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

FEOS wrote:

"If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal"

That's not at all "disconnected," is it?

You're buying into the spin. .

Funny, coming from the guy who obviously watched Fox's 24/7 coverage of Obama's daily show interview.

I'm honestly at a loss for words as to how you can call that comment "disconnected", or "disrespectful" by any stretch of imagination.

Ty wrote:

You know what would be a good thing to discuss? The $300m or so earmarked to be cut from embassy defence. Maybe that's something that will have an impact on whether this sort of thing will happen again.

why no, because that would be republicants in congress. we won't mention that. at all.

13urnzz wrote:

Ty wrote:

You know what would be a good thing to discuss? The $300m or so earmarked to be cut from embassy defence. Maybe that's something that will have an impact on whether this sort of thing will happen again.

why no, because that would be republicants in congress. we won't mention that. at all.

How do you know it's due to one party? Last time I checked, one party controlled the House, the other the Senate. Both have to agree for appropriations to be put into law and sent to the POTUS for signature.

But it's just the 1/2 of 1/3 of the government that's entirely at fault for all the ills--past, present, and future--in our nation.

FEOS wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

Ty wrote:

You know what would be a good thing to discuss? The $300m or so earmarked to be cut from embassy defence. Maybe that's something that will have an impact on whether this sort of thing will happen again.

why no, because that would be republicants in congress. we won't mention that. at all.

How do you know it's due to one party? Last time I checked, one party controlled the House, the other the Senate. Both have to agree for appropriations to be put into law and sent to the POTUS for signature.

But it's just the 1/2 of 1/3 of the government that's entirely at fault for all the ills--past, present, and future--in our nation.

there is enough blame to go around and spread to everyone.  I think we agree it's politicians causing problems, not parties, not branches.  The problem is that they politicians (used very very loosely to encompass even the judicial branch) are so entrenched in a very very fucked up reward system that it rubs off on me as just so phony and removed from practical application and any sense of sanity (honestly somewhere the judicial branch historically and generally has been rational and even-tempered) that it is very hard to take any branch seriously.  It's cliche but it's such a piss poor field of candidates every year that I have to wonder whether the political process is leaving something to be desired.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Yeah, not buying. If NYC was set as the highest (and it is by a massive margin), I'm not about to accept that many of those cities fall into the ridiculous requirements for middle class status offered here.

Ok. 40% of my paycheck goes towards social security, medicare, income taxes. I pay federal income tax, state income tax, and city income tax. On top of that I pay 8.875% in sales tax every time I buy something. I pay property taxes via my rent. So let's say I make a combined income with my wife of exactly $200k a year, 80k of that goes out automatically towards direct taxation. That leaves me with $120k. If I bought a house tomorrow my mortgage payment would be $3000/mo or $36,000 a year. Now I'm down to $84k. I pay $200/mo for cell phone service, $200/mo for cable/internet, $200/mo for utilities, $400/mo for the car payment, $200/mo for insurance, $400/mo for my train ticket, $500/mo for food. So there's another $25,200, now I'm down to $58.8k. Add in clothes, the cost of kids, a decent vacation, medical bills etc and that remainder goes quickly. You're not struggling when you're making $200k a year, but you're not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

FYI, that $3k mortgage payment is on a modest $500k home here. You're looking at a middling school district and maybe a 'ranch' home with three bedrooms.

But those deductions hardly mirror what it is to be middle class.  Remove mortgage, replace with rent. Remove car payment, replace with incedentals. Etc etc. You're living a better than average life. Average being middle class.

It must be a struggle 'only' having more money in the bank at the end of the year than the median family grosses, especially after paying for necessities like a new car and $2400 each on cable TV and cellphones.
I'd say that falls well outside 'middle class', although its been so messed with thats almost a meaningless concept now.

The problem with American politics is that every issue ends up getting dismantled into a discussion of semantics like this thread has.  One party will say they will give a tax cut to the rich and the other says that is bad, so instead of having a conversation over why that is bad we instead get 10 pages of people arguing over "what constitutes rich as opposed to middle class".  Alas, the issue goes largely unresolved and no one has learned anything new other than the fact they really can't stand the other guy.

Such is American politics.

To be clear however, the republicans have it right, they just have a retarded way of conveying it and use monkeys to dispense their ideology.  If they ever find a person to properly convey their message in a concise manner, they are unstoppable (i.e. Nixon, i.e. Reagan).  The democratic parties core values are very flaky.  They sound good in speeches and on paper but tend to not work so well in practice (i.e. Social Security, i.e. Welfare programs)

As big of a turd as Romney is, he has my vote.  The alternative is an even bigger turd with a giant putrid peanut in it.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

why no, because that would be republicants in congress. we won't mention that. at all.

How do you know it's due to one party? Last time I checked, one party controlled the House, the other the Senate. Both have to agree for appropriations to be put into law and sent to the POTUS for signature.

But it's just the 1/2 of 1/3 of the government that's entirely at fault for all the ills--past, present, and future--in our nation.

there is enough blame to go around and spread to everyone.  I think we agree it's politicians causing problems, not parties, not branches.  The problem is that they politicians (used very very loosely to encompass even the judicial branch) are so entrenched in a very very fucked up reward system that it rubs off on me as just so phony and removed from practical application and any sense of sanity (honestly somewhere the judicial branch historically and generally has been rational and even-tempered) that it is very hard to take any branch seriously.  It's cliche but it's such a piss poor field of candidates every year that I have to wonder whether the political process is leaving something to be desired.

No argument here. I think that's spot on.

Pochsy wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

The problem with American politics is that every issue ends up getting dismantled into a discussion of semantics like this thread has.  One party will say they will give a tax cut to the rich and the other says that is bad, so instead of having a conversation over why that is bad we instead get 10 pages of people arguing over "what constitutes rich as opposed to middle class".  Alas, the issue goes largely unresolved and no one has learned anything new other than the fact they really can't stand the other guy.

Such is American politics.

To be clear however, the republicans have it right, they just have a retarded way of conveying it and use monkeys to dispense their ideology.  If they ever find a person to properly convey their message in a concise manner, they are unstoppable (i.e. Nixon, i.e. Reagan).  The democratic parties core values are very flaky.  They sound good in speeches and on paper but tend to not work so well in practice (i.e. Social Security, i.e. Welfare programs)

As big of a turd as Romney is, he has my vote.  The alternative is an even bigger turd with a giant putrid peanut in it.

Semantics are extraordinarily important in absolutely everything. You even hint at this yourself by stating that "the republicans have it right, they just have a retarded way of conveying it". How in gods name is that not an issue of semantics? Do you mean they should turn to visual arts to convey messages? Your lack of internal coherence really makes it hard to understand how semantics doesn't form the bulk (not entirety) of meaning formation. Don't go crazy on me and start preaching that the 'medium is the message' next. Please.

OK.  So basically when politicians argue about lets say.......healthcare reform.  Do you think it's more important for them to debate what the average middle income family in Essex county Vermont pays on healthcare in a year or do you think that the debate would be better suited addressing the issue of how it will benefit or hinder the nation as a whole or how we will or will not pay for it, or if a majority of Americans even actually want it?  Semantics should be debated and argued at the local level where small facts and figures are relevant and states should make their own decisions.  The role of executive level of government should be to bring the major issues to the forefront that the local governments then debate semantics over and or decide if the decisions of the states are constitutional and or don't try to supersede or contradict federal laws.

When Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have a week long argument over the tax increases and burdens of middle income homes and nothing but middle income homes they are completely alienating Upper and Lower income people. Probably not the best example but you get my gist. 

I think your aggressive tone was more geared to the fact I said I believe in a conservative ideology rather than the issue of semantics.

He's a well oiled weather vein.

He's an etch a sketch.

He's multiple choice Romney.

Romney is going to win.

Silver has the better track record, and the process favors obama (the incumbent). but from what i'm seeing, rmoney has a chance despite himself.

if he had staked out positions and defended them, it's my opinion he would have been up by 15points right now. his waffling caused concern for the far right in the primaries, and the middle in the general election. he can't run on or defend his signature legislation, because the president hijacked it whole cloth and made it his signature legislation.

anyone who thinks rmoney isn't spineless is lying to themselves. anyone who thinks obama has really changed bush era policy is lying to themselves.

sam wang's model - which is much simpler, but hence much more transparent - is extremely bullish on obama. 94% last i checked.