The who will you be voting for Poll and Discussion Thread

[Headspace]

So question, can I vote if I'm registered in NY but living in Maryland and if so, how do I go about it? I moved to MD for college and havnt gotten a drivers license or anything here so I never registered to vote as a MD resident.

Probs too late, but absentee ballot

[venikk]

Thing is you could take Romney and say he agrees on almost everything with literally anyone in the history of the world, and you could probably prove it.

However, if you look at the extremely few things he's stayed consistent on, and what he did in Mass. when he actually had power, and his actual actions as a businessman rather than his claims, you'll see a stark difference.

Cut taxes for rich, raise taxes on poor (that's what "Expand the base" means, if anyone didn't know), cut funding for schools, public health services, inhibit non-religious charity action, encourage tax sheltering, and just an entire general philosophy of "Do you have money? If yes, you matter. If not, go fuck yourself."

Why wasn't there any debate about the massive prison system and it's prosecution of victimless crimes creating a slave-labor force rivaling every slave-based economy since the beginning of time? Why isn't there any debate about the monetary system? Why isn't there any debate about sending money over-seas creating more problems than it solves? Why isn't there any debate on how meddling in the affairs of other nations reduces national security - libya anyone? Why isn't there any debate on the Obama's kill list or domestic drones, resigning the patriot act, the NDAA, ACTA, prosecuting fraudulent bankers, how the FDA and EPA are run by corporate whores, etc?

Because they agree. Don't look at what they argue about, look at what they aren't arguing about.

[Kyte]

lol

[Kohan]

Why wasn't there any debate about the massive prison system and it's prosecution of victimless crimes creating a slave-labor force rivaling every slave-based economy since the beginning of time? Why isn't there any debate about the monetary system?

Obama's budget unfortunately endorses a greater federal prison presence, but he's also tried to push for rehabilitation and compassionate release programs, which were then quashed by Congress:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-prison-budget

I'll agree as strongly and loudly as anyone that the drug war is a complete waste of our time, and the graph at the bottom of that article shows a good reason: the drug-related incarcerations have hovered around half the total made for a long time, now. You could say that the year 2000 example is different, but what would that show? Simply that the war against drugs truly is an incompetent and impotent, lumbering beast, as it was already well into swing by then, and didn't produce shit.

Considering, if Obama went full-force against the drug war, I'd feel much happier. As it is, I'm pleased with his rehab and release ideals; I only wish they could actually be brought to fruition.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is hardcore pro-death penalty, very interested in profiting from prisons, and not only dislikes the concept of parole, but believes that judges should be able to abolish lenient sentencing decisions:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Crime.htm

In conclusion: they may not have debated on it, but Obama is more for redemption, while Romney supports condemnation. I'd say that's about in line with stereotypical liberal versus the stereotypical conservative expectations.

Why isn't there any debate about sending money over-seas creating more problems than it solves?

This certainly has been debated, and more than once. Here's a rather thorough article that puts the long-term history of outsourcing into perspective, and also touches on the Obama versus Romney matter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...zGW_story.html

Beyond that, there are many fields in the United States with large amounts of skilled worker openings. This does mean that there isn't much for the blue collar man, but with superior educational systems, we would be able to produce more skilled workers. Presently, some of these roles are filled by people who were educated elsewhere in the world, or whose parents were wealthy by another country's standards, enabling them to pay for their children's education here -- even when our own people can't.

Here's an editorial that explains how the education community regards some of the things Obama has pushed for, and which also explains why there are things he can't control:

http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Barack_Obama/

The article doesn't pull any punches, but its conclusion is strong and favorable.

On the other hand, much of what Romney has bragged about in relation to education has nothing to do with him, and everything else that he supports -- "No Child Left Behind," and vouchers -- is either proven to be unhelpful, or unpopular for all the right reasons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...and-education/

Why isn't there any debate on how meddling in the affairs of other nations reduces national security - libya anyone?

If you wish to peruse another in-depth article -- this one regarding foreign policy, and how Obama's approach has been, in their own words, "incremental rather than transformational" -- here is one of the finest, providing apt criticism and praise:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...-policy?page=1

As for Romney's interests, why not look to a Republican site itself? They'll wish to spin things in their favor, undeniably. However, if anything is stated therein which you blatantly disagree with, you would be hard-pressed to find it denied by the candidate, not to mention their spokespeople:

http://2012.republican-candidates.or...gn-Affairs.php

While Obama's position does not wholly eschew international policing, the motivation is more so international peace-keeping, whereas Romney supports a greater military presence, and may condone another war.

Don't look at what they argue about, look at what they aren't arguing about.

They're arguing about those things all right, as proven above. You can find plenty of information about their positions, motives, and the results of their efforts, and without much research, at that. You simply have to turn the other cheek to buzz words and speeches tailored to please ears without engaging minds, and find the information that's already out there, waiting for you.

[Demosthenes11]

its a paultard - just ignore him

[Kohan]

its a paultard - just ignore him

It's been a while since I've made such a substantial, researched post, and I felt that this was a prime opportunity. I have no regrets.

[Eurell]

It was an excellent post lol. Super calm too, I was waiting for the insults and stuff, but you just let the research speak for itself and its hilarious. I await his response!

[Plow]

long story short:

women's prison in florida had the best record for rehabilitation (i.e. people that get out not going right back in) anyone's ever had in the U.S.

it's more expensive to rehabilitate than to throw them in a cement block with a toilet and forget about them

successful prison gets shut down cuz WE CANT AFFORD TO SEND PRISONERS TO FIRST CLASS RESORTS

[Jakson]

So you're saying those bitches didn't love those binders?

[Jaybar]

Need to go back to the Haviland system!

[Churchill]

I remember having to do recidivism briefs and meetings to counter, etc. I wonder if our jails even get flack for this, lol.

[venikk]

Obama's budget unfortunately endorses a greater federal prison presence, but he's also tried to push for rehabilitation and compassionate release programs, which were then quashed by Congress:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-prison-budget

I'll agree as strongly and loudly as anyone that the drug war is a complete waste of our time, and the graph at the bottom of that article shows a good reason: the drug-related incarcerations have hovered around half the total made for a long time, now. You could say that the year 2000 example is different, but what would that show? Simply that the war against drugs truly is an incompetent and impotent, lumbering beast, as it was already well into swing by then, and didn't produce shit.

Considering, if Obama went full-force against the drug war, I'd feel much happier. As it is, I'm pleased with his rehab and release ideals; I only wish they could actually be brought to fruition.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is hardcore pro-death penalty, very interested in profiting from prisons, and not only dislikes the concept of parole, but believes that judges should be able to abolish lenient sentencing decisions:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Crime.htm

In conclusion: they may not have debated on it, but Obama is more for redemption, while Romney supports condemnation. I'd say that's about in line with stereotypical liberal versus the stereotypical conservative expectations.



This certainly has been debated, and more than once. Here's a rather thorough article that puts the long-term history of outsourcing into perspective, and also touches on the Obama versus Romney matter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...zGW_story.html

Beyond that, there are many fields in the United States with large amounts of skilled worker openings. This does mean that there isn't much for the blue collar man, but with superior educational systems, we would be able to produce more skilled workers. Presently, some of these roles are filled by people who were educated elsewhere in the world, or whose parents were wealthy by another country's standards, enabling them to pay for their children's education here -- even when our own people can't.

Here's an editorial that explains how the education community regards some of the things Obama has pushed for, and which also explains why there are things he can't control:

http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Barack_Obama/

The article doesn't pull any punches, but its conclusion is strong and favorable.

On the other hand, much of what Romney has bragged about in relation to education has nothing to do with him, and everything else that he supports -- "No Child Left Behind," and vouchers -- is either proven to be unhelpful, or unpopular for all the right reasons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...and-education/



If you wish to peruse another in-depth article -- this one regarding foreign policy, and how Obama's approach has been, in their own words, "incremental rather than transformational" -- here is one of the finest, providing apt criticism and praise:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...-policy?page=1

As for Romney's interests, why not look to a Republican site itself? They'll wish to spin things in their favor, undeniably. However, if anything is stated therein which you blatantly disagree with, you would be hard-pressed to find it denied by the candidate, not to mention their spokespeople:

http://2012.republican-candidates.or...gn-Affairs.php

While Obama's position does not wholly eschew international policing, the motivation is more so international peace-keeping, whereas Romney supports a greater military presence, and may condone another war.



They're arguing about those things all right, as proven above. You can find plenty of information about their positions, motives, and the results of their efforts, and without much research, at that. You simply have to turn the other cheek to buzz words and speeches tailored to please ears without engaging minds, and find the information that's already out there, waiting for you.

Good post, I learned a few things. But I don't trust Obama on what he says or what political games he plays. I trust him on what he does only. And he hasn't done anything in the victimless crimes arena. Or The monetary system, changing bernanke's approach... Or any of the other things.

And what I said is still true, there is no debate on it.

But you left out the last half of my post =(.

"Why isn't there any debate on the Obama's kill list or domestic drones, resigning the patriot act, the NDAA, ACTA, prosecuting fraudulent bankers, how the FDA and EPA are run by corporate whores, etc?"

[ronin sparthos]

"Why isn't there any debate on the Obama's kill list or domestic drones, resigning the patriot act, the NDAA, ACTA, prosecuting fraudulent bankers, how the FDA and EPA are run by corporate whores, etc?"

There are numerous organizations and journalistic bodies that have called Obama out on all of these topics. Countless even. On all aspects of the political spectrum.

Google is your friend. Use it.

[Andalusian girls]

he means in mainstream political discourse those things are all regarded as nonstarters, issues where there does not exist enough popular groundswell to force the hand of elected officials nor enough influential and outspoken individuals in existing positions of power to challenge the administration and Congress's acceptance of such things. the few outliers shouting into the wind are doing what they should, what real journalists should that is, but their efforts have proven futile in the current political climate. there are no serious domestic challenges among the people or the government to Obama's ubiquitous use of drone strikes or the resigning of the Patriot Act.

[Demosthenes11]

I think there is no meaningful discussion on it from main sources because it's something both parties agree on - they won't air something that has no argument between the politicians

[quannum]

Barack Obama is a can of soda advertising as a health drink. Mitt Romney is a can of soda -- advertising as a can of soda.
-d_seaman

[Ksandra]

Barack Obama is a can of soda advertising as a health drink. Mitt Romney is a can of soda -- advertising as a can of soda, hot coffee, red bull, a rocket ship, and the wizard of Oz depending on the day of the week.

ftfy

[Andalusian girls]

I think there is no meaningful discussion on it from main sources because it's something both parties agree on - they won't air something that has no argument between the politicians

which was original bro's point

Why isn't there any debate on the Obama's kill list or domestic drones, resigning the patriot act, the NDAA, ACTA, prosecuting fraudulent bankers, how the FDA and EPA are run by corporate whores, etc?

Because they agree.

it's quirky that when Bush oversaw a dramatic expansion of federal power both foreign and domestic libertarians went deaf dumb mute and blind for eight years; now that Obama is engaging in a hawkish foreign policy that is essentially unchanged from Bush's second term liberals are so much quieter than they were when a Republican was in charge. almost as though a single Bush drone strike was more egregious than five of Obama's.

[Plow]

nobody gave a shit about bush's drones because there were 1/10th as many and 100 times as many soldiers in harm's way


nobody gives a shit about obama's drones because they're extremely successful and making it much easier to get bodies out of harm's way


calling obama hawkish is beyond retarded, to say his foreign policy actively chooses war over diplomacy is just intentionally dishonest

[Andalusian girls]

people gave lots of shits about Bush's drone policy

and Obama is quite hawkish. intervention in Libya + troops deployed to Africa to go Kony-hunting, a massive surge of troops and material into Afghanistan and a time-table for withdrawal that will have him committing us to 6 years of warfare in the country, following the Bush plan literally to the letter regarding withdrawal from Iraq, crippling and extensive sanctions targeting Iran with the threat of a military strike ever present. over five times as many drone strikes into foreign nations as Bush engaged in, the assassination of a U.S. citizen without subjecting him to due trial, Guantanamo Bay still open.

he doesn't want to bomb Iran or intervene in Syria so he looks sane or moderate compared to some, and he inherited a lot of this mess, but he's still engaged in the second most muscular and aggressive deployment of American power abroad since Viet Nam (Dubya leading naturally)