2012 Presidential Campaign - Obama vs. Romney

[carlfense]

And I'm assuming that you wouldn't define him as being different. Why do you define him as not different? Curious.

I don't think his ideas were particularly radical (as compared to someone like Ron Paul.)

[308_Husker]

I find myself gravitating more and more towards Ron Paul. Four years ago, I thought very differenty, but now, I'm beginning to like the guy more and more. Especially after his debate in Iowa.

[carlfense]

I find myself gravitating more and more towards Ron Paul. Four years ago, I thought very differenty, but now, I'm beginning to like the guy more and more. Especially after his debate in Iowa.

I agree with a lot of his social and foreign policy positions but that's about the extent of my support for him. I do admire his conviction . . . but his earmarks/pork seem at odds with his rhetoric.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I guess my whole point in this is we've been too run of the mill in our Presidency where its the same Republican motto against the same Democrat motto. And outside of Clinton, who is an outlier, our country hasn't been experiencing much success.

 

So maybe it's time to try something different.

 

And I suppose its up to definition who one would define radical...I think his ideas are just merely different.

[knapplc]

And even with Clinton, you can't exactly blame the country's success on him. That was more industry's doing than Clinton's.

 

 

 

BTW - latest Reuter's poll shows that Obama would beat Gingrich 51-38 (%) right now, and Obama would beat Romney 48-40. And this is while they're holding their debates and up front in the public eye. It's possible Obama sticks his foot in his mouth during the presidential debates, but I doubt it.

 

2007, take two.

[carlfense]

I guess my whole point in this is we've been too run of the mill in our Presidency where its the same Republican motto against the same Democrat motto. And outside of Clinton, who is an outlier, our country hasn't been experiencing much success.

 

So maybe it's time to try something different.

 

And I suppose its up to definition who one would define radical...I think his ideas are just merely different.

If Clinton is a little different then I would argue that Paul is at least very different or radical.

 

Some of Ron Paul's more radical beliefs:

He wants to abolish Homeland Security, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the Departments of Energy and Education and the FBI.

He is opposed to the Civil Rights Act.

Etc.

 

You may agree with those views . . . but it's hard to argue that they aren't radical.

[Sub-Husker]

I guess my whole point in this is we've been too run of the mill in our Presidency where its the same Republican motto against the same Democrat motto. And outside of Clinton, who is an outlier, our country hasn't been experiencing much success.

 

So maybe it's time to try something different.

 

And I suppose its up to definition who one would define radical...I think his ideas are just merely different.

 

And even with Clinton, you can't exactly blame the country's success on him. That was more industry's doing than Clinton's.

 

I would say that Clinton's success was due to the opening of third world markets for exploitation, after the Cold War had ended. Clinton and industry just rode the wave.

 

BTW - latest Reuter's poll shows that Obama would beat Gingrich 51-38 (%) right now, and Obama would beat Romney 48-40. And this is while they're holding their debates and up front in the public eye. It's possible Obama sticks his foot in his mouth during the presidential debates, but I doubt it.

+

 

The best challenge to Obama would be the Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul, with the Progressive Dennis Kucinich as his VP.

[Sub-Husker]

I don't think [Clinton's] ideas were particularly radical (as compared to someone like Ron Paul.)

 

Bill Clinton was a typical neoliberal, and had the same financial and foreign policy positions as Bush(41) and Bush(43).

[carlfense]

I don't think [Clinton's] ideas were particularly radical (as compared to someone like Ron Paul.)

 

Bill Clinton was a typical neoliberal, and had the same financial and foreign policy positions as Bush(41) and Bush(43).

What? Bush I and II each initiated massive ground wars. Bush II changed Clinton's surpluses into massive deficits. Where exactly do you think they are similar?

[Sub-Husker]

I don't think [Clinton's] ideas were particularly radical (as compared to someone like Ron Paul.)

 

Bill Clinton was a typical neoliberal, and had the same financial and foreign policy positions as Bush(41) and Bush(43).

 

What? Bush I and II each initiated massive ground wars. Bush II changed Clinton's surpluses into massive deficits. Where exactly do you think they are similar?

 

Foreign Policy is more than the initiation of ground wars (which Democrats backed). Clinton did not change (for the better) any of Bush(41)'s policies toward Iraq.

 

If you believe that the policy was different, where specifically?

 

Regarding the budget, Clinton took full advantage of the end of the Cold War. Bush(43) mad a major change in taxation, but Clinton had also took smaller steps in that direction. Clinton was also big on derugulation. There were some differences here, but not much.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I think it's time to shake things up because honestly rarely anything has gotten better under the current policies proposed by either party. It's like Shawn Watson's offense trying to fit a square peg into a triangular hole.

 

I think Ron Paul is trying to initiate the economy wide change that this nation is in desperate need of. Radical or not...I think it's worth it to give it a go. If we never try, the answer is always the same.

[carlfense]

I don't think [Clinton's] ideas were particularly radical (as compared to someone like Ron Paul.)

 

Bill Clinton was a typical neoliberal, and had the same financial and foreign policy positions as Bush(41) and Bush(43).

 

What? Bush I and II each initiated massive ground wars. Bush II changed Clinton's surpluses into massive deficits. Where exactly do you think they are similar?

 

Foreign Policy is more than the initiation of ground wars (which Democrats backed). Clinton did not change (for the better) any of Bush(41)'s policies toward Iraq.

 

If you believe that the policy was different, where specifically?

 

Regarding the budget, Clinton took full advantage of the end of the Cold War. Bush(43) mad a major change in taxation, but Clinton had also took smaller steps in that direction. Clinton was also big on derugulation. There were some differences here, but not much.

You say that Clinton made smaller steps but he did balance the budget. The US was running a surplus. Period. Full stop. Bush(43) embraced GOP rhetoric that tax cuts boost the economy and instead changed the surplus into record deficits. (Not to mention that the economy took an enormous hit with those tax cuts in place.)

 

Why, exactly, would we limit the foreign policy discussion to a single area where Bush(41) and Clinton were in agreement? (Other than it would support your argument, of course.) In fact, two can play at that game. Bush(43) favored massive ground invasions whereas Clinton used missile/airstrikes and more surgical force.

 

If you believe that the policy was the same, where specifically? (Tongue in cheek. Sorry.)

[Sub-Husker]

You say that Clinton made smaller steps but he did balance the budget. The US was running a surplus. Period. Full stop. Bush(43) embraced GOP rhetoric that tax cuts boost the economy and instead changed the surplus into record deficits. (Not to mention that the economy took an enormous hit with those tax cuts in place.)

 

Why, exactly, would we limit the foreign policy discussion to a single area where Bush(41) and Clinton were in agreement? (Other than it would support your argument, of course.) In fact, two can play at that game. Bush(43) favored massive ground invasions whereas Clinton used missile/airstrikes and more surgical force.

 

If you believe that the policy was the same, where specifically? (Tongue in cheek. Sorry.)

 

You've asked some good questions that require more than a fluff answer from memory.

 

Perhaps tonight I will be able to look up some good responses for you.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Common sense is all relative, many believe it should be common sense to balance the budget. Many social policies are common sense to each side of the debate. In this day and age I do not believe there is any common sense but only partisan rhetoric.

 

Why is a balanced budget common sense? I am most interested to hear an argument from a Ron Paul supporter, or anyone else really, enumerating specific benefits of a balanced federal budget via spending cuts. Or even better, why immediate large spending cuts reaching for an arbitrary goal (like a balanced budget) would be more beneficial than large short term debt with a sustainable long term debt trajectory. That latter of which, coincidentally of course, is Obama's position.

 

And I would like to hear any other republican candidate supporter's reasons to how they would balance the budget.

 

Typical run of the mill hasn't balanced the budget. We're only doomed to follow the same line with the same process of thought.

Actually, Bill Clinton more than balanced the budget.

 

Actually Clinton went screaming and kicking to a balanced budget. He wanted socialized health care and was a big spending lib. until the slaughter in the midterm elections. Clinton knew he was in trouble and started working with the pub congress. Clinton got the credit as it should be but he was not the balanced budget guy that everyone knows. He moved to the center aftere the midterm elections and eventually got reelcted rather easily. BO should learn a lesson or two from BC.

 

And just from a few posts after "the balanced budget is common sense" post shows how common sense is so relative to one's belief nowadays. There is no such thing as common sense anymore.

[carlfense]

You say that Clinton made smaller steps but he did balance the budget. The US was running a surplus. Period. Full stop. Bush(43) embraced GOP rhetoric that tax cuts boost the economy and instead changed the surplus into record deficits. (Not to mention that the economy took an enormous hit with those tax cuts in place.)

 

Why, exactly, would we limit the foreign policy discussion to a single area where Bush(41) and Clinton were in agreement? (Other than it would support your argument, of course.) In fact, two can play at that game. Bush(43) favored massive ground invasions whereas Clinton used missile/airstrikes and more surgical force.

 

If you believe that the policy was the same, where specifically? (Tongue in cheek. Sorry.)

 

You've asked some good questions that require more than a fluff answer from memory.

 

Perhaps tonight I will be able to look up some good responses for you.

I'll try to do the same. It's interesting to think that Clinton's policies were largely the same as his predecessor and successor but with more success. I wonder why that was? Especially impressive considering the impeachment scandal.