Romney vs. Obama

[Lacius]

Neither of those things you mentioned will work. I'm all for a socialized healthcare plan, but Obamacare is bastardized and inefficient (I'd prefer something like what the Canadians or the British have).

Although I'm also for a government-run healthcare plan, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does a lot of great things and expands healthcare coverage. It's a step in the right direction.

The stimulus is also a placebo that doesn't work well either.

That's just not true at all.

Edit: I forgot to say that I will vote for Obama. I think it is likely that Obama will win, but a lot can change between now and then. For those of you who want to see how you side with the presidential candidates, you can take a pretty cool quiz here. I might post my results later.

 

[Sterling]

The stimulus is also a placebo that doesn't work well either.

That's just not true at all.

I'm not going to lie. I understood very little from that article beyond what I remember from my high school economics class. Now, I have two problems with their figures. One, they post no sources to where they got their info to create their graphs and two, they say nothing of unemployment (current or previous). Here is a video that shows the National Unemployment average. It is separated by states and counties. It's a nice and easy to read visualwith what I deemed a reliable source.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okzyC_SDfjY[/youtube]

Now, that's what I understand. That is why I say that the stimulus is a placebo and not a legitimate way to combat a recession or a depression. Not only did the stimulus benefit only the higher ups in businesses, but the working class also suffered. I don't understand why, or where, or how things went wrong. I just understand that for some reason unemployment has been on the rise (I've been affected and unemployed).

As for my opinion of government spending? I say a big fat no to that. I'm alright with social programs and other stuff, but for what they really use it for, no.

I need to get a bit more involved... I'm an avid libertarian. Oh, and the quiz is very non-biased from what I could see, and I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

[Lacius]

I'm not going to lie. I understood very little from that article beyond what I remember from my high school economics class. Now, I have two problems with their figures. One, they post no sources to where they got their info to create their graphs and two, they say nothing of unemployment (current or previous).

Here is another website with some more charts using the same numbers from the BEA and BLS that the last website presumably used. Unemployment likely wasn't included in the first website because it's so difficult to measure, but it is included in the second website. While unemployment is still bad, the stimulus definitely had an effect. It should also be worth noting that the proponents of the stimulus admit that the stimulus should have been more, especially since we know now how much worse the economy was than we thought when the stimulus was enacted.

Oh, and the quiz is very non-biased from what I could see, and I'm pleasantly surprised.

I was also pleasantly surprised by how extensive and non-biased the test was.

Also, my quiz results:

Spoiler

http://www.isidewith...esults/67835249

 

[Vulpes Abnocto]

It seems like I need to learn more about Gary Johnson.

 

[Sterling]

It seems like I need to learn more about Gary Johnson.
*Snip

He's going to be on the ticket this year. I now have a reason to make a poll run. I have a friend who loves the guy and always posts on facebook about him. Also, that political quiz is amazing.

EDIT: Have I mentioned how awesome the political poll is, because I don't think I have.

 

[Densetsu]

Spoiler

Admittedly I left some stuff blank because I don't know enough about some of the issues to have a stance on any of them.

Also, that political quiz is amazing.

EDIT: Have I mentioned how awesome the political poll is, because I don't think I have.

To your statement, I must add the following:

That political poll is awesome.

 

[The Catboy]

Spoiler

How come no one has ever informed me of Jill Stein?
I am throwing my vote to her now!

 

[Sterling]

Spoiler

Admittedly I left some stuff blank because I don't know enough about some of the issues to have a stance on any of them.

That political poll is awesome.

I had to google for some basic definitions myself (even then usually the default answer was no), but for the most part it was pretty clear. I'm not behind the green movement even though much of what they say makes sense.

@The last part, I concur.

 

[Hanafuda]

Well, well. Turns out I'm a Paulite. But I might agree with someone who lives down my street even more ... doesn't mean I'm going to vote for my neighbor.

 

[Lacius]

How come no one has ever informed me of Jill Stein?
I am throwing my vote to her now!

Jill Stein is a badass, but since she has no chance of winning, a vote for her actually helps Mitt Romney. Since she and Obama are 80-90% the same, I would just as soon vote for Obama, even if my political quiz had come out with Jill Stein on top. That's my view anyway.

Also, for those of you who want to see how we answered our political quizzes, all you have to do is take the numerical code in our picture URLs and paste them in the results URL. For example:

My results photo: http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/67835249.jpg

My code: 67835249

My results page: http://www.isidewith.com/results/67835249

 

[-MarioFan-]

*Just my two cents on this..it's a rant so feel free to ignore. I'm not trying to argue with anybody about this subject. These are my personal opinions on the matter.

Obviously Obama is the popular vote, but I have a feeling that Romney is going to win. Unfortunatley, there have been some changes in the process of being able to vote. This mostly affects the poor communitites down south; the majority who would be voting for Obama. You now need to have a photo ID to vote. Under the fourth amendment, you should be able to obtain a free state identification card. Not a lot of people know about this. I didn't even know about this until earlier this month. The DMV will make you pay for the card unless you speak up. The costs vary in different states. The point is that since these id's cost, do you really think these people in the poorer communites will be able to afford them? $10 might not seem much to you, but to them it could mean choosing between eating for the next couple of days, or voting. What would you choose? Politics over here is screwed up. I can't stand my country.

/rant

 

[Lacius]

Obviously Obama is the popular vote, but I have a feeling that Romney is going to win. Unfortunately, there have been some changes in the process of being able to vote. This mostly affects the poor communities down south; the majority who would be voting for Obama. You now need to have a photo ID to vote. Under the fourth amendment, you should be able to obtain a free state identification card. Not a lot of people know about this. I didn't even know about this until earlier this month. The DMV will make you pay for the card unless you speak up. The costs vary in different states. The point is that since these id's cost, do you really think these people in the poorer communities will be able to afford them? $10 might not seem much to you, but to them it could mean choosing between eating for the next couple of days, or voting. What would you choose? Politics over here is screwed up. I can't stand my country.

These new voter ID laws are definitely an issue. They strip away voting rights, disproportionately affect minorities, and have been created despite the evidence that there is relatively no voter fraud in the United States. Likewise, Republicans admit that the new voter ID laws are to help Miit Romney win the election. However, while I disagree with the new voter ID laws that disproportionately affect Obama voters, I don't see it being enough to hand Mitt Romney the election, given the poll numbers. But we'll have to wait and see what the repercussions are.

Another thing worth noting here is the state of early voting in the 2012 election, particularly in Ohio. In 2004, lines to vote were extremely long and the whole thing was a mess, so Ohio implemented new early voting policies (if I remember correctly, I think they were forced to), and voting went smoothly in 2008. Coincidentally, Ohio also went Democratic in 2008. Now Republicans in the state are taking away early voting, and as far as I can understand it, it's for no reason than to disproportionately affect Obama voters. But wait, there's more. Before Ohio's Republican Secretary of State decided to cut early voting statewide, he actually decided to only cut early voting in counties that were likely to vote Democratic.

 

[Hanafuda]

*Just my two cents on this..it's a rant so feel free to ignore. I'm not trying to argue with anybody about this subject. These are my personal opinions on the matter.

Obviously Obama is the popular vote, but I have a feeling that Romney is going to win. Unfortunatley, there have been some changes in the process of being able to vote. This mostly affects the poor communitites down south; the majority who would be voting for Obama. You now need to have a photo ID to vote. Under the fourth amendment, you should be able to obtain a free state identification card. Not a lot of people know about this. I didn't even know about this until earlier this month. The DMV will make you pay for the card unless you speak up. The costs vary in different states. The point is that since these id's cost, do you really think these people in the poorer communites will be able to afford them? $10 might not seem much to you, but to them it could mean choosing between eating for the next couple of days, or voting. What would you choose? Politics over here is screwed up. I can't stand my country.

/rant

Anyone who is gainfully employed has had to produce a driver's license or state issued ID to get hired. And anyone who is unemployed and as poor as what you imply has already needed to produce ID to sign up for public assistance programs, i.e. welfare, food stamps, unemployment, SS disability, etc. Whether a driver's license or a non-operator's state ID, if you want a check from the federal government you have to show ID to apply. I'll give you that there will always be a statistically small number of people (homeless and crazy?) who are legal voters (not felons, not illegal immigrants) and who have never signed up for any public assistance and have never bothered to get a state issued ID, but the numbers are so low as to be offset by the benefit of preventing voter fraud that is gained by a voter ID law. There's no way enough people are adversely affected by this to change the outcome of a national election, unless its because its going to prevent dead people and illegals and felons from voting, and also people voting multiple times in different districts.

Go ahead ... toot that 'voter suppression' horn. But it's B.S.

 

[Lacius]

Anyone who is gainfully employed has had to produce a driver's license or state issued ID to get hired. And anyone who is unemployed and as poor as what you imply has already needed to produce ID to sign up for public assistance programs, i.e. welfare, food stamps, unemployment, SS disability, etc. Whether a driver's license or a non-operator's state ID, if you want a check from the federal government you have to show ID to apply. I'll give you that there will always be a statistically small number of people (homeless and crazy?) who are legal voters (not felons, not illegal immigrants) and who have never signed up for any public assistance and have never bothered to get a state issued ID, but the numbers are so low as to be offset by the benefit of preventing voter fraud that is gained by a voter ID law. There's no way enough people are adversely affected by this to change the outcome of a national election, unless its because its going to prevent dead people and illegals and felons from voting, and also people voting multiple times in different districts.

Go ahead ... toot that 'voter suppression' horn. But it's B.S.

Many people don't have driver's licenses or anything else that would be considered valid voter ID, including but not limited to students and other young voters, minorities, people in urban areas, the elderly, and the handicapped. I should also point out that I wasn't required to show my driver's license to most (if not all) of my previous employers. Side note: You're essentially arguing that only the employed should be able to vote. Regardless, if you compare the number of people affected by new voter ID laws and the number of instances of voter fraud, relatively speaking, voter fraud doesn't exist and isn't worth denying so many people the ability to vote. Also, it can be successfully argued that a lot of these new voter ID laws are essentially poll taxes, which also affects likely Obama voters disproportionately.

 

[Hanafuda]

Anyone who is gainfully employed has had to produce a driver's license or state issued ID to get hired. And anyone who is unemployed and as poor as what you imply has already needed to produce ID to sign up for public assistance programs, i.e. welfare, food stamps, unemployment, SS disability, etc. Whether a driver's license or a non-operator's state ID, if you want a check from the federal government you have to show ID to apply. I'll give you that there will always be a statistically small number of people (homeless and crazy?) who are legal voters (not felons, not illegal immigrants) and who have never signed up for any public assistance and have never bothered to get a state issued ID, but the numbers are so low as to be offset by the benefit of preventing voter fraud that is gained by a voter ID law. There's no way enough people are adversely affected by this to change the outcome of a national election, unless its because its going to prevent dead people and illegals and felons from voting, and also people voting multiple times in different districts.

Go ahead ... toot that 'voter suppression' horn. But it's B.S.

Many people don't have driver's licenses or anything else that would be considered valid voter ID, including but not limited to students and other young voters, minorities, people in urban areas, the elderly, and the handicapped. I should also point out that I wasn't required to show my driver's license to most (if not all) of my previous employers. Side note: You're essentially arguing that only the employed should be able to vote. Regardless, if you compare the number of people affected by new voter ID laws and the number of instances of voter fraud, relatively speaking, voter fraud doesn't exist and isn't worth denying so many people the ability to vote. Also, it can be successfully argued that a lot of these new voter ID laws are essentially poll taxes, which also affects likely Obama voters disproportionately.

whatever.

You're essentially arguing that only the employed should be able to vote.

False.

 

[Lacius]

You're essentially arguing that only the employed should be able to vote.

False.

You're arguing that if you have a job, you have valid ID. If you don't have valid ID, then you don't have a job. That's only relevant if you're arguing that it's okay if the voter ID laws stop the unemployed and people without voter ID from being able to vote.

Regardless, it's not true that you must have a valid form of voter ID to have a job.

 

[Hanafuda]

You're essentially arguing that only the employed should be able to vote.

False.

You're arguing that if you have a job, you have valid ID. If you don't have valid ID, then you don't have a job. That's only relevant if you're arguing that it's okay if the voter ID laws stop the unemployed and people without voter ID from being able to vote.

Regardless, it's not true that you must have a valid form of voter ID to have a job.

Again, false. I never said "if you don't have a valid ID, then you don't have a job" - or anything even close to that. The point was simply that just about everyone has some form of valid state-issued ID already, regardless of whether they're employed, unemployed, rich, or poor. You need it for the basics of life, whether you're gainfully employed or living on public assistance. Yes, you'll always be able to find a few exceptions, but FEW where the "burden" of obtaining the photo ID is realistically going to keep a person from voting. I have no problem with requiring a photo ID to vote. Actually, if there is a hurdle to voting in the USA, it's the requirement of registering to vote. More people in the USA have their driver's license or a state-issued photo ID than are registered to vote. My 19 year old is an example of this - has his driver's license, but not registered to vote. I've even offered to take him to the voter's registration office downtown - no interest. But (and this is just my opinion) if you can't be bothered to get a photo ID and register to vote, then you don't care enough and/or know enough to vote anyway.


Also, as to "it's not true that you must have a valid form of voter ID to have a job," see here:

http://www.ehow.com/list_6546580_forms-identification-employment.html

Federal laws of the United States require that employers ask all new employees to complete Form I-9. This form is used to verify that an individual is authorized to work in the United States. An employer who fails to verify an employee's identification and work authorization can face criminal prosecution and/or fines. When an individual is hired to work for a company in the U.S., proof of identification and authorization to work in the country can be verified through several documents.

Typically when an employee or employer fills out an I-9 for a new hire, at least two forms of identification must be produced by the employee for the employer to verify and accurately identify the employee's identification and authorization to work in the U.S. The two forms of identification must include one form of ID suitable to establish identity along with one form of ID to establish employment authorization. For individuals over the age of 18, identity can be established through the use of a voter registration card; U.S. military card or draft record; or a photo identification card such as a school ID; driver's license or federal, state or local government-issued ID card. Individuals under the age of 18 can establish identity through the use of school or doctor's records.

So, technically you're right - you don't have to produce "a valid form of voter ID" to get a job - there are a couple types of ID that can be used besides a driver's license or govt issued ID. But in most cases you'd have to use the driver's license / govt. ID to get that other form of ID.

 

[Lacius]

Again, false. I never said "if you don't have a valid ID, then you don't have a job" - or anything even close to that. The point was simply that just about everyone has some form of valid state-issued ID already, regardless of whether they're employed, unemployed, rich, or poor. You need it for the basics of life, whether you're gainfully employed or living on public assistance. Yes, you'll always be able to find a few exceptions, but FEW where the "burden" of obtaining the photo ID is realistically going to keep a person from voting. I have no problem with requiring a photo ID to vote.

Most people have a valid form of voter ID, sure. But a lot of people don't have any use for driver's licences, etc. For example, in Wisconsin, only around 80% of white people have a driver's license, and only around 50% of African-Americans and Hispanics have driver's licenses. As you can plainly see, these new voter ID restrictions disproportionately affect certain groups, including racial minorities, poor people, the elderly, young people, etc, as I've already mentioned. You also forget that people who live in urban areas and/or take the bus to and from work have no need for driver's licenses, and poor people tend to have a higher rate of license suspension due to the fact that it's sometimes easier to switch to public transportation than pay a fine. Likewise, obtaining the proper voter ID is difficult for various reasons, especially for particular groups who are likely to vote Obama. One of this biggest issues is that many voters who have been able to vote in the past will be turned away at the polls because they won't know about the new voter ID requirements until election day.

Actually, if there is a hurdle to voting in the USA, it's the requirement of registering to vote. More people in the USA have their driver's license or a state-issued photo ID than are registered to vote. My 19 year old is an example of this - has his driver's license, but not registered to vote. I've even offered to take him to the voter's registration office downtown - no interest. But (and this is just my opinion) if you can't be bothered to get a photo ID and register to vote, then you don't care enough and/or know enough to vote anyway.

At the same time, a lot of people are registered to vote who don't have what you would consider to be valid voter ID. Unlike your 19 year-old, these people have an interest in voting but are disproportionately targeted with laws that make it harder to vote. But you bring up an interesting topic: voter registration. Voter registration is another way Republicans are targeting specific groups in order to minimize likely Obama voters. It's not an issue of whether or not people can be bothered; it's the issue of making it difficult to vote for people who have always been able to vote, and they often times don't have the money, practical means, or knowledge to get a proper voting ID in time, and all of this is being done to solve a problem that literally does not exist.

Edit:

So, technically you're right - you don't have to produce "a valid form of voter ID" to get a job - there are a couple types of ID that can be used besides a driver's license or govt issued ID. But in most cases you'd have to use the driver's license / govt. ID to get that other form of ID.

Tell that to people who have jobs but don't have accepted forms of voter ID. And again, unless your point is that we should only be worried about people who are employed being able to vote, then all you've been able to show, despite the fact that voter ID is not required to have a job, is a.) the majority of people have valid voter ID (no one is arguing this), and b.) particular groups (the poor, unemployed, young, students, etc) are hurt more by the voter ID laws than others.

And one final point: There have been 10 cases of in-person voter fraud, 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud, and 400 cases of registration fraud in the entire country since 2000, and it's likely that the new voting laws in Pennsylvania alone will potentially bar 758,000 registered voters from voting in the state.

 

[Black-Ice]

Welp.
I got Obama.

 

[LightyKD]

I'm still voting for Obama but I find my result to be interesting...