• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Romney vs. Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not that it matters, but I am 41 and I think about politics quite a bit and I am very careful about discussing it because like most of you I don't like to start a big argument. But this seems like a pretty rational group of people so I will through 2 cents in.

First of all let me say that I think one of our biggest problems is that we rarely have any great candidates, it is kind of painful. Of course I say that and I am a bit of a purist when it comes to the Constitution, I think it was well designed and should be adhered to, so naturally I think we have long since veered away from the Constitution and it will be a long road back.
If you ask the average person what the Constitution says or what meaning it has they often start talking about the Bill or Rights, :(. So along with us not having any great candidates, most of us do not even understand the Constitution. If you don't understand it, you really cannot support nor appose it. This may seem like some what disconnected from the discussion about Obama vs. Romney but to me it is actually at the heart of the problem.
Our Constitutions primary purpose is to limit the powers of the Federal Government. You can always argue about if that is a good thing or not, but that is its purpose, the powers of the Federal Government are specifically numbered for sake of preventing it from growing beyond those few things.
Over the last couple of generations the Federal Government has been asked, allowed and encouraged to grow well beyond good reason in my opinion. In my view it is completely un-affordable, unmanageable and disconnect from the will of the people.

In short I think most Government should be local not National.

So let pose a question, who really feels like they have some sort of connection to Washington? Your representatives? State Capital? Anybody?

Laws and regulations are constantly generated with out any input from us the people, millions of pages, it just keeps growing. So how many of us feel that we are well served by this?

Another problem is that most people really do not understand Economics, just ask the people you know, I would imagine this is a smarter crowd then most, so see what the people you associate with know. Then ask your self, internally, honestly do you really understand economics?

I think if you do not understand the Constitution, your votes does not directly impact Governance around you and you do not really understand Economics then you are more or less powerless to make good choices.

As for the candidates, well politics is dirty and corruptible, there very few Great Statesman and a lot of Politicians. A Politicians first job is to get Re-elected and his second job is to do the will of the people who got him into office.
How many of you would run for office knowing what would happen to you and your family?

Just like there is a separation between Church and State, there should be a separation between Business and State. Washington is awash in lobbyist, from Congress to the FDA, they are mostly corrupted by special interests. Now if your a member of AARP you probably want a lobbyist fighting for your cause, same for Farmers, NRA, ect, but in the end it just drives Governance farther away from the people.

So my 2 cents comes down to the will of the individual and making an effort to really understand the Constitution, Economics and move Government from Washington you your local area where you can exert your will over it and to reduce the enormous bureaucratic system that now grows so large and detached it is sure to .........?

I doubt many people would argue with me if I said that more people pay more attention to American Idol of their favorite sports team then Politics.

Is there any point to arguing about Romeny and Obama? Maybe, but their individual effect is not all that significant compared to the sum total of Congress and the rest of the Federal Government. The raise for president is more about commercial appeal then it is about substance. The news about the candidates is more tabloid then it is useful fact.

We the people were just fleeced economically on a scale that dwarfs anything that every happened in history before and few in Washington seems to be even slightly interested in doing anything about it. I would not be surprised if it happens again in the near future.
 
Android311 said:
I'm 18, I don't like to talk politics alot because people will view me different if I'm a democrat or a republican, or the opinions that I have
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a good policy to have in my opinion. Talking politics and religion in mixed company can end badly. Don't feel compelled to get caught up in Democrat vs Republican or even liberal vs conservative, the world isn't that black & white even though our system is set up to have us feel that way. The last poll I saw I believe show that about 40% of Americans consider themselves independents and I hope that increases.
 
Trouble for me is that somehow religion has gotten horribly entangled in politics.

I'm a Christian and proud to admit that. Having said that my beliefs are mine and I would not expect to be able to force them on someone else in the guise of politics. I have no problems if someone wants to practice another religion or no religion at all - that's entirely their choice just as being Christian is to me.

The separation of Church and State was an important basis of what the founding fathers wanted. I have to believe they'd weep if they saw what we're like today.
 
"Don't feel compelled to get caught up in Democrat vs Republican or even liberal vs conservative, the world isn't that black & white even though our system is set up to have us feel that way. The last poll I saw I believe show that about 40% of Americans consider themselves independents and I hope that increases."

I agree the Labels do us all a disservice.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Well, you live in a reality where the public unites behind Al Gore. I have no clue what do with that.
Click to expand...

Many officials start actually SERVING the nation after they leave office: Carter and Gore are 2 popular examples.

Both are considered weak politicians but great humanitarians. I don't agree with all of their policies/agendas, but I can accept they try to do good.
 
poluka2000 said:
A Politicians first job is to get Re-elected and his second job is to do the will of the people who got him into office.
Click to expand...

Sad to say that a healthy percentage of politicians ignore the will of the people and employ 'smoke screen' agendas, agendas never meant to pass but only to pretend.
 
Stephanie Cutter: Mitt Romney's Middle Class Tax Increase - YouTube

Romney confirms his tax cuts won't be paid for - The Washington Post

Romney's Tax Plan Mathematically Impossible | I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists

The only reason you should be supporting Romney is if you're a greedy millionaire wanting to build up your fortune further on the backs of the middle class. How in the world have Republicans convinced their voter base to continually vote into power people who want nothing but to screw them over?
 
The Romney Economic Agenda and Its Effect on the Middle Class and Growth: How His Economic Proposals Depend on the Failed Bush Strategy of Enriching the Wealthy at the Expense of Everyone Else | Center for American Progress Action Fund

"It is no exaggeration to say that the linchpin of Romney's economic strategy is to further enrich the richest 1 percent of Americans. Nearly every element of his economic agenda revolves around what would be good for the richest people and the biggest corporations in the United States. This shouldn't truly surprise anyone.

There is no better example of the failure of supply-side economics than the tax policies of President George W. Bush that have been in effect for more than a decade. The Bush tax cuts not only failed to deliver on the promise of broad-based economic growth but also increased inequality and gravely worsened our country's fiscal health. Despite this experience, Romney's tax plan doubles down on the Bush tax cuts, extending all of the most lucrative tax breaks for high-income individuals while promising even larger tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. How large? A Romney administration would give an average tax break of $250,000 for millionaires over and above the Bush tax cuts, provide more than $1 trillion in tax cuts for corporations, and eliminate taxes on large estates. His tax plan is George W. Bush's plan on steroids, vastly more fiscally irresponsible than the Bush tax cuts.

Six of Romney's proposals would directly eliminate jobs from the U.S. economy. These proposals would create tax incentives that encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas, and would undermine growth-enhancing investments in education, science, infrastructure, and health [...] Even assuming a gradual phase-in, the expenditure and public service worker cuts can be expected to cost nearly 450,000 jobs in 2013. In total, by a conservative tally, Romney's plan would actually cost the economy about 360,000 jobs in 2013 alone."

This report goes into great detail about Romney's financially disasterous plans for the country. The price of the Romney plan would be catastrophic, costing $4.9 trillion dollars over the next decade, not including the costs of the Bush tax cuts. I hope that everyone planning to support him reads this very closely.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Well, you live in a reality where the public unites behind Al Gore. I have no clue what do with that.
Click to expand...

Your argument is again against leadership, leaders are often opposed to the existing status quo.

Martin Luther King, (another Nobel Peace Prize recipient) by your definition was divisive, as he opposed the existing status quo.

Gore also made public use of the internet possible, also opposed to the existing status quo.

Gore also enlisted in the military during the Vietnam War, Romney urged others to enlist, but avoided service himself.

Yes, we live in a different reality, mine is based on facts. What is your basis of reality ?
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Your argument is again against leadership, leaders are often opposed to the existing status quo.

Martin Luther King, (another Nobel Peace Prize recipient) by your definition was divisive, as he opposed the existing status quo.

Gore also made public use of the internet possible, also opposed to the existing status quo.

Gore also enlisted in the military during the Vietnam War, Romney urged others to enlist, but avoided service himself.

Yes, we live in a different reality, mine is based on facts. What is your basis of reality ?
Click to expand...

MLK was divisive. So was Lincoln for that matter. I don't see how divisive and leadership are antonyms. The antonym of divisive is unifying. MLK was not unifying. Neither is Gore.

Also, Gore had little to do with making the Internet public. You brought it up, not me.

I don't understand where you get that Gore is a unifying political figure. The polls don't reflect that at all which is why I don't understand your reality.
 
Norquist: Romney Will Do As Told

"All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it."

They don't want someone with experience. They don't want someone with strong leadership abilities, or foreign policy skills, or economic know-how. They want a hollow suit that will do as he's told and sign whatever garbage slides under his nose. They want a puppet, and Romney is the perfect puppet.
 
A.Nonymous said:
MLK was divisive. So was Lincoln for that matter. I don't see how divisive and leadership are antonyms. The antonym of divisive is unifying. MLK was not unifying. Neither is Gore.

Also, Gore had little to do with making the Internet public. You brought it up, not me.

I don't understand where you get that Gore is a unifying political figure. The polls don't reflect that at all which is why I don't understand your reality.
Click to expand...

MLK's views on racial equality have now become the accepted norm. Lincoln's views on a "united" United States became the accepted norm. Gore's views on global warming are now becoming the accepted norm.

Al Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a Senator, Gore began to craft the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill") after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet).[56][57][58] The bill was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway."[59]
 
Your denial of facts and refusal to accept reality is mind boggling to me. It's beyond mind boggling in fact. MLK was not divisive. Yet protests followed him around and he was assassinated. Lincoln was not divisive. Yet he was fairly universally reviled in the south during his lifetime and was killed by a southerner for his political views. But he was not divisive. The fact that their views became accepted after death is irrelevant. Please put the red herring can away.

Also, commercial ISPs showed up in the late 80s before the High Performance Computer Act was passed. But, again, this whole discussion about Al Gore and the Internet is yet another red herring.

Done discussing this with you as you're just denying facts now. You claim Gore is a unifying figure. Yet half the people in the country didn't vote for him. You claim man made global warming is widely accepted yet the polls I've showed you show that only 47% of the country accepts it. And you further claim that a polarizing political figure at the front of a cause doesn't influence public opinion on the cause at all. However, shadowy figures working behind the scenes somehow sway public opinion immensely. Ugh. If you wrote this in a book, no one would believe it as true.

Done with the red herring chasing from me.
 
Rachel_Ambler said:
Trouble for me is that somehow religion has gotten horribly entangled in politics.

I'm a Christian and proud to admit that. Having said that my beliefs are mine and I would not expect to be able to force them on someone else in the guise of politics. I have no problems if someone wants to practice another religion or no religion at all - that's entirely their choice just as being Christian is to me.

The separation of Church and State was an important basis of what the founding fathers wanted. I have to believe they'd weep if they saw what we're like today.
Click to expand...

Seems that way, but the majority of the country is religious. This country was founded on religious principals and the freedom to practice one's religion was very, very important to our founders.

Early on, if you did not attend church, you had a very rough go of it.

Atheists will not likely move into the White House.

You simply cannot separate government, religion and the people. The problem I have is you cannot be a Mormon without some/many Catholics raising hell, citing that the LDS Church is some form of cult. All I have to do is look at the history of any church to see that no church is clean and pure from the horrible things done by church leaders.

This goes for the Mormons, as well as the Catholics

You cannot be something else without a member of a religion saying you follow the wrong church. And you simply cannot trust that our pastors and reverends are decent people. Reverend Wright comes to mind.

For me, any church is the wrong church.

You yourself proudly state that you are a Christian, so you feel the need to point that out to this gathered group. Not saying it is a bad thing, either.

As for the separation of church and state, those words do not appear in our founding documents. I am not saying that you are saying they do; it is just that those words are often misused by those that talk about a document (or documents) they have never read.

The idea our founders had was no state religion.
 
Alright thanks guys :) From now on I will read and listen more rather then post pointless and meaning less info. Maybe thats whats wrong with politics today, we dont really listen and give other people a chance we just stick with our party and never give the other person a chance
 
A.Nonymous said:
Your denial of facts and refusal to accept reality is mind boggling to me. It's beyond mind boggling in fact. MLK was not divisive. Yet protests followed him around and he was assassinated. Lincoln was not divisive. Yet he was fairly universally reviled in the south during his lifetime and was killed by a southerner for his political views. But he was not divisive. The fact that their views became accepted after death is irrelevant. Please put the red herring can away.

Also, commercial ISPs showed up in the late 80s before the High Performance Computer Act was passed. But, again, this whole discussion about Al Gore and the Internet is yet another red herring.

Done discussing this with you as you're just denying facts now. You claim Gore is a unifying figure. Yet half the people in the country didn't vote for him. You claim man made global warming is widely accepted yet the polls I've showed you show that only 47% of the country accepts it. And you further claim that a polarizing political figure at the front of a cause doesn't influence public opinion on the cause at all. However, shadowy figures working behind the scenes somehow sway public opinion immensely. Ugh. If you wrote this in a book, no one would believe it as true.

Done with the red herring chasing from me.
Click to expand...

You're confused as to who was divisive. In MLK case it was those opposed to equal rights and the assassin. The Lincoln case it was those opposed to a United States and the assassin. In the Gore case it was those who have a financial interest in fossil fuel industry that funded propaganda to deny what the overwhelming group of scientist (pole previously provided) were stating that global warming was real and caused by humans.

One pole of the general public who have been lied to by the fossil fuel industry should not distract leaders from acting on the knowledge of those who have expertise of the science. Education is a never ending journey. 70% of the public believe global warming is a reality (pole previously provided), the cause of will be eventually realized once public catches up with the scientist.

Your claim that Gore is divisive on global warming because he won the most popular votes in an election is silly, what the person with the least votes is the least divisive ?

You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

Internet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.[17]

Hobbes' Internet Timeline - the definitive ARPAnet & Internet history

1987
The concept and plan for a national US research and education network is proposed by Gordon Bell et al in a report to the Office of Science and Technology, written in response to a congressional request by Al Gore. (Nov) It would take four years until the establishment of this network by Congress (:gb1:)
 
Last question. Given that the definition of divisive is one who divides, how can half the country hate you but you're not divisive?
 
Bob Maxey said:
... As for the separation of church and state, those words do not appear in our founding documents. I am not saying that you are saying they do; it is just that those words are often misused by those that talk about a document (or documents) they have never read. ...
Click to expand...

Depends on one's definition of founding documents. Source: wikipedia

Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate, signed into law by John Adams.
" As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, ..."

"The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut ..." "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[19]"

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote,[23] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[24]

The founding fathers, or at least those that wrote it believed separation of church and state was the embodied in the Establishment Clause.
 
Android311 said:
Alright thanks guys :) From now on I will read and listen more rather then post pointless and meaning less info. Maybe thats whats wrong with politics today, we dont really listen and give other people a chance we just stick with our party and never give the other person a chance
Click to expand...

I think its one thing to stick with a set of beliefs or moral code but its another altogether more dangerous thing to blindly follow one party or group. Unless you are a politician in which case I'd really rather you toed the party line.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Last question. Given that the definition of divisive is one who divides, how can half the country hate you but you're not divisive?
Click to expand...

You're throwing around the term divisive to any one you disagree with. Someone giving you facts that can be confirmed is not divisive. It's called education.

Calling someone divisive because they run for office is not sufficient.

Killing someone for running for office is sufficient.

Creating or funding fake research is sufficient.

What one should be concerned about is intentional deception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom