Romney vs. Obama

[BlueStar]

I was looking at this poll and I hate to disappoint all you kiddies but no candidate with Obama's numbers has ever gone on to win the presidency

I think Romny wins because I haven't met one enthusiastic Obama supporter. They are all saying "oh well the other guy Os just as bad". You don't win if that's your attitude

 

[tatripp]

Excellent news for America and the world. Also, Donald Trump's twitter meltdown is hilarious. I think in the GOP post mortem they're going to look at how they faired with female voters and realize they're never going to get into the White House on the kind of platform Mitt was running on. I think we'll see a much more moderate nominee in 2016. Hey, Obama'a your leader till 2016

Seriously??? A more moderate nominee??? Romney was super moderate. He once supported abortion, created the blue prints for obamacare, and supported lots of spending. The GOP needs to select a conservative candidate for once. Bush talked like one but spent way too much. McCain was too busy trying to be a Maverick instead of sanding up for his beliefs. We need someone who will actually make cuts to government waste instead of encouraging it.

 

[emigre]

Seriously??? A more moderate nominee??? Romney was super moderate. He once supported abortion, created the blue prints for obamacare, and supported lots of spending. The GOP needs to select a conservative candidate for once. Bush talked like one but spent way too much. McCain was too busy trying to be a Maverick instead of sanding up for his beliefs. We need someone who will actually make cuts to government waste instead of encouraging it.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

 

[the_randomizer]

*removed*

 

[MelodieOctavia]

I understand that there might be a lot of hurt feelings tonight, but that's no reason to get malicious.

People are entitled to their opinions, so..instead of telling someone to fuck off, you might just try not replying.

 

[the_randomizer]

I was getting pissed off at peoples' posts on Facebook and YouTube praising Obama like he's some kind of savior who will magically neutralize all our problems in four years.

Spoiler

offending posts removed. I know people are entitled, people just piss me off when it comes to politics)

"Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" - Anonymous

 

[BlueStar]

Are people still going on about Obama'a executive orders?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp

 

[MelodieOctavia]

I was getting pissed off at peoples' posts on Facebook and YouTube praising Obama like he's some kind of savior who will magically neutralize all our problems in four years.

Spoiler

offending posts removed. I know people are entitled, people just piss me off when it comes to politics)

"Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" - Anonymous

I believe you are referring to the tried and true Trickle-down economics, yeah?

And if talking about politics piss you off that much, maybe it's a topic that you should avoid.

 

[BlueStar]

Repeating the same mistakes would be voting for Romney, running on the same policies that caused worldwide economic meltdown.

 

[the_randomizer]

Repeating the same mistakes would be voting for Romney, running on the same policies that caused worldwide economic meltdown.

Right, Obama will take care of the economy, just like he did the past four years. Care to explain the 6,000,000,000,000 dollars more in debt we're in? What about unemployment? Still more than 8 percent. Obamacare? Not a chance in hell it'll work perfectly as Congress hoped it would. Trying to insure 300 million plus people is near-impossible without major economic repercussions. Bailouts for large corporations like GM or large banking companies? Smart move, I must say, smart move indeed. Bankruptcy is for cowards.

 

[BlueStar]

Yes I can explain it, it's because of the world wide economic crisis and would be considerably worse with far right policies stifling growth. Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. This is why Obama has been given the vote of confidence by the people.

 

[the_randomizer]

Yes I can explain it, it's because of the world wide economic crisis and would be considerably worse with far right policies stifling growth. Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. This is why Obama has been given the vote of confidence by the people.

No one cares about GM anyway. The US economy affects a majority of the world, but I cannot accept his healthcare plan. I want to buy my own effing plan, at a price I can afford with no degradation in quality. Is that too much to ask? Why are there people who voted for him last time regretting doing so now? Either extreme on either party is bad, the Democrats I know are good people and I don't hate them for their political views, in fact, I agree with some of them. Politics never justifies hatred. Disagreement and possible annoyance, but hatred is too far. In fact, political discussions often lead to rifts between people (GBA Temp being no exception) where people can't agree on one simple thing, it's sickening that they cause so much contention. Granted, I didn't help to negate the animosity, I only added fuel to the fire and royally pissed people off to the point of causing them to despise and have antipathy towards me, (having/expressing one's conservative Republican views almost seems like an unpardonable crime on GBATemp). So yeah.....time for me to curl in a fetal position.

Spoiler

why am I douchebag to everyone?

 

[emigre]

Here's Donald Trump's twitter breakdown.

 

[Deleted-185407]

Moral and ethical. You're free to talk about morals and ethics they way you're doing, but those definitions aren't necessarily the case, and in no way am I confusing the two; I've been talking about your definition of "moral" this whole time, so I don't see how any of this is relevant to the conversation.


You're arguing that someone who thinks "loli manga" is immoral cannot logically explain his or her position?


Are you arguing it's illogical to take care of one another?


Are you arguing it's illogical to be heartbroken?


If someone claims that X is moral or immoral but cannot logically explain why X should be considered moral or immoral, then that person should not be taken seriously in considering whether or not X is moral.

This is all quite beside the point, by the way.


You're arguing that the federal government and courts do not have the right to intervene when the states get it wrong, which means you're arguing that the federal government should not have intervened in the case of abolishing slavery. It does not matter that the states would not re-legalize slavery today if they had the chance; the above is still what you're arguing, and I cannot make it simpler than that.


It doesn't look like you even understand what I'm arguing, and it doesn't look like you understand what "guilty before proven innocent" means or how the question of who has the burden of proof in a situation has nothing to do with this discussion. Wow. Just wow.


All I've argued is that there's cause for concern over a nuclear Iran, and it has nothing to do with not "leaving them alone." I've done my part in showing you evidence for why there's cause for concern over a nuclear Iran; it's your turn.


You have yet to provide me with any evidence that any third-party candidate has any significant support, and all of the data says that no third-party candidate does. You're just giving me a bunch of baseless hypothetical situations.


No, it doesn't.


I agree, which is exactly why a vote for a third-party candidate doesn't affect the outcome of who wins the election when the third-party candidate cannot win. A vote for a third-party candidate is like a vote for Mickey Mouse, not a vote for Romney.


If there's significant support for a candidate, then he or she has a chance at winning the election; if a candidate isn't going to get more than ~1% of the votes, then that candidate cannot win the election and there's no reason to vote for him or her. Get back to me with your example when you have some numbers.


Our judicial system is setup so the burden of proof is on those claiming someone is guilty of a crime, AKA "not guilty before proven guilty." As for states' rights, no one is advocating a shift in the burden of proof, and you apparently have no idea what you're talking about.


Some states want to take away the rights of certain groups of people, and there is historical precedent for this. Slavery, civil rights, gay rights, reproductive rights, etc.


I'm advocating more rights, not fewer rights. As for options, you're right that I'm against letting states have specific options (like legalizing slavery, for example). So what?


Well, it has happened before, and we have at least cause for concern that it could potentially happen again.


I never argued this. In fact, I said a vote for a third-party candidate, as far as choosing the winner of the election, is as inconsequential as throwing one's vote away.

I've had this lingering suspicion that you're not actually serious about what you say you believe.

On an unrelated note, I voted.

The subtle difference between the two terms is still there. The reason I'm bringing up the topic is because you're attempting to enforce your morals on everyone, despite not realising that morals are personal, and always will be personal. Instead, what you're probably trying to promote are societal ethics, which is a completely different matter. It's merely trying to get the correct definition into the discussion.

I haven't seen a single logical argument as to why loli manga is immoral, yet it is apparently. I haven't seen a single argument that explains why people should be heartbroken when logic states it's far better not to feel heartbroken. Simple stuff really. Why care about someone who was quite frankly, horrible to you? That's not logically sound. Even I'm still wondering why I still care a lot about one of my ex's, even though she got rid of me. Logic tells me not to. Remember, that the majority of debates never have any clear decisive winner. People have to choose a side which they feel is more logical. If the correct path was always that simple, world peace would be a reality.

The federal government has no right to force people to change their ways. They have a right to use peer pressure, but they can't force people to change things. Peer pressure most of the time is probably sufficient. How do you know that the states which promoted slavery wouldn't have changed their ways like the rest of the world did? You're implying that people don't change at all, and that morals don't grow over time. I can't make it any simpler than that.

You're stating that because people are human and occasionally make mistakes, you want to punish them for the rest of time, as well as the innocent states who want the rights to innovate and benefit the country. Why is it wrong to let states innovate? You're using the past to justify restricting the future. The federal government made several stupid mistakes in the past, and they still do. You're saying that the mistakes of governments consisting of people who are long dead, should determine what the modern generation, and the future generations should be able to do. That's sickening. That's illogical. That's immoral.

The fact you're stating that 9/11 attacks happened for no reason, actually proves you have no idea what you're talking about and you fall for biased mainstream media for no good reason. People don't attack others for no good reason. They don't attack others because of their "freedoms". They attacked because they want something. In this case, 9/11 occurred because American troops were invading the attacker's holy lands, and disrespecting them completely. The attackers wanted you to leave them alone. You weren't listening, so they resorted to physical attacks. And you know what you're doing now? The exact same thing. You're not listening to other countries, you're not leaving them alone, and you're just creating more enemies for yourself. You're endangering your national security by creating more enemies, not enhancing it. Same story with Iran. You're just going to end up making them hate you, and as a result, they'll feel pressured into resorting to physical attacks.

In one of the Republican presidential debates, Ron Paul stated the golden rule, a common biblical teaching. Despite being a biblical teaching, it's one of the few things in the novel that makes logical sense. Basically, treat others the same way that you like to be treated. The audience responded by boo'ing. It was honestly quite sickening to hear the cheers the audience gave when the other candidates talked about killing people and entering wars. If you don't want to be attacked, don't invade other countries and start attacking them. There's always a clear motive for every single terrorist attack, but the majority of you dismiss those reasons, and just claim they attacked for no good reason. You're childish and pathetic if you truly believe that. It's sickening people keep wanting to ignore the real reasons why people want to do something. You're just plugging your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalala". Pathetic.

How many times do you hear of people wanting to vote third party, yet are being told that it's a waste of a vote? How many times do you hear of people not wanting to vote at all, because they think their options are only Republicans and Democrats? In fact, we have a poster in this very thread who claims they didn't even bother doing research. If everyone stopped being so cowardly, and stopped being peer pressured, researched into what they're voting for, then I guarantee you, the results will greatly change. Unfortunately, you're not going to find any data on these issues, because the majority of that data come from mainstream sources, which the majority of more open-minded voters don't pay attention to. Similarly, non-mainstream media is unreliable because Republican/Democrat supporters don't pay attention to those sources. Instead, use your common sense. Use your eyes and ears. The majority of people I speak to locally here in Ireland, are actually completely shocked that Americans whine and complain about the top two parties, yet don't have the balls to vote their conscience and vote for other parties. You're driving yourself into a mess.

Voting for third party, regardless of their chances of winning, always affects the outcome. Like I said, it's not a vote for either Romney or Obama. Neither candidates gets your vote, and someone else does. That's called affecting the outcome, no matter how you look at it. Romney's or Obama's chances of winning are reduced, while another person's chances of winning have increased. Sure according to probability, it's similar to voting for a fictional character, and is similar to not voting at all. Probability states that, but at least I'd be getting off my ass and actually trying to fix the problems. If you hate both the Republicans or Democrats, voted for them, you have no right to complain. A wasted vote is voting for someone you don't believe in and can't trust at all. By voting for someone you hated, you wasted your vote. Every other country realises that, and don't let themselves get bullied into voting for the big parties, and as a result we've been seeing great changes. Why can't you?

The fact you refuse to acknowledge the value of a vote, and the fact that you think you got attacked for no good reason, proves to me that I can't take you seriously at all. I wish I could, because you seem to be one of the more intelligent members on the forums, but seriously, stating such ridiculous nonsense really damages your reputation.

To the person who thinks we spend a long time writing these posts: These posts only take like 15 minutes, and most of the time I'm writing them when I have nothing else to do. Instead of doing something like watching TV for 15 minutes, I like to participate in debates for those 15 minutes because it's more engaging and fun and educational.

 

[Black-Ice]

I feel better in the UK knowing Romney can't start a fight with China and lose.

 

[chavosaur]

Gonna be a lot of butt hurtness today and I wonder if anyones gonna make.good on their promises of leaving the country since obama has been re-elected.
Ah well, its like I said, it doesnt matter to me whose in office. As long as he does whatever he can for the u.s im satisfied, and iif he doesnt, then so be it.

 

[KingVamp]

Right, Obama will take care of the economy, just like he did the past four years. Care to explain the 6,000,000,000,000 dollars more in debt we're in? What about unemployment? Still more than 8 percent. Obamacare? Not a chance in hell it'll work perfectly as Congress hoped it would. Trying to insure 300 million plus people is near-impossible without major economic repercussions. Bailouts for large corporations like GM or large banking companies? Smart move, I must say, smart move indeed. Bankruptcy is for cowards.

Maybe because he was spending them in the right places to get out?

He's creating jobs.

Except he made it less than 8%.

Proof Obamacare isn't going to work? You got the wrong idea about Obamacare anyway. First you can
still choose your own insurance and two it already help some people who were denied/lost their
own.

Which is creating jobs, but then you turn back around and say no one cares?

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Am I the only one who finds it funny that this thread is slowly starting to unravel now but we've literally been able to keep it running well right up until the election?

Also I'm not entirely sure this is needed now that the election is done. Maybe change it to a general American politics debate or something. Guild McRepurposing.

 

[leic7]

Congratulations, everyone. Four years ago I was not a fan of Obama's speeches, but last night's acceptance speech was amazing! His "we believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America" threw me right back to our Jack Layton's "a more inclusive and generous Canada".

@Peps

"Factual claims" can be factually inaccurate... But never mind that now, maybe there's a regional difference in the meaning of words. I should just call them "claims" so there's no misunderstanding of what I meant. "There's a God" and "there's a big bang" are both claims. "_________ is bad for society" is a claim that can be verified and evaluated, and is relevant to policy; it's what you'd call a "social belief", I think.

On your premise of "morality" meaning what you say it means (i.e. something that strictly doesn't involve a society), what role does it play in public policy then? Are you still talking about public policy? Did you ever talk about public policy in connection with "morality"?

Just for the record, are you implicitly saying that the US federal government should not get involved in the slavery issue with the states, 150 years ago? In hindsight and with the knowledge we've gained since then, do you think it would be better if they had not gotten involved? Would you support the federal government's involvement in settling the slavery issue some 150 years ago?

Also for the record, picking up on your human rights comment: suppose the majority of citizens of a state wanted to remove the slaves' human rights, and they're 9:1 in favour of slavery, 9 being the slaveholders and 1 the slaves. This scenario is actually fairly typical of most of the human rights issues. Do you think these issues should be left to the majority to decide?

I don't know how exactly you differentiate "pressure from other states" from "giving up their rights to federal government"... Did the southern states abolish slavery because of "pressure", or because they "gave up their rights"? It seems like they were "pressured into giving up their rights" lol. Call it what you will. The fact that a bad decision should be overturned is something you do agree with, correct? States shouldn't give up their rights, so long as they could be pressured into giving up their rights? Mmkay.