd all save a lot of time.

You're implying that I think Obama is infallible; I do not. In fact, the list of things I think he should have done differently is pretty long, and I've already commented about that. For example, I've already admitted than I'm not a fan of Obama's Afghanistan policies. In that case, I believe he's definitely just the lesser of two evils. But when people like yourself make baseless accusations and claim they're good enough reasons to vote for someone else who, by their logic, would actually make those things worse, I feel the need to step in and correct the misinformation. For example, if someone comes here and says they're voting for Mitt Romney instead of Obama because fixing the debt is important to him or her, I feel compelled to step in and say that the huge deficit was not Obama's fault, Obama's budget actually includes a long-term plan at solving the deficit that both increases revenue and cuts frivolous spending, and Mitt Romney's budget increases the deficit because it gives more huge tax breaks to the very wealthy. I don't think that's unreasonable. In fact, I think it's the purpose of this thread.

You call my posts "repetitive denials," but I'm not the one making baseless accusations to make the Republican candidates seem more viable than they actually are. You call my responses "standard comebacks," but they might be standard because they're true, unless you have evidence to the contrary? I like to think I'm open-minded.

 

[NeoSupaMario]

Rising gas prices are due to tensions with Iran and other things unrelated to Obama policies.

You want proof, look at what he's doing with drilling policies.

 

[Lacius]

You want proof, look at what he's doing with drilling policies.

If you are referring to the Keystone pipeline, it would be years before we would see any effect. Likewise, increased drilling in the United States likely would not lower gas prices. Afterall, the United States is already exporting more oil than we're importing, and regardless the gas prices are what they are due to the unstable market. Unless you want to be more specific about what you mean by "what he's doing with drilling policies"?

 

[TLSS_N]

Condom shrimp Should I go on? This has been a problem for a long ass time, it didn't just magically start under bush, or Reagan this has been fought over for at least 100 years. When we say smaller government, this is what we are talking about, what possible benefit could studying the sex habits of a squirrel have on our nation? What about spending 85 million on at that court house in Florida? If that's not enough, have a look here. You can blame the war all you want, but the war isn't the only problem, and in fact before the elections in 2006, it was mostly conservative compared to years to come, check it out yourself.

Thank you for the links. I agree with you that wasteful spending is also an issue. And contrary to popular belief, the Obama administration has actually trimmed away wasteful spending, simplified systems, etc. in an effort to reduce the deficit. Billions in spending have been saved. While some of the things you listed above are arguably wasteful, however, they are insignificant when it comes to our actual deficit problem. While these things add up, cutting what you're talking about barely puts a dent in the deficit. Military spending, the Bush tax cuts, etc: Those are the vast majority of the problem. It is fortunate that the Obama plan is a combination of everything listed above, including increased revenue from getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, trimming away at wasteful spending, making various spending sacrifices, etc.

Because we had to massive amounts of spending tagged on by the democrats who controlled congress between 2006 and 2008, everyone hated George Bush, they were too stupid to realize "hey we are being set up to be raped by big government." I distinctly remember watching a program on tv, with a bunch of dumb ass kids on tv listening to this guy on the stage screaming "who are we going to vote for? Obama!" and everyone on mtv screaming " we hate bush!" I thought obama pledged to go through the budget "line by line" but what he really was saying was, "I am the worlds biggest troll." You can continue to blame the people who were trying to run a tight ship all you want, but those who aren't actually paying attention, will always be raped and those who actually give a shit about the country they reside in will learn to watch over the shoulder for the molester. I've already told you about 211 trillion, that's with a T we are in debt, continuing to ignore the simple fact that, we ARE BROKE does not fix the situation, WE NEED TO FIX IT NAOW! But attempting to distract us on petty side issues will only make the issue worse.

It is common knowledge that it was Bush decreasing revenue and increasing spending (wars, etc) that caused our deficit and debt problem. If you could include specific numbers about how the Democrats added any significant amount to the deficit during 2006 and 2008, that would be great. And to say that the Republicans were trying to run a tighter ship is baseless. George W. Bush was fiscally irresponsible when he increased spending and decreased revenue substantially. Mitt Romney's budget isn't any better. Obama is the only viable candidate who has a legitimate plan that actually trims away at the deficit over time. It is also fair to say that Obama is the only viable candidate who has a plan that does not increase the deficit.

Also, the condom thing is a state issue and isn't relevant.

@[member='Smiley'], maybe we could afford help with cancer if we hadn't spent all of that money on useless shit, I am sorry to hear of your helth situations, but I can not help that, and neither can anyone on this forums or anyone on the net for that matter.

If by "useless shit," you mean Bush tax cuts, the wars, etc, then yes, you are right.

Lacius,

it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread by now how you're going to respond to anything negative about Obama, so why not just stop bothering with going through the motions? Instead of typing out all those repetitive denials and attempts to deflect all burdens and blames away from the President over and over again, you could just post this picture:
*snip*
That way, we'd just automatically know that you'd come back in the thread with your standard comebacks, and we'd all save a lot of time.

You're implying that I think Obama is infallible; I do not. In fact, the list of things I think he should have done differently is pretty long, and I've already commented about that. For example, I've already admitted than I'm not a fan of Obama's Afghanistan policies. In that case, I believe he's definitely just the lesser of two evils. But when people like yourself make baseless accusations and claim they're good enough reasons to vote for someone else who, by their logic, would actually make those things worse, I feel the need to step in and correct the misinformation. For example, if someone comes here and says they're voting for Mitt Romney instead of Obama because fixing the debt is important to him or her, I feel compelled to step in and say that the huge deficit was not Obama's fault, Obama's budget actually includes a long-term plan at solving the deficit that both increases revenue and cuts frivolous spending, and Mitt Romney's budget increases the deficit because it gives more huge tax breaks to the very wealthy. I don't think that's unreasonable. In fact, I think it's the purpose of this thread.

You call my posts "repetitive denials," but I'm not the one making baseless accusations to make the Republican candidates seem more viable than they actually are. You call my responses "standard comebacks," but they might be standard because they're true, unless you have evidence to the contrary? I like to think I'm open-minded.

See, this is the problem I try going "bi-partisan" and say both parties are to blame, and democrats such as Lacius want to strictly blame republicans, I attempt to show how democrats are wastefully spending away like a teenager at the mall with the parents credit card, and it's still "attack republicans" NO MATTER what I do, or what I say it's strictly the fault of the republicans. I could go on forever, but it will do no good so I am going to ask a few basic questions:
#1. With all of the power that the democrats have had for the last 50 years, why is it that it took so long to balance a budget before Clinton's term in office?
#2.Why is it, that the senate has not passed a budget for over a thousand days?
#3. YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE TWO HUNDRED AND ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.
#4.Why is it, that republicans are at fault for the housing market? I thought they tried to prevent it: See video

#5.It's estimated world war II financial cost Was over a trillion dollars "$1,000,000,000,000+" Are you telling me, that it's ok to fight that war to free those people, but it's not ok to free different people who lived under the same conditions? I mean, one was lead by A DEMOCRAT and the other was lead by A REPUBLICAN. The influence of the nazi's never left the middle east, what do you think causes these people to act like they do?

I think that's enough questions for now, can we try and actually answer them instead of deflecting them and blaming bush? I mean, hell even tarp was written by a bunch of communists.

 

[Lacius]

See, this is the problem I try going "bi-partisan" and say both parties are to blame, and democrats such as Lacius want to strictly blame republicans, I attempt to show how democrats are wastefully spending away like a teenager at the mall with the parents credit card, and it's still "attack republicans" NO MATTER what I do, or what I say it's strictly the fault of the republicans. I could go on forever, but it will do no good so I am going to ask a few basic questions

Just because it sounds nice to say something was bipartisan does not make it true, and when it comes to the debt and the deficit, I've already posted very specific numbers supporting that Bush's policies are what caused the vast majority of the problem. Obama's contributions to the debt are minimal in comparison, and most of his contributions to the debt have been economic recovery.

#1. With all of the power that the democrats have had for the last 50 years, why is it that it took so long to balance a budget before Clinton's term in office?

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, especially with this talk of Democrat control for 50 years. Since roughly 1950 and Truman, the debt was on its way down from what it was at due to World War II. Reagan and H.W. blew up the debt by giving tax cuts to the wealthy. Clinton came in and balanced it in large part due to increased revenue from taxing the rich a little higher (and yet they made record profits) without a single vote from the Republicans. Then George W. Bush exploded the debt once more with tax cuts and increased spending. Many of those Bush policies are still in place and still contributing to the debt, primarily the Bush tax cuts. However, Obama's proposed budget does a lot to lower the deficit. Romney's proposed budget does a lot to raise the deficit. I'm not sure what your point is, nor where it's supported by evidence. Either way, it's obvious here that the Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility. They cut small-item things that have no impact on the debt but give tax cuts to the wealthy without paying for them.

#2.Why is it, that the senate has not passed a budget for over a thousand days?

Not much can be accomplished when Republicans reject every idea proposed by the Democrats and refuse to raise taxes on anyone. Obama has put together bipartisan commissions tasked with deficit reduction, but the Republicans reject everything. If you read the article you posted, you will see that the Democrats have both passed and tried to pass various budgets. No, they did not go far enough. But that is difficult when everything is filibustered and rejected. Either way, you should not expect anything substantial to happen until after the 2012 elections.

#3. YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE TWO HUNDRED AND ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.

The proposed Obama budget for 2013 addresses the deficit in a very significant way. If the deficit is brought down, that eases the debt issue. Hopefully, eventually, the deficit can be eliminated and the debt can start going down. Romney's plan increases the deficit and the debt. So yeah, I would say the debt question has been addressed.

#4.Why is it, that republicans are at fault for the housing market? I thought they tried to prevent it: See video
[media]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cMnSp4qEXNM[/media]

I never said the Republicans were at fault for the housing market. A lot of factors went into the housing market crisis. The Democrats were not at fault. The Republicans were not at fault. The closest I can get to assigning blame is to the Republicans because the debt played a partial role, but in this instance I am not assigning blame to either side. Why bring it up like I did?

#5.It's estimated world war II financial cost Was over a trillion dollars "$1,000,000,000,000+" Are you telling me, that it's ok to fight that war to free those people, but it's not ok to free different people who lived under the same conditions? I mean, one was lead by A DEMOCRAT and the other was lead by A REPUBLICAN. The influence of the nazi's never left the middle east, what do you think causes these people to act like they do?

World War II was inevitable, and you understand why. Iraq had not even attacked the United States. The Iraq War also occurred under false pretenses. Wars are expensive, but one does not cut taxes across the board in the way that Bush did at the same time. You say I'm bringing up Bush a lot, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. The math speaks for itself.

I think that's enough questions for now, can we try and actually answer them instead of deflecting them and blaming bush? I mean, hell even tarp was written by a bunch of communists.

I don't think you understand what communism is. Likewise, the article you posted is a bunch of baseless conspiracy theories that have already been proven to be not true. The stimulus was not a "scamulus" and most definitely helped the economy (at the very least, it prevented it from getting worse). The Affordable Care act was not a government takeover of health care; people still get their insurance from private insurance companies. The article also conveniently leaves out the fact that the stimulus was the biggest tax break for the middle class in US history. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about what the Obama administration has done. If you could take your conspiracy theories and narrow them down to specific questions, I would be glad to clarify.

 

[GeekyGuy]

And if there's one thing you could've changed about the race, what would it be?

Make the peoples' vote count. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. America is a corporate oligarchy, and it's only their sway that accounts for anything in a presidential "election." This is not a comment based on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Most credible scholars around the globe agree that such is the nature of our government. Even Ron Paul, as ethical as his comments and policies on paper sound -- who's to say he would actually do what he says he would do if elected. Obama didn't. The people can elect whomever they like, but corporate America still runs the show.

Of course, I would like to have a unicorn as a pet, but I don't ever expect that to happen, either.

 

[Jamstruth]

I find the American system very strange. Your President is seperate from your Congress. So you can have a President who's party doesn't have a majority in Congress resulting in none of his plans getting enacted because the other party rejects the thing.
Also you have the Congress elections 2 years after a new President is elected so you have time to go "This new President has done jack shit. I'm voting for the opposite party" after you already elected the opposite party's presidential candidate before.

I'm generalising wildly though. I won't pretend to have any understanding of your political system but I'd say: Have 1 election every 4 years that covers both issues. Maybe then it might look like your President is doing something.

 

[Lacius]

I find the American system very strange. Your President is seperate from your Congress. So you can have a President who's party doesn't have a majority in Congress resulting in none of his plans getting enacted because the other party rejects the thing.
Also you have the Congress elections 2 years after a new President is elected so you have time to go "This new President has done jack shit. I'm voting for the opposite party" after you already elected the opposite party's presidential candidate before.

I'm generalising wildly though. I won't pretend to have any understanding of your political system but I'd say: Have 1 election every 4 years that covers both issues. Maybe then it might look like your President is doing something.

No, you're right. A parliamentary system is probably more logical. There's almost always an enthusiasm gap with the voters at the midterm election, so presidents are almost always cursed to have everything blocked after the first two years.

While we're on the topic of broken systems, I also think preferential voting should be a thing in the United States.

Edit: major typo

 

[Deleted member 256505]

Have 1 election every 4 years that covers both issues. Maybe then it might look like your President is doing something.

Unfortunately, that is impossible. In the first place the two ruling parties are run by and for big business, much like the Labour and the Conservative parties in Britain, despite their pretensions. Usually the issues that are discussed at elections (and in Congress) are not the people's interests, but against them. Populism serves a useful cloak, though. The "elections" are also socially and financially prejudicial against those who are not from those parties, and may not be allowed into debates at all. And I actually believe that Obama is doing plenty, in that he's largely continuing the regressive policies of his predecessor; Bush signed for the Wall Street bailout, and Obama enforced it. In short, bourgeois politics in America are largely dictated by a virulent brand of pragmatism and, above all, money.

Edit: Corrected one sentence that may hace been misleading, with an example.

 

[BlueStar]

The GOP have no-one whatsoever in the running who looks like presidential material. Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are Bob Doles and John Kerrys, not Bill Clintons and George Bushes.

Can't see anything other than four more years for Obama,

 

[Haloman800]

Wow, I knew GBAtemp was liberal, but I didn't know it was this bad. Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.

 

[NeoSupaMario]

Wow, I knew GBAtemp was liberal, but I didn't know it was this bad. Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.

Exactly. *coughcoughsmile72coughcoughlaciuscoughcough*

 

[Lacius]

Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.

How has he run this country into the ground? That's a bold (and as I see it, unsubstantiated) claim.

Exactly. *coughcoughsmile72coughcoughlaciuscoughcough*

If this thread is any indication, liberal policies appear to be the best policies. Feel free to correct me if I've overlooked something.

 

[smile72]

Wow, I knew GBAtemp was liberal, but I didn't know it was this bad. Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.

How has he run this country into the ground?????? I don't think any of you understand what you're talking about. And all of the GOP candidates hate the poor. Mitt Romney wants to kill Planned Parenthood. But you all probably believe that all they do is abortion (cough*3%cough). And he plans on giving the rich more tax cuts after making the Bush tax cuts permanent (this is totally gonna fix our deficit). But to do that he'll have to give a 30% cut to every social program. But don't worry he'll keep raising the military budget. To keep all of you people in a state of paranoia and ignorance.

---

 

[Hanafuda]

Wow, I knew GBAtemp was liberal, but I didn't know it was this bad. Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.

I agree with you that things could always be better, but there has been no data linking Obama policies with the country running into the ground. Just because the country runs into the ground doesn't mean it is due to Obama. No. The factors that lead to a country going to hell in a handbasket are highly variable and it is impossible to say it is all due to Obama policies. No, in fact it is all due to Bush policies, 100%. Most Republicans will tell you otherwise and claim that our national debt going from 10 trillion to 15 trillion in only 3 years is a big deal, but they are liars. There are also many complicated factors that affect the high unemployment rate, gas prices, the rate of home foreclosures, the failure of foreign policy leadership in the middle east, diminished value in the dollar, and corrupt enforcement practices by the Department of Justice. But none of those factors are Obama. They are all Bush. And Republicans. If you are going to argue that Obama's policies are to blame, please support it. Because it's Republican policies that are to blame. Anyone who disagrees with my unsupported claims must support their claims with evidence, which I will then claim is biased and false.

These are not the droids you're looking for.