Who will win Presidential election 2012?

[Centexfarmer]

There are ways to kill bills in the Senate that don't allow any vote at all.

I believe that the Keystone Pipeline bill was one of those that the Republicans wanted to bring to a vote, knowing that it truly didn't have any support from either side of the "aisle" in hopes that they could appeal to their "low information" base later on in the election (as presented here) as a "talking point."

 

[Centexfarmer]

So Ben just to get this clearly with no misinterpretation. You believe that republicans have supported everything coming from the majority Democratic Senate for the last three years? That the filibuster hasn't been used more times in this Presidency than in the last 4 terms of office combined?

Cause if you do i would love to know what color the sun is on your planet.

Seriously though i would like to have it clearly before I decimate you with actual statistical fact.

I'll bet you, in front of God and all of creation, and that I'll pay for a Kansas City BBQ feast for the both of us along with several pitchers of beer, that he won't take you up on that offer because he's got nothing but talking points.

As we say here in Texas, he's got an alligator mouth with a hummingbird ass.

I'm personally offended that he seems to treat everyone who posts here as immoral reprobates, who's independent thought is worthy of scorn and indignation just by the very representation of his responses (or lack thereof).

 

[Centexfarmer]

the Keystone Pipeline bill came up for a vote in the Senate and had bipartisan support with 56 votes... it wasn't filibustered, but because of some parliamentary measures by Senate leadership, it required 60 votes to pass.

And which of the two parties represented in the United States Senate required those 60 votes for passage?

I'm sharing with you that the Keystone Pipeline legislation was nothing more than a political 'circle jerk' from both Democrats and Republicans, and therefore not IMPORTANT enough for passage.

The EPA will continue to do their "environmental impact studies," and once Keystone agrees to comply, their permit will past muster without fanfare.

A few 3,000 seasonal one time jobs will be created, the pipeline will be completed, and those employees will go back on unemployment again.

 

[Benvolio]

So Ben just to get this clearly with no misinterpretation. You believe that republicans have supported everything coming from the majority Democratic Senate for the last three years? That the filibuster hasn't been used more times in this Presidency than in the last 4 terms of office combined?

Cause if you do i would love to know what color the sun is on your planet.
Seriously though i would like to have it clearly before I decimate you with actual statistical fact.

I specifically asked about Obama's measures, not those of the Senate.

 

[Rolyo85]

So you admit they've been obstructing the senate? Btw, what say you about that "one term president" quite?

 

[JayHawk]

I specifically asked about Obama's measures, not those of the Senate.

Umm... is there a disconnect about how our country works? Does the President CREATE or ENDORSE legislation and then as the final act sign it into Law and then enforce compliance?

I think creating legislation belongs to the group of asshats we elect to represent us as the PEOPLE. Then the President signs that law. I would be quite afraid of a 'free' country where the President sets the law and we all scurry along behind. That of course would be a dictatorship.

i saw a piece on this last Sunday but it was describing liberals who are upset with Obama. So it appears both sides of our political house desire a KING and not a President. I will stick with the current design and go one further. I would suggest the Senate needs to be able to make a 51 vote decision and they need to remove the asinine operating rules they have imposed upon themselves that prevents ANY law from going forward.

Just my humble opinion of course.

So what measures within the Presidential scope of control would you suggest President Obama or President Romney take on to move us forward?

I would think since the corporate ACTUAL tax rate is the lowest it has been since 1969 at 12% it would be a indication that Obama is amazingly pro-business despite the garbage being spewed for campaign reason by Romney and the SPACs.

 

[Ben1]

Sorry guys, but back to the question. Who will win?

 

[Benvolio]

So Bush and Obama get passes because the President only signs bills. Fair enough.

 

[frankfrank]

It's scary to realize that one specific casino owner (who is getting rich from his casinos in CHINA - Macao) could end up being responsible for getting Romney elected. Democracy in the United States has been absolutely murdered. He says he can throw $150 Million in.

And regardless of whether Citizens United is a valid SCOTUS decision or not, is it also valid that campaign contributions do not even need to be disclosed? Such contributions should be fully covered and transparent under FOIA [The Freedom of Information Act]. That would not disqualify this filthy money at all, except that it may actually stop Saudi Arabia from buying the election, which could also happen. Even if donors knew that they may be disclosed, they would STILL be entirely free to choose to [strike]contribute money to[/strike] BRIBE the campaign.

 

[chance1]

It's scary to realize that one specific casino owner (who is getting rich from his casinos in CHINA - Macao) may conceivably be entirely instrumental in getting Romney elected. Democracy in the United States has been absolutely murdered.

Don't you think that 5 hours a day 52 weeks a year of Mitt/Republican bashing on MSNBC is worse than Shelly's $10 million or so?

The economic value of MSNBC's paid political ads against the repubs/for obama far exceeds that figure - by a ton

how is it different??

 

[frankfrank]

The difference, chance, is that even PRIOR to Citizens United, what MS/NBC and Fox, Rush, etc. are doing was already entirely legal. In fact, it has been entirely legal since 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. Prior to Citizens United, not only were there limits, but there were PROHIBITIONS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OUTSIDE of the US, but now with Citizens United absolutely nothing requires disclosure, and indeed OPEC (or Monsanto) could completely buy all the most important elections, including not only the Executive, but the most notable Senate and House races as well, as well as various intra-state elections (such as Governors).

Citizens United has assured, possibly for all of eternity, that in the United States, people on a short list of perhaps 500 will have much more control over the political discourse than will the other 314,999,500 people in this country.

Keep in mind that these very same people want to entirely PRIVATIZE the Internet, and become gatekeepers...they would probably make sure that Fox News has a capacity of 10tbps (10 terabytes = ten million megabytes per second), and very possibly ration the bandwidth for Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, PBS, etc. to dial-up speeds. Under the rules they want, that would be entirely legal.

 

[chance1]

^ i hear you on disclosure

it would be better to know who/where the money comes from

they were talking on Hardball today and one idea was that all of the money would go directly to the candidate who would then be responsible (fully) for the message

I guess my point is that before/after citizens united - the VALUE of a cable network - who devotes 5 hours a day to destroying mitt romney - masquerading as journalism (sorta cuz i get the diff but not everyone does) - that is much more valuable

because it masquerades as point/counterpoint - debate - vs. "vote for x"

in 2008 obama had 3x the funding of john mccain - i didn't hear any complaints about that - did you think that was ok?

IMO, the cycle is far too long

i'm just not sure about funding - and stopping some and allowing others - just not sure

i think this happens to be a year where the anti obama sentiment is very high - getting him out of office is of paramount importance - which doesn't make it bad or evil - i think it's legitimate to think that pres. obama is not doing a good job stewarding our economy and that 4 more years could be disastrous

that said, i understand the concept of a "few individuals directing the majority of the narrative"

 

[Rolyo85]

The only thing Obama could credibly be accused of is not following through with his promises (big surprise there - a candidate's promises don't translate well in actual governship) ENOUGH. The economy is visibly better now than when he came into office. It's nowhere near as good as people hoped it would be, but Republicans would have tough time explaining how it isn't due to their 3.5 years of violent obstructionism (documented in a quote and an article somewhere here).

Either way, I don't see how things getting better slower than expected translates into "4 more years could be disastrous".

 

[chance1]

^We can safely categorize that argument as "not germane to the discussion", Chance.

Obama's 3X1 campaign contributions came before the Citizens United decision. I think we all here have more of an interest in discussing the effects that that SCOTUS decision will have on the electoral process.

With this goal in mind, the outlook seems pretty grim, from my standpoint. I think we stand right directly on the precipice of turning into a full-fledged banana republic, directly due to an incredibly myopic, black-and-white interpretation of the law, fueled by aggressive partisanship on the part of the Justices.

not germane? it certainly is

are you telling me that IF super pac $ was skewed for Obama that the outcry against it would be the same?

i don't think so

i hear about money perverting the system but i didn't hear that in 2008 when mccain was bludgeoned with ads from obama 3 to 1

again, not sure how i feel about it - i need to read more about it

an ad is an ad ........ people should be able to see it and make their own mind up no ?

 

[evanrick]

Romney is pissing off independents/non-partisan voters.

and ron paul supporters too who support Obama over Romney 3 to 1.

 

[evanrick]

in my eyes, Obama really has no credibility when it comes to campaign finance reform after betraying his public financing pledge in 2008. if Adelson was donating ten million dollars to him, I somehow doubt he'd hesitant on cashing that check.

we're probably not going to see change there until voters demand it... tip: you don't have to vote for the guy spending the most money. if 30 second campaign ads are influencing someone's vote, maybe they should examine the life choices that led them into such a stupid state of existence.

yeah its all Obamas fault because Obama didnt rail against Citizens United in his SOTU.

 

[chance1]

^ you beat me to it

But figured you had more "vested"

 

[maxwell1111]

I'm voting for Mitt. I am a Utah mormon but that isn't the reason. I work for arguably the worst department in the government. If an argument against Mitt is that he pays less tax than his maid, well I don't want someone who doesn't take advantage of everything he can. That's what Americans do. The other argument is that his company is in the business of buying other business and either making them profitable or gets rid of them. Yes people lost jobs. But, we now have a government that is so full of redunduncies that we need someone like Mitt to trim the fat. Oh, I voted for Obama because I was tired of Republicans. I'm not a fan of Obama anymore.

 

[Rolyo85]

But you're clearly a fan of discrimination and corporatism. That's good for you. I'm sure it's a wise choice. Mitt will save the country from redundant government jobs. He's good at firing people

 

[JayHawk]

Actually since Mittens is good at running up the credit on a place then going bankrupt I suppose that is also his plan for the US. He says he will cut taxes but extend spending amounts... so after he runs our credit up the question will be WHO will buy us? China is tanking...hard... so wrong answer RPOC.