US Election Debate

There seems to be a lot of pent up emotion over the upcoming Presidential election on Sharenator, resulting in a lot of posts meant to not be debate posts (I am guilty of this too) becoming debate posts. So, seeing a need for people to present their cases...

Debate away! However, debate with stipulations:

1. Be civil. People say this a lot. But actually be civil here.
2. Use sources. If you dispute or provide a fact, include a source, especially if that fact is disputed. Unsourced facts are meaningless here.
3. Listen to what people have to say. Avoid making the same post over and over again.
4. Do not copy and paste large pieces of text from another website as a replacement for your argument. You may quote and cite, but do not verbatim steal an argument, points, or attempt to overwhelm others with walls of text. Allow others the chance to respond to you and your argument.
5. Do your best to avoid videos, unless used as evidenced. This is along the same line as copying and pasting others' arguments.
6. Internet memes are not arguments.

I think that's it. Not being a mod or anything, it will be hard for me to police most of it, but I trust anyone posting will abide by the above rules. Thanks, and let's dooooooo this thing.
66edd4bf457d321d1e0f6a706700f451 - us election debate

You might be interested

Comments

Reply Attach
  • 3

    The picture you attached to your original post says more about the election than any amount of words ever could. They're both just pointing fingers at each other. After watching several debates, I am still yet to hear how either of these two fools plan to help the country. However, given Obama's track record, I think it's time for someone else to step in. He had his chance and he blew it, big time.

    Reply
  • 2

    Now that I've at least had a couple ratings, I feel legitimized in starting things off.

    I voted for Obama. A large reason for this is that I have a hard time believing that any candidate who has to knowingly, consistently, and publicly lie will be a good leader. Currently, Romney is spouting the downright lie that Chrysler is sending all Jeep jobs to China. This is blatantly false, as confirmed by Chrysler.
    He is also making the claim that Obama removed the work requirement(s) from Welfare. This is also blatantly false. Romney has been called out on both of these lies by national media outlets, yet refuses to acknowledge any mistake, pull ads, or stop campaigning on them.

    And you are insane, but not by my definition.
    - johnecash November 1, 2012, 10:55 am
    Read the OP. Your comment added nothing to the discussion, had no explanation, and was not civil. Please try again.
    - Logos385 November 1, 2012, 11:05 am
    Ok your vote is inane according to my old friend Albert. If you have an issue with it, please take it up with the Albert, its his words not mine.
    - johnecash November 1, 2012, 11:09 am
    You too need to read the OP. You did not cite sources for your disputes.
    - TheGuyOnTheCouch November 1, 2012, 3:18 pm
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    Albert Einstein So according to Einstein if you vote for Obama and expect different results you are insane.
    - johnecash November 1, 2012, 3:42 pm
    First of all, you are still quoting Einstein to a Physics major. I know what Einstein said. Einstein was not right about everything and disavowed the entirety of Quantum Theory, in which you actually CAN get different results by doing the same thing twice. Often.

    Besides that completely irrelevant quote, Obama is a changing man with evolving viewpoints (i.e. stance on gay marriage) and our country is changing and evolving (i.e. Unemployment numbers, Auto Industry boom, etc). With a changing man and a changing country, and hopefully with a changing opposition climate (let's go supermajority!), your irrelevant quote becomes even more irrelevant. Please find a new argument.
    - Logos385 November 1, 2012, 5:43 pm
    Please find some citations for your claims. Something along the lines of, uncited sources are meaningless in this discussion (Rule #2) so please cite the sources of your information or they will not be taken seriously.
    - TheGuyOnTheCouch November 1, 2012, 6:08 pm
    EDIT: For some reason most of the text has turned into a link. I can't seem to fix it. At least the links and text are there.

    If this is directed at me, the source for the first issue is Chrysler itself.
    http://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do;jsessionid=9DE26385EEC2157C184F2BD047437B7E?id=1950&p=entry
    That is a statement from Chrysler's CEO refuting Romney.

    For the second, Romney's the one making the positive claim, so the burden of proof is his. The real "citation" I should have to make is that there is an utter lack of evidence for his claim. But, because I can: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/politics/fact-check-welfare/index.html
    - Logos385 November 1, 2012, 8:19 pm
    I have to quote it to you because it appears its a lesson that you have yet to learn. That is wonderful you are a physics major and does not have anything to do with the application of the quote no matter how much you might like. Now my self on the other hand. I got my MBA in 04, have been a certified commercial appraiser since 2010, have my MAI designation. Of the 4700 appraisers that were around when Obama took office in 08, I am one of the 1700 still around today. So I am happy you are learning physics. When we are having a physics discussion I'll ask your college student opinion. Buy you see as an appraiser I am payed, and payed well, to compare and value real and personal property. So this is what I do for a living, this is not what I am learning about in school. We have 4 years of comps to appraise Obama by, and his Value is shit. You can't get over the fact that not matter how much you want Obama to, he can't work with the other party. A quagmire is not helpful to economic recovery. But it does make sense that a college student will pull for Obama. The real world does not affect you as it does people with a mortgage. So once again I remind you of a lession you have appeared not to have learned yet. Doing the same thing over and over and hoping for different results is insane. We know what he wants to do, and we we know of what he wants to do what he can do working with both sides. To assume the 2nd term would be any less of a disaster is insane. If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain. One day you will understand this.
    - johnecash November 2, 2012, 9:51 am
    Discounting my education and opinion is not an argument. An appraiser appraises real estate and/or products (generally). To "appraise" a person, and say that you do that as a living, is ludicrous.

    "No matter how much you want Obama to, he can't work with the other party."
    Currently, Chris Christie and Obama are singing each other's praises and working in a bipartisan manner, for instance. Aside from that, we have been over this, and you fail to address my argument. In the case that a President and a Congress have issues working together, it is the fault of either the President or the Congress. So, we must look at the evidence. The evidence (cloture votes) shows that we have the single most obstructionist minority (group of Congressional Republicans) ever. Furthermore, we have many statements and former situations in which Obama shows express desire to work in a bipartisan manner. So, we have a President who would like to work across the aisle, but is met with a party who has one goal: to run him out of office, even if that means hurting America. That's what they tried to do, and I seriously doubt it is going to work.

    Finally, saying I have "no brain," or that my mother, more specifically, has "no brain," or that many, many adults in America have, "no brain," just for being liberal beyond an arbitrary cutoff age? Disgraceful. Not civil. Unsupported by any kind of rational thought.
    - Logos385 November 2, 2012, 11:10 am
    Your Chrysler claim is just as misleading as the ad campaign by Romney. The advertisement you are referring to states "GM cut 15,000 American jobs but they are planning to double the amount of cars built in China, meaning 15,000 more jobs for China". (Script from huffington post) The advertisement is leading Americans to believe that the jobs will be outsourced. The truth is actually that given a fair reading of the script, the statement is true. Armed with the knowledge that the vehicles created in China are for the Asia market and will not be shipped to the Americas. (Bloomburg article discussing Asia's market)

    So the Advertisement by Romney is actually true, however misleading.

    Your claim on Romney and welfare is mostly warranted. The advertisement by the Romney Campaign states "you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job". Which is already mostly true since only 29% of those on welfare qualified the requirements to work. The plan Obama enacted enabled States to submit a waiver from Federal work participation requirements. In return, States would have to submit performance measures showing that the States plan to move those on welfare that met work requirements to employment was working. So while the Romney campaign did twist the facts, using conjecture to hypothesize it's claim, *could* be true if the individual State did not do its job.
    - TheGuyOnTheCouch November 2, 2012, 12:34 pm
    I am not referring to the ad. I am referring to the candidate's actual words:
    "Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.”
    http://m.factcheck.org/2012/10/romney-distorts-facts-on-jeep-auto-bailout/
    - Logos385 November 2, 2012, 12:45 pm
    I am not discounting your education. I give you all the props in the world for your studies, I give you as much as any other college student, but not as much as some one with a degree. Or some one who has mastered that degree with say . . . and MBA. Or some one who is an expect in any field who has their Doc Degree. None the less another wonderful issue to bring up would be your degree does not help you understand this election or the economics any better, and MBA does though.
    Yes Chris Christie and Obama are working together . . . for a natural disaster. Natural disasters will get people to work together for the relief effort. That is it, no more, no less.
    Lets take your argument for a spin around logic town and see even by your own logic would Obama be able to help the US.

    Using your "logic" that we have a President who would like to work across the aisle, but is met with a party who has one goal: to run him out of office, even if that means hurting America. The first thing you seem to not understand is that the excuse you gave me is, a reason why they can't work together. True or not, it does not help your cause if Obama can't work with the other side. The party who has one goal; to run him out of office, even if that means hurting America, . . . . they are still going to be here. They are not leaving. This election is about the president least you forget.
    So that leaves you for the next two years, until the congressional vote, Obama working with a party who has one goal: to run him out of office, even if that means hurting America. So for the next two years nothing is going to change with the republicans. So you are trying, for the sake of YOUR political party, put a square peg in a round hole (according to your "a party who has one goal: to run him out of office, even if that means hurting America" theory). So Obama gets elected and now nothing changes. Good for YOUR party, bad for the nation. Don't believe me, just look at the last fours years, look at the median income from 08 to today. Its down about 10% when it should be up by 15%. So in short, following your logic, why are you trying to put a square peg in a round hole? So far it has not worked. Why do the same falling thing over and over and expect it to be different, that's insane.

    Finally I am sorry you have issues with Winston Churchill. My only suggestion for bringing up something he said that my be offensive to his next of kin. He was the one who said "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain." Not me.
    - johnecash November 2, 2012, 12:54 pm
    I'm sorry, but your take on the situation of the President vs. Minority disconnect just doesn't make sense. When something is the fault of a certain party (not in a political sense, "party" as in group of people or rational actor), that party bears the burden of altering their course of action to fix the issue. I believe Obama has a superior vision for America, and can provide our country a better future. Thus, my vote for Obama is not a vote for the party, but for America. In the event that the Congress is still obstructionist, I hope that Obama is much more hard-headed and progressive in his second term, which is generally how second terms work for (democratic) Presidents. To suggest that my vote should go towards the party that is stalling the country, BECAUSE they are stalling the country, makes no sense.

    Yes, but you used his words in a discussion, suggesting that you support them. You can't just drop a quote and then not attempt to back it up. And yes, I have issues with that quote, as stated above.
    - Logos385 November 2, 2012, 1:34 pm
    You seem to be living in a dream world. A world where what Obama tells you he is going to do, and then it gets done. I would love to live there two. You said it yourself, "believe Obama has a superior vision for America, and can provide our country a better future." Visions are nice, but results are better. So far the results from Obama are a the biggest national debt under any president, even though he has a superior vision of wanting to cut it in half by this time. And there is no sign that if he was to be reelected anything would change. Nothing. What you are asking for is insanity. Let me ask you a question, would you rather see Obama in office with a minimum of 2 years more of quagmire, or Romney in and day one able to do what Obama was not able to do? Try taking off your liberal democratic fan boy glasses and put on your patriotic whats best for the USA glasses. Now will Romney be better? I don't know, all I know is its time to try something different than putting a square peg in a round hole. Its about what works best for the country, not what works best for your party.
    - johnecash November 2, 2012, 1:55 pm
    This isn't accurate, and you still haven't addressed my points.
    "When something is the fault of a certain party (not in a political sense, "party" as in group of people or rational actor), that party bears the burden of altering their course of action to fix the issue."
    Is that inaccurate?

    I disagree with Romney's vision for America. I believe, even if he gets what he wants to get done done (wow, poorly constructed sentence... hahahaha) we will be worse off than we are now. Both socially (abortion rights, gay rights, etc.) and economically (Medicare cuts, education cuts, etc.), as well as in the realm of health care (self-explanatory). So, it only makes sense, if I believe one candidate's ideal vision hurts America, while the other's ideal vision helps, I vote for the one who's ideal vision helps. Even if that vision isn't fully realized.

    I would appreciate you dropping the condescension. Without it, we can have a much more sensible conversation.
    - Logos385 November 2, 2012, 9:42 pm
    So you would rather see the USA go down the same path as Greece than give Romney a chance. I must also ask, has Obama ever balanced any budget...ever?
    - johnecash November 3, 2012, 1:46 am
    I believe, as I said, that Romney's economic plan would not help America's current situation. America does continue to have slow, albeit existent, recovery under Obama.
    When a nation is in a state of recovery, balancing a budget is often not the appropriate course of action. I do, however, agree with you that it needs to happen relatively soon.
    - Logos385 November 3, 2012, 8:11 am


    then please explain the CEO of GM stating 7 out of 10 of our automobiles were made outside of the United States the same CEO that was helped appointed by Barrack Obama himself Romney is stating the truth the media is twisting it to make it sound like he is lying you need to do your own research instead of watching TV all day.
    - killuminati November 4, 2012, 2:36 pm
    Wow, there were a lot of claims made there. Being on my phone, I can't respond to much at the moment, but what I will say now is that the company in question is Chrysler, not GM.
    - Logos385 November 4, 2012, 2:49 pm
    After getting back on my computer and taking the time to do a bit of research...

    This video is ridiculous. A quick look on Politifact and their analysis helps highlight this. The CEO pictured was not appointed by Obama, bailout money did not go to assist GM's Chinese operations (instead the Chinese operations supported themselves and also sent money back to America), and there is nothing to say that a company can't run, successfully, in two countries. See: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/25/let-freedom-ring/claims-gm-used-bailout-money-boost-china-operation/
    - Logos385 November 4, 2012, 5:16 pm
    Reply
  • 2

    "I am not referring to the ad. I am referring to the candidate's actual words:
    "Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.”

    Your statement in the very beginning said that Romney stated Chrysler WAS. Which is what I have been disputing. There is no way to prove one way or another wether or not Chrysler was *thinking* about doing anything. Perhaps a poor choice of words on Romneys behalf, but also means that you had chosen your words poorly as well in your original post. However, Chryslers response to his speech would suggest they have researched the possibility.

    A quick way to prove that is by looking at the company's actual words. Possibly the words of the CEO. Which I posted.
    EDIT: Romney made a statement about Jeep's intentions. A definitive statement that they were "thinking" about moving Jeep jobs to China. This, as stated by Chrysler, is and was never true. That means, Mitt Romney made a statement that was literally false. That is a lie.
    - Logos385 November 2, 2012, 1:30 pm
    It's a bit naive to think a company such as Chrysler wouldn't, at the very least, do initial research into outsourcing. And the response by Chrysler's CEO never states they didn't think about it. He stated that American production is critical and is essentially, not going anywhere. Then proceeds to discuss Chinese production stating that production occurring in China will only serve Chinese markets. (Chrysler Blog)

    I am mostly on your side on this. In today's world however, everything must be taken with a grain of salt and certainly not at face value.
    - TheGuyOnTheCouch November 2, 2012, 2:10 pm
    According to you they all lie, so its very hypocritical to point one one's lies but not the others. Though we can all agree that President Obama has many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many,many, many, many, many,many, many, many, many, more Presidential Promises broken than Romney does. As of now, Romney has never broken a presidential promise.
    - johnecash November 2, 2012, 3:01 pm
    I'm not sure if that was directed towards me, but I want to affirm that I am not pointing out any one candidate. And it would only be hypocritical to only point out one sides lies (or misdirection) and then say the other side doesn't do the same. I maybe seem to be leaning one way, but that is only because the discussion has led me in a certain direction, and not the other. I haven't made any assertion as to what side I am on. I have only pointed out the truth behind the initial claims.

    Modern politics is full of misdirection and gray area wording, on all sides. That is the sad truth. There really is no reason to get upset in any capacity because of it. I only want to make sure those participating in a discussion aren't using false claims as truth, as was my point in pointing out that Chrysler never said they haven't thought about outsourcing. And that Romney saying they were was a poor choice of words since there is absolutely no way to prove it. Also considering a blanket statement of "Company X is thinking about outsourcing" is ridiculous when just about every major Corporation has had to do research into it.

    I personally haven't made a decision on who to vote for. I agree that Obamanomics is horrible. Not to mention his Foreign policy. But on the other side of the coin, Romney's smear campaign using misleading tactics and statements aggravates me. To me, this election is about putting up with a Representative who supports a more socialized economy, or supporting a representative that plays dirty. One plays on my views of Capitalism with an emphasis on foreign policy verses One that goes against my moral ethics.

    I believe Romney has some sound views. But I also believe Obama is more forthcoming.

    Stating that Obama has broken many presidential promises and Romney hasn't is like saying an apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but a potato has never fallen from a tree. They are incomparable.
    - TheGuyOnTheCouch November 2, 2012, 3:32 pm
    No it was not directed at you. Make no mistake I am not voting for Romney (Ron Paul is my man) as much as I am voting against Obama. He had his try. He did his best but in life we are not rewarded for doing our best, we are rewarded for results. I am not sure if Romney will do a better job, I only know he can do no worse. Obama for all his hope and change, . . . well now we hope for some spare change.
    - johnecash November 2, 2012, 3:46 pm
    <3
    - TheGuyOnTheCouch November 2, 2012, 3:52 pm
    Many politicians lie, yes. However, there is a difference between a broken campaign promise, which is standard, and outright lies meant to purposefully and maliciously misinform the American people. If you can point me to an exceedingly misleading campaign ad built on what is essentially an outright lie and at best a completely unfounded and malicious assertion (I am granting your point on this, Couch) by Obama, then we can hold them, on this issue, on a level playing field.
    - Logos385 November 2, 2012, 9:32 pm
    So, at best, Romney made an unfounded, malicious assertion. Which is probably not much better than what his statement likely was, a lie. I realize that the semantics of the situation make it so that technically you can't be sure that Romney was 100% lying, but giving him all of the benefit of the doubt that you can... he made an unfounded assertion without cause in order to hurt another candidate. Which isn't much better.
    - Logos385 November 2, 2012, 9:34 pm
    I love it, your guy gets excuses. Please take off te fanboy glasses.
    - johnecash November 3, 2012, 1:43 am
    Please address the argument, and avoid ad hominem.
    - Logos385 November 3, 2012, 8:05 am
    Please use ad hominem correctly
    Well done avoiding the question so ill ask again. So you would rather see the USA go down the same path as Greece than give Romney a chance. I must also ask, has Obama ever balanced any budget...ever?
    - johnecash November 3, 2012, 10:20 am
    I am: ad hominem is where you respond to a point with a personal attack or demeaning statement rather than an argument or reasoning. A.k.a. "Please take off the fanboy glasses."

    "would rather see the USA go down the same path as Greece than give Romney a chance. I must also ask, has Obama ever balanced any budget...ever?"
    My response, already made:
    "I believe, as I said, that Romney's economic plan would not help America's current situation. America does continue to have slow, albeit existent, recovery under Obama.
    When a nation is in a state of recovery, balancing a budget is often not the appropriate course of action. I do, however, agree with you that it needs to happen relatively soon."

    Now, points of mine you have not responded to:
    " If you can point me to an exceedingly misleading campaign ad built on what is essentially an outright lie and at best a completely unfounded and malicious assertion (I am granting your point on this, Couch) by Obama, then we can hold them, on this issue, on a level playing field."
    And
    "When something is the fault of a certain party (not in a political sense, "party" as in group of people or rational actor), that party bears the burden of altering their course of action to fix the issue."
    EDIT:
    And... "He is also making the claim that Obama removed the work requirement(s) from Welfare. This is also blatantly false. Romney has been called out on both of these lies by national media outlets, yet refuses to acknowledge any mistake, pull ads, or stop campaigning on them."
    - Logos385 November 3, 2012, 12:20 pm
    The question is yes or no, please answer a question.
    - johnecash November 3, 2012, 12:37 pm
    When a question is a false dichotomy, it is only sensible to answer with something other than "yes" or "no." America does not have a choice between "Greece" and "Romney." The economy is showing many signs of improvement currently, under Obama. Slow improvement, but improvement.
    - Logos385 November 3, 2012, 1:19 pm
    As expected excuses only.
    - johnecash November 3, 2012, 6:19 pm
    I am laying out many points that you are not addressing. I have addressed every one you have raised. When you give me a false choice between two options, I explain why I believe it to be a false choice, respond to the question, and provide commentary, that constitutes a response. Repeating the same falsity that all I am doing is providing excuses does not further the discussion or abide by the rules of the post: "Listen to what people have to say. Avoid making the same post over and over again."
    - Logos385 November 3, 2012, 6:29 pm
    Those who accept the facts without excuses are a rare breed.
    - johnecash November 3, 2012, 10:22 pm
    This kind of response-dodging and demeaning behavior is not in the spirit of the discussion. Please respond to my points or stop posting here.
    - Logos385 November 3, 2012, 10:38 pm
    Ha you have dodge my questions.
    - johnecash November 3, 2012, 10:56 pm
    Tell me a single question I have not responded to. I have already shown what you have not addressed.
    - Logos385 November 3, 2012, 11:05 pm
    You have yet to answer the last question and many more. An excuse is not an answer, a less ion liberals have yet to learn.
    - johnecash November 4, 2012, 12:52 am
    If you wish to challenge the idea that you presented a false dichotomy, do so. Until you do, I have answered everything you have asked.
    - Logos385 November 4, 2012, 1:14 am
    You have yet to answer the last question, but hey you are not here to debate. Your fanboy glasses are way to thick to admit when you or Obama are wrong. I'll give liberals credit, no one makes excuses like y'all do. I just wish liberals were half as good at fixing the economy as y'all are at giving excuses.
    - johnecash November 4, 2012, 1:00 am
    If you are not going to continue to rationally discuss the points I have raised, you are no longer welcome in this thread.

    One last time, you posed a question. I believe your question had a false premise. I have challenged that premise. It is now on you to address that challenge and to justify the premise. It is also on you to address all of the other as of yet unaddressed points.
    - Logos385 November 4, 2012, 8:35 am
    It's ok, I have learned that liberals are number one when it comes to excuses. I am sorry you can't answer a question. Your mind is made up, Romney gets no excuses but the guy who has never balanced a budget gets all the excuses in the world since he is your guy. It's sad you care more for your party than you do for your country.
    - johnecash November 4, 2012, 10:29 am
    So you are admitting you have no response to my challenge, then?
    - Logos385 November 4, 2012, 11:35 am
    I freely admit that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insane. I admit that you as a college student will only have a 50% chance of getting a job under Obama. I freely admit these facts. Its funny that you want to talk about anything but what a good job the current administration has done. I admit the rules and standards you have for Obama are not the same rules you have for Romney. I admit your fan-boy glasses are so thick, you vote for your party and not the country. Lastly when it comes to what your politics, you are insane, but not by my definition.
    - johnecash November 6, 2012, 10:19 am
    You are avoiding the discussion at hand in favor of making sweeping general statements about my sanity, my character, and my "fanboy glasses." That is not how a rational discussion works.

    Please respond to the points you have ignored and the idea that your question is a false dichotomy. Please curb your insults and act in a civil manner. No more ad hominem.
    - Logos385 November 6, 2012, 10:46 am
    You truly have no idea what ad hominem. means and how it would apply to this "conversation". If I told you that because you are crazy then your views must not be true, that would be an ad hominem. But I said due to your views, you are crazy. Once again I find it funny that you don't want to talk about the good job Obama is doing, rather you want to talk any thing but that. Also, if you want to chat, don't say I am done chatting. It makes you look like a lier, which would support the insanity claim, when you can't follow your own rules.
    - johnecash November 6, 2012, 10:51 am
    There is currently a discussion that has been stalled because of your refusal to respond to a specific point I have made. Instead of responding, you substitute insulting me, referring to my "fanboy glasses," state that I am "insane," and state that I don't have the country's best interests in mind.

    You are replacing what should be an argumentative response with insult. That is the definition of ad hominem. We can debate whatever you want to here, after we finish discussing what is already on the table.
    - Logos385 November 6, 2012, 10:56 am
    Thank you for showing me you have no idea what ad ad hominem is. Looks like you may have a little more to learn. A wonderful example of why students don't deserve the same amount of credit as graduates.

    None the less once we finish my questions that came well before yours, I will be more than happy to answer, honestly, all of your questions. Here is a reminder of the lies you were asked about first.
    1. Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers

    2. Expand the child and dependent care credit

    3. Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners

    4. Provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form

    5. Create a mortgage interest tax credit for non-itemizers

    6. Require automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans

    7. Require automatic enrollment in IRA plans

    8. Create a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes

    9. End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000

    10. End no-bid contracts above $25,000

    11. Create a $60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges (One of my personal favorites since it effected my business. A small business where I have not been able to hire a secretary in the last 3 years. But hey I didn't build that according to Obama. On the bright side of the 4,500 real estate appraisers in the state of Alabama in 2007, I am one of the remaining 2,200 that still have a job no thanks to Obama.

    12. Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes (i love how you blame bush but don't blame obama for keeping policies made by bush)

    13. Phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners (another example of obama saying what ever it takes to get the little guys vote, yet he forgot about us once in office)

    14. Sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize

    15. Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses (Yet another broken promise to the people)

    16. Allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court

    17. Allow imported prescription drugs

    18. Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs

    19. Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices

    20. Appoint federal-level coordinator to oversee all federal autism efforts (He will say anything to get votes)

    21. Double federal funding for cancer research

    22. Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives

    23. Provide the CDC $50 million in new funding to determine the most effective approaches for cancer patient care

    24. Fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

    25. Create a National Commission on People with Disabilities, Employment, and Social Security

    26. Change federal rules so small businesses owned by people with disabilities can get preferential treatment for federal contracts.

    27. Reduce the threshhold for the Family and Medical Leave Act from companies with 50 employees to companies with 25 employees

    28. Provide a $1.5 billion fund to help states launch programs for paid family and medical leave

    29. Require employers to provide seven paid sick days per year (Would some of my stevedore friends on the docs like this. Well Obama lost some hard working salt of the earth votes on this one. )

    30. Form international group to help Iraq refugees

    31. Expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include leave for domestic violence or sexual assault

    32. Work with Russia to move nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. (Due to all that Obama has promised, we are no safer now than we were during the Cuban missile crisis.

    33. Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center (I love how he is still making this promise )

    34. Develop an alternative to President Bush's Military Commissions Act on handling detainees (yet again liberals blame bush when obama has changed nothing )

    35. Strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and double its budget in the next four years

    36. Secure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

    37. Seek to negotiate a political agreement on Cyprus

    38. Reinstate special envoy for the Americas

    39. Double the Peace Corps

    40. Seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations (only a fool would believe this one)

    41. Create a public "Contracts and Influence" database(more lies about wanting government transparency)

    42. Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny (why would he expose them, they work with him and for him)

    43. Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

    44. Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

    45. Double funding for Federal Charter School Program and require more accountability

    46. Double funding for afterschool programs

    47. Expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity

    48. Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws

    49. Support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

    50. Sign the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act into law

    51. Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage

    52. Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour (he would rather tax you more than have you earn more)

    53. Restore Superfund program so that polluters pay for clean-ups

    54. Support tax deduction for artists

    55. Re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council(the president who killed our space program. but hey we can get a ride from russia. . . for a price.)

    56. Support human mission to moon by 2020 (This guy is crazy, just like his promises. )

    57. Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit (hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha)

    58. Reduce the number of middle managers in the federal workforce (there is one thing the democrats have never been known fore, smaller government)

    59. Strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

    60. Limit term of director of national intelligence

    61. Give annual "State of the World" address

    62. Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels

    63. Work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers

    64. Establish a low carbon fuel standard

    65. Enact windfall profits tax for oil companies

    66. Create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming

    67. Use revenue from cap and trade to support clean energy and environmental restoration

    68. Require plug-in fleet at the White House

    69. Require new federal fleet purchases to be half plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles

    70. Require more flex-fuel cars for the federal government

    71. Mandate flexible fuel vehicles by 2012

    72. Double federal program to help "reverse" commuters who go from city to suburbs

    73. Require energy conservation in use of transportation dollars

    74. Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"

    75. Devote federal resources to promote cellulosic ethanol

    76. Sign the Freedom of Choice Act

    77. Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009

    78. Give the White House's Privacy and Civil Liberties Board subpoena power

    79. Recognize the Armenian genocide

    80. No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase." (now this was a promise that has been very hard to watch him lie about. This time 5 years ago I had a secretary and an apprentice.

    81. Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

    82. Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.

    83. Cut the cost of a typical family's health insurance premium by up to $2,500 a year

    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
    84. Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda

    85. Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year
    - johnecash November 6, 2012, 11:03 am
    Thats incredible. Now you have both an ad hominem fallacy and a creditation fallacy going. Bravo.

    I am still waiting for you to return to the discussion. I will no longer respond to your statements until you do.
    - Logos385 November 6, 2012, 11:11 am
    You said, "I will no longer respond to your statements until you do." I believed you the first time, but sorry I no longer believe you due to the fact you can't live by the rules you give yourself.
    - johnecash November 6, 2012, 11:17 am
    Reply
  • 2

    Yeah... Fuck Romney and fuck Obama... Neither one seems to be good for the U.S. at this point.

    Gary Johnson 2012.

    What do you specifically dislike about the other candidates?
    - Logos385 November 4, 2012, 12:05 pm
    Johnson wants to actually have a balanced budget, and he's calling for it by 2013. He left New Mexico with 1 billion in SURPLUS, without raising taxes or affecting the people's wallets. Something our candidates for the Republicans and Democrats can't say. Romney doesn't support gay marriage, Obama and Romney's view on gun control isn't going to help the U.S. (look how well drug control has worked), Romney wants to shut down Planned Parenthood, and he's not in favor of abortion. Obama is too quick to wave the U.S' wallet for bailouts. We can't afford them, like the GM bailout. Had the company gone bankrupt, it most likely would've helped become stronger by rooting out problems they currently had, rather than adding to the deficit.

    That's only a few problems I have with the both of them... I know Johnson has no chance of winning due to the laughable two party system America has created, but if he gets 5% of the vote, we will have a chance to end it.
    - xRAYZ0Rx November 4, 2012, 5:28 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    and i don't care much for either of them really myself like johnecash said i was going for Ron Paul

    Reply
Related Posts