2012 USA Election Thread: Obama projected winner

[JALMONT]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/us-israel-africans-idUSBRE85B0IY20120612
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/israel-expels-african-migrants_n_1580684.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-17/...frican-countries-south-sudan?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST
Israel kicks out africans! Just google that. The source on my previous post also had info on Israel killing american citizens.

From what I read, it seemed that they were in Israel illegally. I am pretty sure they aren't being "kicked out" because they are "black." What's the difference between that and the US deporting people who have entered the US illegally?

edit: I only saw the USS Liberty incident as Americans being killed by Israel, and do you honestly think that Israel attacked an American ship on purpose?

To clarify: I am not saying that what Israel is doing is right, I am saying that they aren't being deported because they are "black." I am comparing this to this US because I do not see you saying that the US is a corrupt democracy.

 

[Stagnant]

Voting for Obama.

But honestly, if Ron Paul took it I would be down for that. I've inadvertently watched a lot of media relating to him and he seemed very level headed.

Side note. seeing Obama tommorow omaha/council bluffs. woo

 

[vonFiedler]

From what I read, it seemed that they were in Israel illegally. I am pretty sure they aren't being "kicked out" because they are "black." What's the difference between that and the US deporting people who have entered the US illegally?

Yeah, Israel borders Africa. Only country that does so by land.

 

[Trax]

making money on capital gains is not abusing a loophole. Yes, romney only pays a 15% tax on his income - because all his income is from the stock market, which is taxed 15%!

Why capital gains from shares are not taxed at the same rate as regular income (and capital losses can be used to subtract from income for taxation purposes) is a little beyond me - by the time a company is on the public market it's usually virtually finished growing (relative to inflation and certainly in terms of job growth) anyway.

 

[Stratos]

Why capital gains from shares are not taxed at the same rate as regular income (and capital losses can be used to subtract from income for taxation purposes) is a little beyond me - by the time a company is on the public market it's usually virtually finished growing (relative to inflation and certainly in terms of job growth) anyway.

to encourage investments, which tend to be riskier than hourly wages. it's the whole "greater risk, greater reward" thing.

 

[JALMONT]

Yeah, Israel borders Africa. Only country that does so by land.

wow vonFiedler thank you for catching my egregious mistake! How on earth could i have made a mistake of this magnitude! thank you so much for catching this error.

Sorry to be less vague and more specific, I meant the border with Egypt. Excuse me.

 

[v]

can we keep shitty image macros somewhere that isn't here? rhetorical

 

[Trax]

to encourage investments, which tend to be riskier than hourly wages. it's the whole "greater risk, greater reward" thing.

As I said, allow capital losses to be written off as such -- at that point the only risks are shitty investments and the only rewards are good investments, which is kind of how a free market should work.

Plus it's possible to make vastly more money out of shares (assuming you have capital) than any other means.

 

[elcheeso]

From what I read, it seemed that they were in Israel illegally. I am pretty sure they aren't being "kicked out" because they are "black." What's the difference between that and the US deporting people who have entered the US illegally?

edit: I only saw the USS Liberty incident as Americans being killed by Israel, and do you honestly think that Israel attacked an American ship on purpose?

To clarify: I am not saying that what Israel is doing is right, I am saying that they aren't being deported because they are "black." I am comparing this to this US because I do not see you saying that the US is a corrupt democracy.

Aha, a topic I know a little about! Anyway, they're not really illegal immigrants so much as refugees, which is a pretty strong difference... unless you think sending people back into a war zone is always justified. But even if you ignore all that, saying it's not based in racism seems a little naive, as some of the quotes coming from the politicians involved are basically screaming it. Like this, from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu:

Netanyahu listed "infiltrators" as a threat to the security and identity of a Jewish state. "This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity," he said on May 29.

Or this from Interior Minister Eli Yishai:

Given a choice between being called 'an enlightened liberal' without a Jewish and Zionist state, and being called a ‘benighted racist' but a proud citizen, I choose the latter.

Both from this article. There's a hell of a lot more evidence for it being racially biased as well, including polls where 52% of Israelis agree that Africans are "a cancer", and quotes like, "They've come here to rape and steal," and "We should burn them out, put poison in their food," all from here. Also a video comparing the public's reaction to helping illegal Danish immigrants from being deported to Sudanese ones (I'm sure you can guess what the reaction was). If you're not interested in watching the 40min news report on the whole thing, skip to about 8:04 for the Danish/Sudanese video.

TL;DR: Israel is a lot more blatant about it's racism than the US is. It's probably not enough to call it a corrupt country in and of itself, but it has plenty of other problems and it would be really simplistic to say it's uncorrupt just because it's only country in the area that the US has strong ties to.

Also somewhat related to the threads topic, apparently Romney said that "culture" is why Israel has been so successful compared to Palestine, ha!

 

[Pallas Athena]

My problem with the Paul Ryan budget is effectively my problem with any other budget. While bipartisan in its conception, it would be highly partisan in its execution. If the Republicans did hypothetically "sweep" Washington D.C. and obtain both houses of congress, the White House, and in a few years time the Supreme Court of course roadblocks would be lifted- any party could get something done under these conditions so long as the opposition isn't majorly galvanised against them to form a fierce minority of just enough size to block any initiatives ('08-'10 senate). Seeing how the Democrats lack a major left wing push at the moment, this would be somewhat unlikely in a hypothetical Republican sweep.

Now then, with the Republicans calling all of the shots and knowing it... you can guess where this would go. While Romney could propose all the budget cuts he wants, ultimately the military will see increased spending with tax cuts on the wealthy while welfare programs are left to decline. The fact is, a bipartisan budget would have a snowflake's chance in hell under a Republican sweep, and we would just go back to a good old Republican budget where we still spend more money than we make and program's that the average person can use are scrapped for tax cuts at the top and a trillion dollar+ military. The bipartisan system, for all it's flaws, tends to keep representatives of 55% of the population from having all of the power. I'd rather not see what would happen if a single party earned all control in a time as partisan as this.

Obama is the only way to keep the necessary inefficiency that forces Washington to have some accountability.

Also, the idea that Democrats are "blocking" Republicans in some way is ridiculous. It's a Democratic presidency that also holds one house. I'll go right back at it and say that Republicans are blocking Democrats. It's the inevitable gridlock that comes up from time to time in a two party system and no party is more responsible than the other as both have no desire to negotiate.

 

[Stratos]

My problem with the Paul Ryan budget is effectively my problem with any other budget. While bipartisan in its conception, it would be highly partisan in its execution. If the Republicans did hypothetically "sweep" Washington D.C. and obtain both houses of congress, the White House, and in a few years time the Supreme Court of course roadblocks would be lifted- any party could get something done under these conditions so long as the opposition isn't majorly galvanised against them to form a fierce minority of just enough size to block any initiatives ('08-'10 senate). Seeing how the Democrats lack a major left wing push at the moment, this would be somewhat unlikely in a hypothetical Republican sweep.

Now then, with the Republicans calling all of the shots and knowing it... you can guess where this would go. While Romney could propose all the budget cuts he wants, ultimately the military will see increased spending with tax cuts on the wealthy while welfare programs are left to decline. The fact is, a bipartisan budget would have a snowflake's chance in hell under a Republican sweep, and we would just go back to a good old Republican budget where we still spend more money than we make and program's that the average person can use are scrapped for tax cuts at the top and a trillion dollar+ military. The bipartisan system, for all it's flaws, tends to keep representatives of 55% of the population from having all of the power. I'd rather not see what would happen if a single party earned all control in a time as partisan as this.

Obama is the only way to keep the necessary inefficiency that forces Washington to have some accountability.

Also, the idea that Democrats are "blocking" Republicans in some way is ridiculous. It's a Democratic presidency that also holds one house. I'll go right back at it and say that Republicans are blocking Democrats. It's the inevitable gridlock that comes up from time to time in a two party system and no party is more responsible than the other as both have no desire to negotiate.

the notion wasn't necessarily that the democrats were the only people doing the rejecting of the other party's ideas. However, the fact stands that the Democratic senate has not yet managed to pass a budget, while the house has passed tons of budgets which keep getting shot down in the senate.

Also i find the hypocrisy in this argument hilarious - did you even reread? We saw a highly partisanized congress in '8-'10, and it passed a Health Care package so unpopular it caused the Supreme Court to lose the faith of one tenth of the country when they upheld it. Now that the republicans have a shot at gaining a similar legislative tailwind, you're so dramatically opposed to it that you would prefer absolute gridlock in which our country's debt is spiralling out of control and nothing is getting done? your entire argument contains no logic, but rather just a crippling fear of conservatism based on largely unfounded generalizations.

The notion that a law can be "partisan in implementation" is equally amusing. once congress passes a law, they're bound to the language therein, and as long as it isn't overly vague there is quite a small bit of wiggle room. If the Republicans got a supermajority in both house and senate, the presidency, and nine judges on the supreme court but didn't pass a law repealing ObamaCare, they'd still have to implement it the way the liberals wrote it. Furthermore, i'm more than a little disturbed by your notion that all budgets are bad (but i guess if you go bankrupt and starve to death on the street, it'll keep your misinformed opinions out of the voting booth?)

 

[iDunno]

The notion that a law can be "partisan in implementation" is equally amusing. once congress passes a law, they're bound to the language therein, and as long as it isn't overly vague there is quite a small bit of wiggle room. If the Republicans got a supermajority in both house and senate, the presidency, and nine judges on the supreme court but didn't pass a law repealing ObamaCare, they'd still have to implement it the way the liberals wrote it. Furthermore, i'm more than a little disturbed by your notion that all budgets are bad (but i guess if you go bankrupt and starve to death on the street, it'll keep your misinformed opinions out of the voting booth?)

Well all of the budgets that have been brought up in the House of Representatives by conservatives have been sweeping austerity measures that cut funding to essential programs like education while barely raising taxes by one iota. The day Republicans get serious about bipartisan discussion is the day pigs fly. During the debt ceiling crisis, there were SO MANY times the Democrats compromised on their budgets to please the Republicans. And then even John Boehner said he was about to accept it before his extremist peers took his head and smashed it against the wall. The right, without question, is not right at all.

 

[Pallas Athena]

"Partisan in execution" was reffering more to the idea of a Republican house and senate knowing that whatever budget they make, the Democrats can't block it and Romney won't veto it, as it allows for a single party to effectively dictate the budget. While gridlock is unfortunate, it at least requires compromise. I do not dislike budgets, but I dislike the notion of a single party having effective control if the Republicans earned the senate (inevitable) and White House. I'm also worried that a President (and to a lesser extent, party) seeking to decrease spending while increasing military funding will inevitably lead to major cuts in programs that people actually use without touching the largest source of federal spending.

In short, I'm worried that the Republican party would use their dominance to corrupt an otherwise good budget if they had no resistance. I actually like the Paul Ryan budget, but I could not see it passing in its pure form given the nature of the modern Republican party. And I hate military increases.

 

[Trax]

However, the fact stands that the Democratic senate has not yet managed to pass a budget, while the house has passed tons of budgets which keep getting shot down in the senate.

And anything passed by the senate wouldn't pass the house. It's a gridlock scenario and it's largely irrelevant how many budgets get passed by either because

A) They won't clear the other chamber.

B) In terms of tackling the debt (and not killing the economy in the process), none of the proposals really achieve anything.


The only real solution is to raise taxes and cut military spending heavily, neither side is willing to do that.

 

[Codraroll]

Fun situation where everybody clearly sees what needs to be done, but neither are willing to even propose it because it leads to unpopularity in the short term.

I believe the British term is "You can't pick up a turd by the clean end". The USA needs a "suicide president" (or "suicide presidental period", seeing as the president isn't alone on the job) who gutses in on unpopular, but necessary stuff, and loses the next election by a landslide.

Thing is... not everybody agree on what is necessary and not. And the USA is a little too big of a player internationally to gamble on such stuff.

 

[biggie]

 

[symphonyx64]

The debates start next week, the middle east is burning, and the Obama administration may be on the verge of a coverup regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya 2 weeks ago. Election is ~40 days out.

Discuss.

 

[billymills]

Israel trying to do its best to take Mitt Romney's fuck ups out of the news.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

At this point if Romney won the election, it would be an fucking miracle (well disaster from how you (I) look at it). Romney pretty much outright called 47% of Americans lazy pieces of shit and refuses to even have a civil discourse with them. In Romney's own words "It comes down to that last 5% that decide the vote." I don't know about you, but if I was un-decided someone like that hates almost half of America doesn't seem like a good candidate.

If by some snowball's chance in hell Romney does win, nothing is going to ever get done because an unwavering 47% of Americas will never listen to him at all. You can't do anything with only 53% of the population, even if the president is on your side if the other 47% will never compromise, which he has pretty much set up as a campaign at this point.

 

[Pernicious]

"verge of a coverup" makes no sense lol...either it happened and we know why or it's being covered up

the 47% point up there is inherently ridiculous because the 47% is pretty much a made up number; that's like saying "i can't believe obama called republicans crazy zombies! now they're gonna eat his flesh in revenge!"

also, since when did presidents need the people to cooperate with anything lol...the vast majority of people in power (i.e. elected officials and people with money) would in fact have big incentives to listen to him if he were president

also, i assure you that obama hates the GOP and people that make his job/life awful just as much as romney, he's just not dumb enough to say it or get caught on film saying it. no one needs to love all americans to be president (this is a shitty country anyway and i'm damn sick of jingoism and "american exceptionalism"), they just have to have a decent level of intelligence compassion decisiveness and common sense

for me, at this point i honestly think romney is so stupid and will screw up the country to such an extent that i don't see the point in discussing the pros and cons of the two candidates any more. like, i don't care whatever fucking problems there are with the obama administration, romney is so clearly unfit for this job that i'd rather go with the lesser of two evils, regardless of how many statistics and blog posts we still feel like pulling out of our collective asses

edit: i'm also really looking forward to the debates :)

 

[Stratos]

^the pinnacle of objectivity, not to mention reason edit: i wrote this about billymills but i guess it applies for the most recent two as well. Scarfwynaut, 47% of americans DONT pay income tax, which is easily the #1 source of government revenue. Those 47 would experience almost no downside to increased government welfare, which is the point romney was trying to make. Not to call them "lazy shits". Pernicious and billymills dont even warrant a response lol

I feel like the whole "coverup" thing has been blown out of proportion - the admin just doesn't have a unified message, which i'm pretty sure is the norm by now (who can blame them? The Fed is so inflated that informing every cabinet employee of the official story would take longer than resolving the crisis). Far more worrying to me is the fact that Obama seems rather unfazed by the deaths of the American Ambassador, calling it "a bump in the road" and saying he was afraid to respond too hastily and aggravate the Libyans. A commentator said you can never be too quick to defend your own citizens, and I agree. Whatever the circumstance, killing a diplomat is never ever justifiable and the response should be "those bastards! Why i oughta rip their spleens out" (al-qaeda, not libya)

Edit: lolz ad banner at top of thread reads "democrats voting for Romney!"

 

[symphonyx64]

The fact that its been revealed today that US officials knew it was terrorism after 24 hours of the killing, but the Obama admin and crew has been blaming that Islamic video for the killing in the week following says something. Mixed messages or not, they knew it was terrorism from the very beginning.

 

[Myzozoa]

The fact that its been revealed today that US officials knew it was terrorism after 24 hours of the killing, but the Obama admin and crew has been blaming that Islamic video for the killing in the week following says something. Mixed messages or not, they knew it was terrorism from the very beginning.

Uh, are you asserting that the video and the increased terrorist activity are unrelated? because thats fucking stupid.

 

[symphonyx64]

Uh, are you asserting that the video and the increased terrorist activity are unrelated? because thats fucking stupid.

A video that was released in July that did not have a lot of views at the time of the killing versus it being the anniversary of 9/11, of course I am asserting that. Even the president of Libya is not blaming the video.

 

[billymills]

Does it matter if a small group of organised extremists attacked an embassy because of some video that was posted two months ago (as the story was told) or if a small group of organised extremists attacked an embassy because of some event that happened 11 years ago (which may or may not be more accurate)?

Both are superficial reasons with a host of underlying causes. Lets deal with the causes rather than why the terrorists say they did it.