BF2S Forums 2012 U.S. election presidential, Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama

Cybargs, let it go, he is obviously just lonely and wants my attention.

Cybargs wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Yes all of those vets showing up at homeless shelters are college students. Most of them are blowing their college assistance at for profit schools.

yeah because non-vets would never go to for college schools and never use their pell grants for it either.

Yeah nonvets also go to them but I am not talking about nonvets.

Ty wrote:

This is a decent read.

Whatever one's thoughts of the New Yorker I'd encourage anyone who does read it not to brush it off as an example of Liberal bias simply because it chooses to argue for one side. It is not biased to look at evidence and determine a conclusion from it - although I would be interested if anyone spots any possible intentional oversight or factual inaccuracy that deserves pointing out.

Also don't ask me why it was apparently written next Monday.

It most certainly is biased. That's the whole point. It's an editorial endorsing one candidate (who happens to be in line with the publication's political views) over another, with the rationale focusing on sound bites as broad policy positions, rather than actually spending equal time on both candidates. Further, it keeps beating the "blame Bush" drum as justification. It totally ignores the failures of the Obama administration, yet focuses on minutiae from Romney, without actually discussing the plan Romney has put forward. It focuses on character assassination of "the other guy", rather than a truly objective assessment of the two candidates' records. To do a point-by-point refutation of the piece would take more time than I have and result in a tl;dr response from most (who have already made up their minds, anyway).

As an op-ed, it's what's to be expected. As objective journalism...well, it's just not. And to try to frame it as such is disingenuous.

And it was written for next Monday because that is the day before the election. They have to at least attempt to show some integrity by holding off on their endorsement until right before the election, so as not to unduly sway the electorate.

lol FDR, the only president who was credited with "ending the depression" coz lulz we WENT TO WAR AND THAT MADE US MONEY AND BOOSTED OUR ECONOMY. Just like how the Vietnam and Iraq War helped the economy amirite or amirite.

FEOS wrote:

It most certainly is biased. That's the whole point. It's an editorial endorsing one candidate (who happens to be in line with the publication's political views) over another, with the rationale focusing on sound bites as broad policy positions, rather than actually spending equal time on both candidates. Further, it keeps beating the "blame Bush" drum as justification. It totally ignores the failures of the Obama administration, yet focuses on minutiae from Romney, without actually discussing the plan Romney has put forward. It focuses on character assassination of "the other guy", rather than a truly objective assessment of the two candidates' records. To do a point-by-point refutation of the piece would take more time than I have and result in a tl;dr response from most (who have already made up their minds, anyway).

As an op-ed, it's what's to be expected. As objective journalism...well, it's just not. And to try to frame it as such is disingenuous.

And it was written for next Monday because that is the day before the election. They have to at least attempt to show some integrity by holding off on their endorsement until right before the election, so as not to unduly sway the electorate.

Well it is an opinion piece granted but there's a distinction between bias and taking a side. It's certainly not trying to be investigative journalism, it's an argument for the Obama side that merely attempts to be objective. But I still think it is a fairly good one and represents a good example of the outlook shared by many on one side. As a result it will unquestionably speak more to those on that side than the other but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant. I was always taught the importance to understand as much as possible the other side's viewpoint.

I think the assessment of the Bush administration in the article is pretty fair and I've always thought it silly to always brush off any criticism of a previous administration as backward-thinking - this includes the Bush administration's frequent criticism of the Clinton administration. The reality is that America was in a very poor state in 2008 and perceived as something between a joke and a cartoonish super-villain overseas. A change of administration does not mean everything gets wiped out and there were a lot of problems to sort through, many of which are still around. To fail to consider the impact of recent history shows an exceptional degree of wilful ignorance.

It's not an entirely fair assessment of Romney though. For example his article in 2008 with the provocative headline "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" is easily used against him when the reality of Romney's stance on the auto-industry is certainly far more than "let them eat cake" and can even be seen to make a lot of sense. But his social outlook should be called out as backwards with his stance on things like abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, and even climate change and immigration. His apparent assertion that there is such a thing as a completely self-made man is false and provably so by his own situation alone. He is increasingly embracing the more reactionary side of the GOP. He did and probably still does take advantage of tax loopholes. He did make those comments about the 47% and I can't see any merit to the argument that this comment was not indicative of his convictions. I certainly would have appreciated an analysis of Romney's policies but I haven't seen much of thse at all. This was exemplified in the debate yesterday when he utterly failed to clarify any of his strategies for foreign policy. If someone wanted to point what I missed I would be grateful.

Largely the standard of the criticism of Romney is because it's the simply fact that Romney hasn't been President yet, he doesn't have four years of policy to mull over as to whether it was successful or not. The question is whether he is worthy of that chance. For that question to be answered there is no option but to look at what you call minutiae details. What record Romney can be judged on consists largely of his own rhetoric, the rest is open to interpretation.

-

Jay I take issue with your assertion that private sector jobs can not translate into wider economic successes such as creating jobs in the private sector. Maybe that just reflects our respective political ideologies. The private and public sector are not mutually exclusive in any way. For example I work in the private sector but I know I would not have a job if not for the public sector, in fact I very much doubt the company I work for would even exist given the large number of our clients which are Government offices, departments and organisations. You can't say supporting the public sector with stimulus does not impact the economy at large, the whole point of stimulus spending is to do this. If you give the public sector money they will be able to spend it, if they spend it they provide jobs, if people have jobs they have money, if they have money they both pay taxes and spend it, if they spend it they support companies which hire workers who have jobs etc. etc. That's the basics of it as I understand it though feel free to call me out as wrong, economics was never my forte. I hope that did something to explain how the public and private sector support each other.

Either way, the article does provide a pretty conclusive example of one side's argument, I'd be interested to read one from the other side.

Ty wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It most certainly is biased. That's the whole point. It's an editorial endorsing one candidate (who happens to be in line with the publication's political views) over another, with the rationale focusing on sound bites as broad policy positions, rather than actually spending equal time on both candidates. Further, it keeps beating the "blame Bush" drum as justification. It totally ignores the failures of the Obama administration, yet focuses on minutiae from Romney, without actually discussing the plan Romney has put forward. It focuses on character assassination of "the other guy", rather than a truly objective assessment of the two candidates' records. To do a point-by-point refutation of the piece would take more time than I have and result in a tl;dr response from most (who have already made up their minds, anyway).

As an op-ed, it's what's to be expected. As objective journalism...well, it's just not. And to try to frame it as such is disingenuous.

And it was written for next Monday because that is the day before the election. They have to at least attempt to show some integrity by holding off on their endorsement until right before the election, so as not to unduly sway the electorate.

Well it is an opinion piece granted but there's a distinction between bias and taking a side. It's certainly not trying to be investigative journalism, it's an argument for the Obama side that merely attempts to be objective. But I still think it is a fairly good one and represents a good example of the outlook shared by many on one side. As a result it will unquestionably speak more to those on that side than the other but that doesn't mean it is irrelevance. I was always taught the importance to understand as much as possible the other side's viewpoint.

I think the assessment of the Bush administration in the article is pretty fair and I've always thought it silly to always brush off any criticism of a previous administration as backward-thinking - this includes the Bush administration's frequent criticism of the Clinton administration. The reality is that America was in a very poor state in 2008 and perceived as something between a joke and a cartoonish super-villain overseas. A change of administration does not mean everything gets wiped out and there were a lot of problems to sort through, many of which are still around. To fail to consider the impact of recent history shows an exceptional degree of wilful ignorance.

It's not an entirely fair assessment of Romney though. For example his article in 2008 with the provocative headline "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" is easily used against him when the reality of Romney's stance on the auto-industry is certainly far more than "let them eat cake" and can even be seen to make a lot of sense. But his social outlook should be called out as backwards with his stance on things like abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, and even climate change and immigration. His apparent assertion that there is such a thing as a completely self-made man is false and provably so by his own situation alone. He is increasingly embracing the more reactionary side of the GOP. He did and probably still does take advantage of tax loopholes. He did make those comments about the 47% and I can't see any merit to the argument that this comment was not indicative of his convictions. I certainly would have appreciated an analysis of Romney's policies but I haven't seen much of thse at all. This was exemplified in the debate yesterday when he utterly failed to clarify any of his strategies for foreign policy. If someone wanted to point what I missed I would be grateful.

Largely the standard of the criticism of Romney is because it's the simply fact that Romney hasn't been President yet, he doesn't have four years of policy to mull over as to whether it was successful or not. The question is whether he is worthy of that chance. For that question to be answered there is no option but to look at what you call minutiae details. What record Romney can be judged on consists largely of his own rhetoric, the rest is open to interpretation.

-

Jay I take issue with your assertion that private sector jobs can not translate into wider economic successes such as creating jobs in the private sector. Maybe that just reflects our respective political ideologies. The private and public sector are not mutually exclusive in any way. For example I work in the private sector but I know I would not have a job if not for the public sector, in fact I very much doubt the company I work for would even exist given the large number of our clients which are Government offices, departments and organisations. You can't say supporting the public sector with stimulus does not impact the economy at large, the whole point of stimulus spending is to do this. If you give the public sector money they will be able to spend it, if they spend it they provide jobs, if people have jobs they have money, if they have money they both pay taxes and spend it, if they spend it they support companies which hire workers who have jobs etc. etc. That's the basics of it as I understand it though feel free to call me out as wrong, economics was never my forte. I hope that did something to explain how the public and private sector support each other.

Either way, the article does provide a pretty conclusive example of one side's argument, I'd be interested to read one from the other side.

Because when all you do is keep the currently employed on the books they continue their spending habits, they buy the same stuff they always did which doesn't put new people to work. Those people went into saver mode because they knew their jobs were on the line anyway, the day of reckoning was just pushed back, so they weren't buying new homes or cars etc. The states have had to cut those jobs in the end anyway which is a portion of the reason our recovery has been so soft. Instead of a hard crash followed by a hard recovery we've had a cushioned prolonged crash with meager recovery. Our housing market hasn't been allowed to clear which means millions of people still in foreclosure and no new homes being built. Our state and local governments are still in cutback mode. It's a mess and our kids are trillions of dollars poorer because of it.

Seems like romney is saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. I wouldn't call that being more centrist. Policy-wise its hard to really know.

Jay wrote:

Because when all you do is keep the currently employed on the books they continue their spending habits, they buy the same stuff they always did which doesn't put new people to work. Those people went into saver mode because they knew their jobs were on the line anyway, the day of reckoning was just pushed back, so they weren't buying new homes or cars etc. The states have had to cut those jobs in the end anyway which is a portion of the reason our recovery has been so soft. Instead of a hard crash followed by a hard recovery we've had a cushioned prolonged crash with meager recovery. Our housing market hasn't been allowed to clear which means millions of people still in foreclosure and no new homes being built. Our state and local governments are still in cutback mode. It's a mess and our kids are trillions of dollars poorer because of it.

That assumes an awful lot Jay, I imagine there are more than one ways to spin the situation. Either way I don't know enough about it all to comment.

Again, Calvinism ftw.

FEOS wrote:

Romney's more centrist than Obama at this point...which is why his poll numbers are better than Obama's and climbing.

Clinton did the same thing: pander to the base then move to the center for the general and govern from there during your term. Seemed to work well for Bill...

i don't recall Clinton using a presidential debate to roll out policy. which, if you watched the last debate, rmoney closely mirrors obama on foreign policy, except for bayonets and knives. he'll have more of those and ships too!

ok, rest of the world - America now has a republican senate candidate, on record, proclaiming that pregnancy in the instance of rape is the will of God.

please post below if that's your countries view on rape.

Thank you.

A2TG2 wrote:

One kunt equals a whole party Burnz?  for real?

no. [not bad though - "Republican Party, now with more kunts!" i like it.]  the GOP is no longer the 'Grand Old Party', and even you endorsed obama four years ago. the republicans tried to co-opt the teabagger movement, and instead the far right seized on their momentum and ran 5 senate candidates in 2010 (only rand paul actually won) and this year are backing 7 senate candidates that would not be "Republican" by historical measure. If you like what this new "Republican" party is morphing into, by all means, vote your conscience.

this party sidelined bob bennet in 2010 and orrin hatch barely survived a primary.

let me say that again - orrin hatch barely survived a primary. in Utah. how? by all of the sudden being to the right of Ghengis Kahn.

but like i said, don't let it bother you - vote your conscience.

Last edited by 13urnzz (2012-10-24 19:34:08)

So if I rape someone and there's a kid its not my fault?