"Why I refuse to Vote for Barack Obama"

[sd'sker]

Sorry Knapp quick scan and responses, sometimes lead to over sampling....my apologies.

Sker...its the constitution, its been around a long time. And Majority rules is the HOR, the senate is the Minorities rights. checks and balances.

not going to lie, i do not get knapp's reference.

 

look, i know what i am proposing seems extreme. but i think the senate does more harm than good.

 

majority rules means we vote to decide things, minority rights mean blacks can vote and the majority can not vote to take that away. checks and balances come from the three branches.

 

reallocate the hor to make it more proportional, i do not know. i just know that we could get by with a better system that does not involve the senate. this is a states' rights solution, at its base. here is a good article: link.

[carlfense]

I suspected that somebody may be parsing words and trying to link the general intent of my post to an exact word for word quote from Obama. So....when Obama, all within the same advertisement, talks about the top 1% getting breaks, claims that Romney will raise taxes by about $2,000 on the middle class, and then claims "this is what got us in this mess in the first place", what message exactly do you think he is intending to get across? Do you feel those 2 issues are what caused this mess? I'm not asking if you think there are some tax code issues that need to be fixed because I agree that there are. Do you think the average person who watches the boob tube every night understands the difference?

I don't know about parsing words . . . I haven't seen anything that looks remotely like what you were arguing.

 

Has Obama said that Romney's tax plan would necessarily raise taxes on the middle class? I'm sure.

Has Obama said that Romney's tax plan would give tax breaks to the top 1%? I'm sure.

Has Obama said that those two things are what got us into this mess in the first place? I don't think so. I'd certainly be interested if you can provide an example.

[JJ Husker]

I suspected that somebody may be parsing words and trying to link the general intent of my post to an exact word for word quote from Obama. So....when Obama, all within the same advertisement, talks about the top 1% getting breaks, claims that Romney will raise taxes by about $2,000 on the middle class, and then claims "this is what got us in this mess in the first place", what message exactly do you think he is intending to get across? Do you feel those 2 issues are what caused this mess? I'm not asking if you think there are some tax code issues that need to be fixed because I agree that there are. Do you think the average person who watches the boob tube every night understands the difference?

I don't know about parsing words . . . I haven't seen anything that looks remotely like what you were arguing.

 

Has Obama said that Romney's tax plan would necessarily raise taxes on the middle class? I'm sure.

Has Obama said that Romney's tax plan would give tax breaks to the top 1%? I'm sure.

Has Obama said that those two things are what got us into this mess in the first place? I don't think so. I'd certainly be interested if you can provide an example.

Maybe I think too much and apply more logic than I should. I assume that when those are the major talking points within one 30 second ad, and there is no mention of anything else that could be construed to have "caused this mess in the first place" (yes- I have that phrase down word for word) then it his intention to claim that primarily the tax code under republicans (or anyone but him) is what caused the financial turmoil. No mention of any deregulation or lack of government oversight basically just that people with lots of money are the problem. And absolutely no mention of social engineering policies (put in place by our government, primarily I believe by dems). Like I said, maybe I am just too biased and tainted to be able to ignore what he is really doing.

 

If somebody gives you a brief synopsis of a recent NU football game, which you didn't see, saying "The defense and special teams played terrible, the offense played well, the opponent was weak, we lost the game" would it not be logical to assume we lost because of the way the defense and special teams played?

[knapplc]

Maybe I think too much and apply more logic than I should. I assume that when those are the major talking points within one 30 second ad, and there is no mention of anything else that could be construed to have "caused this mess in the first place" (yes- I have that phrase down word for word) then it his intention to claim that primarily the tax code under republicans (or anyone but him) is what caused the financial turmoil. No mention of any deregulation or lack of government oversight basically just that people with lots of money are the problem. And absolutely no mention of social engineering policies (put in place by our government, primarily I believe by dems). Like I said, maybe I am just too biased and tainted to be able to ignore what he is really doing.

 

If somebody gives you a brief synopsis of a recent NU football game, which you didn't see, saying "The defense and special teams played terrible, the offense played well, the opponent was weak, we lost the game" would it not be logical to assume we lost because of the way the defense and special teams played?

 

 

That may not be the intent of the ad (and personally I doubt it is), but I think we'd all agree that the Obama adsters wouldn't mind one bit if you walked away from that ad with that impression. Anything you take from an Obama ad that's negative about Romney is good for Team Obama, true or not. Same goes in reverse, of course.

 

Without seeing the ad it's hard to say anything about it. Perhaps it is a bit confusing, and perhaps that confusion isn't an accident. Who knows.

[strigori]

Are you guys really trying to tell me you have not seen these ads where Obama is constantly claiming that a vote for Romney is in effect a vote for "what caused this mess in the first place". Honestly, they are airing them here every night, multiple times per hour. I am sick of them and I'm being rather proactive at trying to avoid them.

I have definitely seen ads claiming that a vote for Romney is a vote for what caused this mess in the first place.

 

That said, I haven't seen any ads that show this:

 

He is very clear to identify the top 1%, claim that Romney will give that 1% tax breaks while raising the burden on the middle class and THAT is what got us into this mess in the first place.

I suspected that somebody may be parsing words and trying to link the general intent of my post to an exact word for word quote from Obama. So....when Obama, all within the same advertisement, talks about the top 1% getting breaks, claims that Romney will raise taxes by about $2,000 on the middle class, and then claims "this is what got us in this mess in the first place", what message exactly do you think he is intending to get across? Do you feel those 2 issues are what caused this mess? I'm not asking if you think there are some tax code issues that need to be fixed because I agree that there are. Do you think the average person who watches the boob tube every night understands the difference?

I think the current tax code has damaged the economy. Not necessarily the income tax percentage, but the tax rate on capital gains. That is where the problem is.

 

Romney and his ilk like using the term 'job creators' for the 1% for justification on why capital gains should be taxed ad a fraction of the rate of the rest of income. Now as capital gains are at an all time low tax rate, where are the jobs? The Dow is hitting record highs. Where are the jobs? Companies are sitting on unprecedented amounts of capital. Where are the jobs? And the 1% 'job creators' fortunes are growing at epic rates, while the mean incomes are back to the early '90s. If that's not 'class warfare' I don't know where else to start to explain it.

 

Its as simple as right men looking out for themselves. Not what is best to turn around the economy. I've said it before, if the 1% and mega companies wanted to right the economy they could almost over night, but it wont happen. Greed is now a virtue, one readily embraced, and defended, by those who call themselves 'Christian.'

[strigori]

Come on both of you, you can not be serious. So now majority rules is fine. Let the cities and big states control everything. Please that is what the HOR's is for. You want to stop filibusters, fine I agree, make them illegal. But getting rid of one of our checks and balances is outrageous. I am seriously dumbfounded. Why don't we just stream line our whole government then, vote in a King for 25 years, who controls everything. There you go no more bureaucracy, and no more gridlock, or obstruction.

i do not think it is. it has always been majority rules with minority rights.

Without the Senate, you would have minority rights vanish. Quickly. The Senate has generally been the more 'statesman' chamber, while the House tends to lean to the overly emotional, unthinking ranks. The terms of each office help with that.

 

The problem isnt the structure of the checks and balances, the problem is there are a lot of asshats sitting in the chairs right now.

[carlfense]

I suspected that somebody may be parsing words and trying to link the general intent of my post to an exact word for word quote from Obama. So....when Obama, all within the same advertisement, talks about the top 1% getting breaks, claims that Romney will raise taxes by about $2,000 on the middle class, and then claims "this is what got us in this mess in the first place", what message exactly do you think he is intending to get across? Do you feel those 2 issues are what caused this mess? I'm not asking if you think there are some tax code issues that need to be fixed because I agree that there are. Do you think the average person who watches the boob tube every night understands the difference?

I don't know about parsing words . . . I haven't seen anything that looks remotely like what you were arguing.

 

Has Obama said that Romney's tax plan would necessarily raise taxes on the middle class? I'm sure.

Has Obama said that Romney's tax plan would give tax breaks to the top 1%? I'm sure.

Has Obama said that those two things are what got us into this mess in the first place? I don't think so. I'd certainly be interested if you can provide an example.

Maybe I think too much and apply more logic than I should. I assume that when those are the major talking points within one 30 second ad, and there is no mention of anything else that could be construed to have "caused this mess in the first place" (yes- I have that phrase down word for word) then it his intention to claim that primarily the tax code under republicans (or anyone but him) is what caused the financial turmoil. No mention of any deregulation or lack of government oversight basically just that people with lots of money are the problem. And absolutely no mention of social engineering policies (put in place by our government, primarily I believe by dems). Like I said, maybe I am just too biased and tainted to be able to ignore what he is really doing.

 

If somebody gives you a brief synopsis of a recent NU football game, which you didn't see, saying "The defense and special teams played terrible, the offense played well, the opponent was weak, we lost the game" would it not be logical to assume we lost because of the way the defense and special teams played?

We don't need analogies . . . if these ads are as common as you are saying someone will find one and post it.

 

I don't think that they exist.

 

I have definitely seen an Obama ad saying that Romney wants to return us to the policies that got us here in the first place but I think that the ad focused on Wall St. and regulation and not taxes. Is there a chance that you're taking parts from different ads and mixing them up? I think I've seen each element that you're describing but I don't think that I've seen them all in the same ad.

[sd'sker]

Come on both of you, you can not be serious. So now majority rules is fine. Let the cities and big states control everything. Please that is what the HOR's is for. You want to stop filibusters, fine I agree, make them illegal. But getting rid of one of our checks and balances is outrageous. I am seriously dumbfounded. Why don't we just stream line our whole government then, vote in a King for 25 years, who controls everything. There you go no more bureaucracy, and no more gridlock, or obstruction.

i do not think it is. it has always been majority rules with minority rights.

Without the Senate, you would have minority rights vanish. Quickly. The Senate has generally been the more 'statesman' chamber, while the House tends to lean to the overly emotional, unthinking ranks. The terms of each office help with that.

 

The problem isnt the structure of the checks and balances, the problem is there are a lot of asshats sitting in the chairs right now.

when i think of minority rights, i think of what the supreme court protects. bill of rights, right. i do agree that the senate was constructed to be more level headed and slow moving while the hor is to be more reactionary. but i think there is something wrong with a system where california, new york, texas, have equal representation as wyoming, idaho, rhode island.

[JJ Husker]

 

We don't need analogies . . . if these ads are as common as you are saying someone will find one and post it.

 

I don't think that they exist.

 

I have definitely seen an Obama ad saying that Romney wants to return us to the policies that got us here in the first place but I think that the ad focused on Wall St. and regulation and not taxes. Is there a chance that you're taking parts from different ads and mixing them up? I think I've seen each element that you're describing but I don't think that I've seen them all in the same ad.

 

That could be possible. I'll try to pay closer attention next time but, I have to admit, when these political ads come on I tend to automatically tune them out. My wife claims I am really good at that.

[Comish]

JJ, I never watch live TV, and I never watch commercials. The only time I do is when I'm cooking and my hands are too messy to grab the remote and fast-forward. So I haven't seen any ads at all that stick out, except for those stupid auto insurance ads with the dark-haired woman in the white room. Her name is Flo, I have no idea what company she pitches for, but if I find out I'll be sure to never buy insurance from them. Any company with the kind of money for advertising they have must charge exorbitant rates.

Now that is funny. She pitches for Progressive Insurance which is owned by Progressive Corporation whose Chairman is Peter Lewis, a co-invester in many liberal projects with George Soros. They have given multiple millions to the ACLU (American Communist Lawyer's Union) and moveon.org which announced a 1.5 million gift to BO's campaign today.

[Comish]

you are not going to get an american president with a humanitarian foreign policy. it is despicable, but true.

 

as for everyone criticizing obama as the lesser of two evils, that is a little extreme. first, what the hell does romney stand for? someone, please tell me, on any issue what does he stand for? seriously.

 

second, i think if we are honest with ourselves, we all know the real problem is congress; specifically the senate, it should not exist.

 

finally, whoever does win this election is going to get credit for fixing the economy, because it will happen on his watch. and the economy is turning.

 

Let me get this straight, you want to get rid of the US Senate?

 

And what part of Obama's foreign policy is humanitarian?

yes, the senate is undemocratic, unresponsive, and unnecessary.

 

and i said no president's foreign policy is humanitarian.

 

Misunderstood your Presidential foreign policy jab...my mistake.

 

The Senate is a part of the balance of power in the government, without it smaller states would get railroaded into submission. Do I like the way senators work? Nope, I think they are all pompous idiots, but that is because we as voters have allowed them to be. We have continued to vote for party instead of for reason. Blindly voting for a candidate because he/she is an incumbent and the same party you affiliate with is poor citizenship. (this rant directed at the USA not at any one poster)

i agree. but i think the senate has outlived its usefulness. i get the balance argument, but idaho has as much representation as california. that seems extreme. also, the senate is the reason for so much of the gridlock. one senator can halt everything and minority parties just default to obstruction. also, senators are the most entrenched.

You do recall from early government/history/civics classes that a huge source of contention among the founders was trying to find a balance between equal representation and sheer numbers/size? Many small states were justifiably worried that they would be powerless. So, the balance was struck that gave equal representation to ALL states in the Senate and proportional representation to the House. The Senate was seen as the more deliberate and substantial body, but it has devolved into such a parliamentary quagmire that true power is held by those most well versed in it's byzantine procedures, and that generally accrues do to seniority.

Rather than jettisoning the Senate, why not change the parliamentary procedures into bold transparency and get rid of all ammendments NOT specifically pertinent to a bill?

[knapplc]

JJ, I never watch live TV, and I never watch commercials. The only time I do is when I'm cooking and my hands are too messy to grab the remote and fast-forward. So I haven't seen any ads at all that stick out, except for those stupid auto insurance ads with the dark-haired woman in the white room. Her name is Flo, I have no idea what company she pitches for, but if I find out I'll be sure to never buy insurance from them. Any company with the kind of money for advertising they have must charge exorbitant rates.

Now that is funny. She pitches for Progressive Insurance which is owned by Progressive Corporation whose Chairman is Peter Lewis, a co-invester in many liberal projects with George Soros. They have given multiple millions to the ACLU (American Communist Lawyer's Union) and moveon.org which announced a 1.5 million gift to BO's campaign today.

 

And suddenly we're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Ok....

[Comish]

JJ, I never watch live TV, and I never watch commercials. The only time I do is when I'm cooking and my hands are too messy to grab the remote and fast-forward. So I haven't seen any ads at all that stick out, except for those stupid auto insurance ads with the dark-haired woman in the white room. Her name is Flo, I have no idea what company she pitches for, but if I find out I'll be sure to never buy insurance from them. Any company with the kind of money for advertising they have must charge exorbitant rates.

Now that is funny. She pitches for Progressive Insurance which is owned by Progressive Corporation whose Chairman is Peter Lewis, a co-invester in many liberal projects with George Soros. They have given multiple millions to the ACLU (American Communist Lawyer's Union) and moveon.org which announced a 1.5 million gift to BO's campaign today.

 

And suddenly we're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Ok....

As always..........just trying to help.........

[CornHOLIO]

This is BEYOND the lesser of two evils.

I'm even thinking of voting for the one that's guaranteed to have the shortest term (the incumbant's 4yrs vs. the Mormon's 8)

[JJ Husker]

I thought I was going to vote for Romney, what I felt was the lesser of two evils. However, the more I think about it, I just may not vote at all. Neither candidate has earned my vote and I am extremely disappointed in the Romney campaign. How in the hell can the republicans be so inept that they fail to seize this opportunity. With Obama's economic track record, if you can't make this election a referendum on his presidency, you're probably too inept to do any good even if you were elected. I am extremely disillusioned with our political system. We seem to encourage retarded liars to run for office and then we pick the worst to actually serve. It's so F'd up, words can't describe it. Obama, Romney, the repubs, and the dems can all kiss my ass.