Does it matter? Will the House / Senate be behind him the next four years?

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

Next two years will be a repeat of the last two. Nothing gets done.

One of two things will happen with regard to the economy:

It will get really bad in the short term because of Obama's lack of experience/knowledge about business and the economy(with continued spending/borrowing).

Or it will get extremely bad after he's out of office as a result of the same, after he stopgaps the inevitable with government intervention, wantonly pouring salt into the wound.

He will continue to punish successful people, and encourage people who fail at life.

Bush shares responsibility as well; Obama simply made it worse.

At the VERY least, Romney would've been better than Bush in that regard, despite the fact that he still probably would have spent too much and created more programs.

Doesn't Obamacare discourage people who fail at life?

Venen's response is ridiculous. That is all that is worth saying about his. Romney's "plans" were mathematically impossible.

Krby is correct. It will be more of the same. We still have a divided government with politicians who are rewarded when they blockade the other side of the aisle. In the meantime we will continue toward the economic debt precipice with no end in sight.

I feel kind of screwed, but I feel like we would have been even more screwed with Romney in the White House.

We'd be screwed either way but it would have been slower with Romney in office. It's just a matter of semantics really. I'm happy that civil unions passed in MD and that's about it. Next couple weeks are gonna be uncomfortable because we have to let a lot of folks know their contracts aren't being renewed.

Spending is simply out of control on both sides. Neither is at all in touch with fiscal reality, and the voters aren't far behind. It's a bad sign when half the items on ballots are measures to request the borrowing of funds. And California.... srsly?

I was kinda torn this cycle on whether it is better to speed towards the wall or inch towards it. It will take hitting it for action at this point. Things are getting silly in the gov't budget. As in dividing up programs that cost x over 10 years and only recording it one year at a time to make the forecast look better.

No love for same-sex marriage in WA? It was a much better victory than in MD, imo, because it was IIRC the first vote that was introduced by the people that actually passed.

Anyway... both plans were "mathematically impossible." The real question is rarely "WUTS DA PLAN ON HIS WEBSITE DURR" these days, since most politicians just spew whatever you want to hear anyway. They have their little minions cook something up and let the pundits chew at it. Big deal.

The real question is whether the candidate in question has the ability and experience to get the job done. Romney proved he did, several times over, in several ventures. Obama accomplished practically nothing in his life before he was elected to public office. The hardest working official in the Obama administration is probably Hillary, which is rather hilarious.

Still, I'm tempted to agree with the idea that we should simply slam into the wall. Obama being elected may well have been a good thing, and maybe it will wake idiots up after our economy tanks in the next few years. /shrug Romney may well have preserved an illusion, until another extreme spender takes office to wreck it again, which could in the long run be less beneficial.

It's easy to demonstrate how Romney's "cut taxes by 20% for everyone and make up the difference by closing tax loopholes" is mathematically impossible. Could you demonstrate how Obama's is mathematically impossible?

Romney: Amount going out >> amount coming in.
Obama: Amount going out >>> amount coming in.

The wealthy have options that remove their assets from the tax system. Options not available to the middle class. Any assumption that increasing income tax on >=250k households will touch the 'rich' is fallacious. I'm not sure if I agree that loopholes are the real problem. The issue is that the truly wealthy, the people the Left and Moderates would like to tax, have very fluid assets. They do not earn (primarily) 'income taxable' income. Why no one ever bothers to point this out when arguing over increasing income tax rates on the top 5% is beyond me.

It's a catch-22. You can surely increase that income tax rate, effectively providing a barrier between the middle and upper classes, but some revenue will be generated. Or you can tax investments, which affects everyone's retirement, income, and savings. Or you can do what is responsible and start to work through luxury taxes. Tax their spending in the 'caviar market'.

By the by, 250k households are only upper middle class these days.

hedge funds would be the biggest sole asset that those tax increases would effect, and more power to taxing the shit out of hedge funds, would be a ton of revenue off smacking hedge funds with taxes and closing their loopholes, and Romney's plan didn't do anything but increase those funds loopholes and give them a very large tax break.

I will disclaimer this by saying that I've been a republican since my late teens into adulthood, I have voted for Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, GW Bush, GW Bush, John McCain, thru the 2008 elections, I'm a white male age 45-55. non pot smoker, non gay, retired Army officer, with an active duty wife.

I voted for Obama in 2012, simply because I believed more in than man and his plan, and didn't trust Romney and his plan any farther than I could throw Roseanne Barr.

Ok I have to admit... I came to this website, clicked on "Current Events" and saw that Draconi had posted on this thread. I immediately thought "oh boy here it comes..." because for years Draconi has contested everything I have ever said.

How surprised I am! I know you aren't really over here with me on my side of the fence, but I'll say it anyway.... Welcome to the Dark Side!

I have the same mindset, until the government focuses on the areas of our country that truely hold all the money (hedge funds, very large corporations) we will are not going to dig ourselves out of the whole.

It also doesnt help we have been at war.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

I am sure that both sides had some Voter Fraud, but, this seems pretty obvious.

In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes


What Luck! Obama Won Dozens of Cleveland Districts with 100% of the Vote

ODD? ROMNEY GOT ZERO VOTES IN 59 PRECINCTS IN PHILLY, AND 9 PRECINCTS IN OHIO


I do not care what side you are on. If ANY ONE got 100% of the vote, it should raise a few questions.

(Yea, I know the last link is Glenn Beck, but, it has some charts on it.)

rofl

Eh.. I think Romney would have been much better, but I'm not heartbroken that gay rights are here to stay.

Really though, the best thing to happen in this election is that Paul Ryan doesn't have a larger microphone to be behind. Obama or Romney in the big chair wouldn't make a huge difference, but Paul Ryan is the most frightening man in America, and giving him more power would be roughly The Worst Thing.

_________________

What exactly makes Paul Ryan frightening (that isn't re-blogged or pasted)?

Not sure I agree that things wouldn't have been different under Romney. I'm pretty interested to see the outcome of this visit with Vladamir Putin. And how the administration decides to handle or continue to not handle Libya.

Paul Ryan's only beliefs are that Ayn Rand is correct and that abortions are bad, everything else is negotiable for the sake of politics.

_________________

I am a firm believer that elections are bought and paid for on both sides, but these reports do not shock me at all. These voting districts have been gerrymandered over the years to concentrate one voting block. This was done with the blessings of the Democrats and the Republicans. These precincts and districts are nearly 100% minority. Nation-wide Obama rec'd 90%+ of the black vote. In Philly, Cincy, and Cleveland the voting community KNEW that they were in a battleground state and knew that they had to turn out to keep Obama in the White House. I highly doubt that the precincts and districts that voted 100% for Obama were all that far off from their percentage in 2008. Reading the Philly.com article you will see "In 2008, McCain got zero votes in 57 Philadelphia voting divisions."

This is not surprising.

This is not alarming.

This is people using only a part of the the truth to continue the partisan bickering.

I searched Google for a single "100% of the vote" story from anyone with an actual press pass, and found nothing. What I found instead were these sites, all accusing Obama of voter fraud:

punditpress.com
floridapoliticalpress.com
twitchy.com
veneremurcernui.wordpress.com
freerepublic.com
city-data.com
wramsite.com

punditpress.com and floridapoliticalpress.com published these updates following their initial reports, which is kind of a confusing way to be responsible. To keep things fair and balanced, I looked through 10 pages of search results looking for an accusation of voter fraud against Mitt Romney, and found nothing.

So, I searched some of the more reputable sites for something to go on. Searching for "Obama 100% vote" and "Romney 100% vote" (not as literal strings -- no quotes) I found:

NYTimes: Nothing for either candidate
Miami Herald: Nothing for Obama, only reader editorials accusing Romney
Associated Press: Nothing for either candidate
Reuters: Nothing for either candidate

So basically, I can't find any evidence of voter fraud presented by anyone I trust to have better than a third grade education.

Worthy is a great example of why both sides put out shit like this.

It probably surprises no one that I voted for Bush twice.

It probably surprises everyone that I voted for Obama twice as well. So, I'm happy he won. I think he's got a better grasp on how to handle things than Mitt "Tell Ya What Ya Wanna Hear" Romney.

I am tired, however, of having to vote for the "shiniest of two turds." (Mad love to Epic Rap Battles of History)

_________________

Good point on Ryan there. He is pretty vocal about his beliefs but didn't really sell them very well. Or sell how he could have such a strong opinion on one thing, but be indeterminately flexible on another.

I'm not sure if I'd agree that Obama has a better grasp on how to handle things. I think it's fairer to say that we have a better grasp on how he would handle things. Some of his policies I'm ok with, others not so much. Same with Romney honestly. The big sticking point for me is foreign policy which is why I voted against Obama.

On what part, exactly, if you don't mind my asking?

"Obama's Unraveling Foreign Policy" is one of those things that you heard over and over during the campaign, but never with any specifics. At least not until Benghazi, then we never heard about anything else, ever. =O

His Middle East policy, or to be fair just call it a lack of one. There is just this overall unwillingness to engage. He has this odd vision of shifting to the Pacific, where there is really nothing happening that wouldn't happen without US focus. Meanwhile a lot of pretty horrible things are happening in the Near East. People, civilians, are being executed/tortured and not by the party that was overthrown. If they want to have a loony theocracy more power to them, but we don't have to tacitly endorse it.

On the shifted focus, basically money for training, manning, etc is being taken from the AOR in which we are actually still in a fight; and being put in the Pacific. A place most gov't people are only involved with because they get to travel to Hawaii.

Benghazi was a complete cluster fuck. Why the US didn't send in one of the bajillion assets nearby, or authorize the air cover to fire, to protect our embassy is a question we should never have to ask.

we have no naval assets in the Med. ocean at the current time, closest AFB to Libya is in the Azores, that would not have reached the embassy in time, and would have had to wait for clearance to enter libyan air space, so what bajillion of assets are you referring too ?

I'm in no way endorsing the handling of the embassy attack, but some of this outrage is more anti Obama won, or I hate Obama so its his fault, when there are numerous people to lay blame on and not just the president.

I voted for Obama with no regrets, but I agree with this. I'll be watching the investigation closely.

The Azores? Not sure where you heard that but it is not the case. But regardless the AF doesn't do ground work. There are SOF assets a lot closer than that. They also happened to have been mobilized for a training operation when this went down, so the idea they were far away is not true. As is the idea that there were no shooters in the air.

You're right the Milan Italy AFB base is closer, my wife is active duty USAF so yes I'm pretty familiar with most AFB world wide, mistakes were made I agree, but hell I'm a republican and and I'm not willing to lay this all on the presidents blame, like I said , there is plenty of blame to go around and all should be held accountable.

We had a full security detail, at the US embassy in Iran in 1979, and it was taken in much less time than the one in libya was.

That is true, and for whatever reason the embassy didn't even have that. I am not big on conspiracy or blame shifting. I mean it won't make anyone not dead. But I am really bothered by the transparently bullshit 'info' that is being released by the government.

- Don't kid yourself about what we do and don't have in the Med. You'll never know. Neither will I.
- Libya is hostile territory. We're not actually allowed to have bases there. Failing to have flown in guys based in imaginary locations is not actually cause to impeach a president. We have encampments there, made legal by a provisional agreement with an unrecognized government during a revolution, but nothing that would stand up to UN scrutiny. Launching an offensive from a place like that would have generated more total collateral damage than all the hurricanes, ever -- and we've all heard how closely related presidential performance and hurricane damage totally are.

I'll respectfully decline to take knowledge Special Ops and their workings and loc, from a Microsoft employee, over myself or the numerous active duty military, and govt contacts, friends, associates and the like that I've attained and worked with over the 23 years of service I put in, and continue to put in as a GS.

Not meant to be an insult to you Tranthas just FYI, I've met lots of GOOGLE military knowledge junkies, though I'm not saying youre one

I'm probably something related. Most of what I know is from research, but it's a lot more in-depth than Google, and I do a lot of it out of my own curiosity, rather than in response to some specific need. As you pointed out, it still wouldn't come close to first-hand experience, and you probably have a lot more access to first-hand interview resources than I do (and probably have better clearance to hear their answers). That doesn't actually mean what I know is wrong, or even insufficient for the discussion. I'll gladly agree that your knowledge in this area is greater than mine, as long as you agree that doesn't mean you automatically win disagreements on the topic.