• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2012 Presidential Election

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Who Will Win the 2012 Presidential Election?

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 70 60.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 42 36.5%
  • Electoral College Tie

    Votes: 3 2.6%

  • Total voters
    115
  • Poll closed .
that's pretty misleading. They are dividing the aid given to 110 million americans by the 17 million families (and about 40 million people) below the poverty line. You can be above the poverty line but still need assistance. And why are things like pell grants for college included in the number divided by the families in poverty? Isn't sending kids to college one way to help raise them out of needing government aid?

I think the point is, how many people on welfare vote for republicans. It ties into the article I posted early, that the flaw with democracy, is that people vote someone in that is going to give them money. I know a lot of you agree with and benifits from Obamamacare. But if the Obama did not make Obamacare would you still be apt to vote for him. Lets face it people vote in someone who will benefit them more. As government gets bigger and bigger, people don't want to vote for a man who is going to take money away from them.
 
Last edited:
I think the point is, how many people on welfare vote for republicans. It ties into the article I posted early, that the flaw with democracy, is that people vote someone in that is going to give them money. I know a lot of you agree with and benifits from Obamamacare. But if the Obama did not make Obamacare would you still be apt to vote for him. Lets face it people vote in someone who will benefit them more. As government gets bigger and bigger, people don't want to vote for a man who is going to take money away from them.

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
 
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

George Bernard Shaw wouldn't support Romney's vague platform if his life depended upon it.
 
Green energy is the future. Everyone knows this world has a finite amount of time using oil before supply and demand make moving on a necessity. Do you want to buy American when that happens, or should Germany continue to rule the green energy war? Investments in getting America off the foreign oil teat will prove to be the right move in time. We as a nation will be kicking ourselves that we didn't follow through.

Seriously disappointed in the line of thinking with this post, and equally saddened that people thought it was a viable argument.

This is the second straw man argument about green energy investment. Green energy investment and government green energy loans/grants to private businesses are not mutually exclusive, yet you've made no distinction between the two. These investments are happening whether the government is entering the private market or not.

I'm not sure Germany is a great example of what the US should be doing with green energy. Germany has completely different dynamics in their energy industry. Firstly, they don't have nearly the natural carbon resources available to them that we have. Despite that, the US has spent at least 4-5x on green energy investment over the last decade compared to Germany. How is Germany winning this mythical war if we're dominating the investment dollars going into it? That's what you're arguing for, right? More government funding of private businesses? Because that's what I'm arguing against. I am not arguing against green energy investment in general. Germany has energy policies that are having VERY adverse affects on their citizens.

Germany has succeeded in the arbitrary metric of producing roughly 25% of it's energy from renewable sources, but at what cost? You know who's getting crushed by the cost of Germany's energy policies? German manufacturers and consumers. They have among the highest energy prices in the world. A gallon of gas in Germany costs over $8. German consumers pay ~32 cents per kWh. They are paying roughly double the price per kWh compared to France. US consumers pay ~12c per kWh. Their manufacturers are moving abroad in search of lower carbon costs. These aren't market prices; these are artificially high prices due to government price controls and energy policies for the advancement of green industries. The German government is actually guaranteeing above-market returns for it's green energy producers - that's insane. Let's not forget Germany's insanely short-sighted decision to close all nuclear facilities within the next 10 years as a result of Fukushima. And guess what they're brilliantly replacing their nuclear capability with? That's right, clean coal. Germany is hardly an enviable model when it comes to energy policy. The shift to green energy sources will happen naturally, not through government manipulation of markets at the expense of consumers.

I'm glad the disappointment can be mutual. :rolleyes:
 
Republicans Filibuster Everything, Romney Blames Obama for Not Working With Congress


http://tinyurl.com/8bmf588


The Romney campaign released a shockingly Orwellian commercial over the weekend, which perpetuates something Romney himself has been saying for months now. Honestly, there's a book-length analysis to be written here, but I'll keep it as brief as possible given the depth and breadth of what the Republicans have been able to accomplish on this front.

The new ad blames President Obama for not reaching out and working with congressional Republicans to get things done. Yes, really. It also ballyhoos Mitt Romney's claim that he was able to work with a Massachusetts legislature that was 85 percent Democratic.

I don't know whether to be brutally outraged about this or to congratulate the Republicans on an outstanding execution of political obstruction and subsequent projection. For now, let's go with brutally outraged.



It's important to review exactly what's led us to this point. From the very beginning, congressional Republicans fell into lockstep with Rush Limbaugh and the collective wish for the Obama presidency to fail. Limbaugh set the table several days before the inauguration by telling his audience:
So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

The prevailing worry here was that America faced a worsening crisis, with a failing economy and a financial meltdown, and if liberal policies succeeded in resolving the crisis, liberalism would become further entrenched as the best means of stewarding the economy. Subsequently, if the president's center-left policies succeeded, he'd be re-elected and the Republicans would have to wait until 2016 for another stab at the White House.
The only way to prevent this eventuality was to stonewall the president's legislative agenda. All of it. Such an objective is nearly unprecedented. Usually an opposition party is driven to occasionally work with the majority party on the off-chance the majority party's legislation succeeds. This way, the opposition party can claim partial credit for the achievement. Not this time. Instead, the Republicans banked on their mighty bumper-sticker marketeering machine whereby, irrespective of Democratic successes, the Republicans would simply tell voters that those successes were actually failures and that it was President Obama who stubbornly refused to reach across the aisle. Up is down, white is black. Opposite Day politics. With the execution of this "everything has failed" strategy, they were freed up to vote against everything that came down the pike.

And so the Republicans proceeded to rack up the highest number of filibusters in American history. During the president's first two years in office, the 111th Congress, there were 137 cloture motions filed to end Republican filibusters. During the president's second two years, the 112th Congress, there were 109 motions filed to end Republican filibusters and we still have a few more months to go. 246 total cloture motions. Compare this to George W. Bush's first term when there were a total of 133 cloture motions filed. Not even a handful of "sensible" Republicans had the guts to break ranks and vote with the Democrats. Meanwhile, on the House side, the Republican majority has voted in near-lockstep against almost everything.

What bills have the Republicans filibustered? To name a few:

H.R. 12 - Paycheck Fairness Act
H.R. 448 -- Elder Abuse Victims Act
H.R. 466 - Wounded Veteran Job Security Act
H.R. 515 - Radioactive Import Deterrence Act
H.R. 549 -- National Bombing Prevention Act
H.R. 577 - Vision Care for Kids Act
H.R. 626 - Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act
H.R. 1029 - Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act
H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act
H.R. 1171 - Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization
H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act
H.R. 1429 -- Stop AIDS in Prison Act
H.R.5281 -- DREAM Act
S.3985 -- Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act
S.3816 -- Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
S.3369 -- A bill to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities
S.2237 -- Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act
S.2343 -- Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act
S.1660 -- American Jobs Act of 2011
S.3457 -- Veterans Jobs Corps Act


What else?

Here's an astonishing one. The Republicans filibustered the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act -- basically, healthcare for 9/11 heroes. Every Republican senator voted to filibuster this bill. I suppose the Republicans are only interested in 9/11 heroes when they're used as political props.

On the House side, every single Republican, including Paul Ryan, voted against the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, which forces Congress to pay for new legislation through either budget cuts or revenue increases.

You'd think that by helping to pass these bills, Republicans could boast a solid record on fiscal responsibility, job creation, veterans affairs, anti-terrorism, senior citizens and, hell, 9/11 workers. Instead, they blocked all of it. Jobs for military veterans, tax cuts for small businesses -- you name it. Why? So President Obama and the Democrats could be accused of failure.

And it's working.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell famously told the National Journal, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Not economic growth, jobs, healthcare or military strength. A failed Obama presidency was the primary -- and I would argue the only goal of the last two Republican congresses.

The Romney campaign is busily playing the endgame on this strategy by projecting Republican obstructionism onto the president and accusing him of refusing to work with Congress, even though the president and the Democrats have dished out heaping piles of legislation that Republicans could reasonably get behind. Not only that, but the president has gone out of his way to incorporate Republican ideas into his major agenda items. The individual mandate is a Republican idea devised and supported by people like Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and Chuck Grassley. The Affordable Care Act is more or less modeled after Mitt Romney's healthcare law in Massachusetts. Many marquee aspects of the ACA ("Obamacare") were jettisoned in an effort to gain Republican votes, including the public option. Cap-and-trade is a Republican idea. The president even sided with Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts -- a move that angered many liberals, along with the signing of the NDAA.

But if you take Romney's word for it, the president is a lazy, do-nothing chief executive who's been stonewalling the Republicans. Not the other way around. I'm not sure how he doesn't pull a muscle or dislocate a shoulder by twisting himself into a pretzel like this, but it's an amazing feat of through-the-looking-glass deception. The reason Romney was able to get anything done in Massachusetts was because the Democrats in the state legislature weren't anywhere near as obstructionist as today's congressional Republicans. And, if he's elected, the only way Romney will be able to pursue his agenda is if the Democrats are less motivated to obstruct and filibuster than the Republicans.
 
Just a random observation here...

I was at homecoming where I attended college tonight and somehow or another we got to talking about the election. When I was a college junior in 2008, everyone loved Obama. Tonight, most everyone said "how can you vote for Obama again?" while at the same time calling Romney RomME...

So it seems like neither candidate is popular with my age group (22-26), but considering we voted for Obama in massive numbers last election, it is probably a positive for Romney.
 
This is the second straw man argument about green energy investment. Green energy investment and government green energy loans/grants to private businesses are not mutually exclusive, yet you've made no distinction between the two. These investments are happening whether the government is entering the private market or not.

I'm not sure Germany is a great example of what the US should be doing with green energy. Germany has completely different dynamics in their energy industry. Firstly, they don't have nearly the natural carbon resources available to them that we have. Despite that, the US has spent at least 4-5x on green energy investment over the last decade compared to Germany. How is Germany winning this mythical war if we're dominating the investment dollars going into it? That's what you're arguing for, right? More government funding of private businesses? Because that's what I'm arguing against. I am not arguing against green energy investment in general. Germany has energy policies that are having VERY adverse affects on their citizens.

Germany has succeeded in the arbitrary metric of producing roughly 25% of it's energy from renewable sources, but at what cost? You know who's getting crushed by the cost of Germany's energy policies? German manufacturers and consumers. They have among the highest energy prices in the world. A gallon of gas in Germany costs over $8. German consumers pay ~32 cents per kWh. They are paying roughly double the price per kWh compared to France. US consumers pay ~12c per kWh. Their manufacturers are moving abroad in search of lower carbon costs. These aren't market prices; these are artificially high prices due to government price controls and energy policies for the advancement of green industries. The German government is actually guaranteeing above-market returns for it's green energy producers - that's insane. Let's not forget Germany's insanely short-sighted decision to close all nuclear facilities within the next 10 years as a result of Fukushima. And guess what they're brilliantly replacing their nuclear capability with? That's right, clean coal. Germany is hardly an enviable model when it comes to energy policy. The shift to green energy sources will happen naturally, not through government manipulation of markets at the expense of consumers.

I'm glad the disappointment can be mutual. :rolleyes:

And owned. Green energy is at best a supplement. It can never solve the United States' energy needs.
 
Just to chime in... Would it be fair to say that most people here that are supporting Romney are doing so because they oppose Obama? Because, for the life of me, I can't really determine what Romney's proposals are, exactly.

He's running on a 5 point plan, correct? Just three of the five that strike me as odd..

1) Somehow fix the education system in this country by attempting to do what Scott Walker tried to do and dismantle government workers rights to collectively bargain, essentially ending teacher's unions. I don't understand how that would directly improve learning. We're blaming the teachers and their salary arrangements? Seriously, I don't understand this.

2) Increase domestic energy. Well, Obama already did that. It won't necessarily change anything. The more energy we produce domestically won't necessarily bring prices down dramatically, or even substantially. We still won't be anywhere near energy independence in the near future and it seems that Romney's desire to stifle direct investments in start-up companies that provide clean energy (isn't this analogous to oil and farm subsidies?) would only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels and not the reverse. I would think what we really need is a federal program to cooperatively build 50 nuclear power plants throughout the United States We should subsidize production by covering the costs and added burdens of regulatory compliance thereby making production feasible again. This would bring demand for fossil fuels down. We should also have a hybrid car mandate implemented - all new cars (just like catalytic converters) made after a certain date must be hybrid or electric, period.

3) Cut the deficit. Bullshit. Anyone, and I mean anyone, that believes Romney will cut spending or the deficit or reduce the overall national debt or even put us on a trajectory towards a balanced budget is... well... not thinking straight. There's zero chance of him even proposing measures, by his own admission, that would reduce the deficit. In fact, his $5T tax cut coupled with his $1T increase in defense spending (especially considering Obama is proposing a $500B cut to defense spending) is outrageous considering we are on the verge of austerity. I understand his argument that lower taxes would spur growth and increase revenue, but it simply seems highly unlikely. Middle-class tax payers would likely see a tax increase which would make the tax policy of the United States more regressive. Working-class families, seniors, and the disabled would surely see their entitlements and earned benefits cut to pay for this tax plan. Simply put, Romney's tax plan is a huge gamble, and if it doesn't balance itself out immediately, everyone but the rich would ultimately flip the bill for the 1%.

It makes more sense to raise taxes while reducing the overall size of the federal government and cutting entitlements. Obama proposed the Grand Bargain, and by most press accounts John Boehner had agreed to the deal in principle. It was the Tea Party wing of the House Republicans, almost all the freshmen, including those holding to their Norquist pledge that shot the deal down. Boehner has said that he would possibly reopen the issue after the election. The Grand Bargain cut the deficit by $4.5T/10Y.... Add the cuts Obama has already proposed and that puts it at $5.25T. A tax increase back to Clinton levels (for everyone), and a modest increase beyond those levels for people making $1M/yr or more (a new tax bracket) could reduce the annual deficit substantially. With economic growth, we could finally be back on a path to a balanced budget.

I can go through the entire list of his plan, directly from his webpage.. Some of the things he says are just unbelievable. One example is his stance that he'll repeal Obamacare yet he'll provide a means for persons with preexisting conditions to still receive coverage. That's an outright lie. It's important to understand that Romney knows that such a thing is not possible without a universal system (an individual mandate is one way to that end), yet he repeats it.

Just some observations...
 
1. High levels of unemployment barely. Way higher than Obama promised.

2. High gas prices (which amazingly seem to drop right before elections, imagine that)

3. Still can't get over the fact that this administration got caught red-handed trying to cover up its shortcomings in the Benghazi attack. If a Republican administration did that, the MSM would be calling for impeachment.

4. Reckless and irresponsible spending. Stimulus Bill, what more needs to be said.

5. The fact that this president has spent much of the last four years blaming everyone but himself. So much for that whole 'personal accountability' mantra he was preaching in '08. 'Hope and Change' became 'Point and Blame'

So, yes. I'm voting for Romney because I'm taking a vote away from Obama.
 
1. High levels of unemployment barely. Way higher than Obama promised.

2. High gas prices (which amazingly seem to drop right before elections, imagine that)

3. Still can't get over the fact that this administration got caught red-handed trying to cover up its shortcomings in the Benghazi attack. If a Republican administration did that, the MSM would be calling for impeachment.

4. Reckless and irresponsible spending. Stimulus Bill, what more needs to be said.

5. The fact that this president has spent much of the last four years blaming everyone but himself. So much for that whole 'personal accountability' mantra he was preaching in '08. 'Hope and Change' became 'Point and Blame'

So, yes. I'm voting for Romney because I'm taking a vote away from Obama.

2. as they did last election, only far dramatically due to the impact of the largest recession since the great depression, yet the "when Obama took office" price is quoted as an argument against Obama instead of quoting the price before the recession hit.

4. WHat part of "the largest recession since the great depression" is so hard to understand? Does everyone really forget just how bad the economy was 4 years ago when we were bleeding jobs and entire industries were on the verge of collapse?
 
2. as they did last election, only far dramatically due to the impact of the largest recession since the great depression, yet the "when Obama took office" price is quoted as an argument against Obama instead of quoting the price before the recession hit.

4. WHat part of "the largest recession since the great depression" is so hard to understand? Does everyone really forget just how bad the economy was 4 years ago when we were bleeding jobs and entire industries were on the verge of collapse?

Can you honestly say that Obama did a good job getting this country out of this mess. If so, there is no point to argue with you, as you clearly overvaluing what he has done. I think a lot of people are pro Romney, as they have seen that Obama message was smoke and mirrors. All of the programs he passed made people more relianant on government. He had no experience coming in, and failing in 4 years does not give him experience to try again for the next 4. If Obama would come out and say, I did do something's wrong, and here is what I want to do different. This would be a platform more people could get around. Instead, his message has been to attract Mitt, while doing very little to show how he would change to get the economy working.

With this being said, I would say I am more anti Obama then Pro Romney.

Also, someone who grew up in the Toledo area, there is no where the excitement for Obama as last election. It seems people are back to just voting party lines, vs being excited and trusting the canadates.
 
1. High levels of unemployment barely. Way higher than Obama promised.

I agree, I think Obama should have used his supermajority to stem the tide of unemployment rather than squander it on Obamacare. It was a wasted opportunity that he's now paying for. The Democrats could have passed a massive infrastructure bill (a stimulus) but with an actual agenda and federal contracts to private companies for federally mandated work. Like what? Like build a high-speed rail system across the United States... Spend $1T on that..

2. High gas prices (which amazingly seem to drop right before elections, imagine that)

You make two points here, both I disagree with. First, the President doesn't control the price of gas and net oil output is higher since 2008, even with respect for increased domestic demand. Nothing Obama has done has increased the price of gasoline. Second, the conspiratorial aspect of your argument seems irrational, I'll leave it at that.

3. Still can't get over the fact that this administration got caught red-handed trying to cover up its shortcomings in the Benghazi attack. If a Republican administration did that, the MSM would be calling for impeachment.

We've been over this.. The most anyone has said about Benghazi, that's even meaningful, is that the State Department had a request for additional security and denied it. I don't think that's cause for impeachment. Everything about what came out of Susan Rice's mouth is, as I've said, much ado about nothing.

4. Reckless and irresponsible spending. Stimulus Bill, what more needs to be said.

The Stimulus Bill, TARP, etc, might have been the only things keeping unemployment from skyrocketing and the economy from completely collapsing. Government intervention was an absolute necessity according to most economists. The problem is that people expected a short-term stimulus of less than $1T to solve the entire world's global financial crisis. Honestly, blaming the stimulus bill, rather than the insane financial deregulation - which Romney wants to reimplement - screams of unreasonable partisanship, i.e. finding fault wherever one can to justify a predetermined belief. That belief being that Obama somehow is raising taxes, and hiking up spending (with a Republican House no less).

5. The fact that this president has spent much of the last four years blaming everyone but himself. So much for that whole 'personal accountability' mantra he was preaching in '08. 'Hope and Change' became 'Point and Blame'

This seems petty. Obama certainly isn't responsible for the economic crisis. All he keeps saying is that people should understand the gravity of the situation we were in, and that we're just now getting out of it. Contrast that with Mitt Romney who is claiming his 5-point plan will create 12 million jobs; when economists predict that even if the economy were to grow at the most conservative estimates with present-day policies in place, 12 million jobs would be created in the same span. That's being disingenuous on it's face.

So, yes. I'm voting for Romney because I'm taking a vote away from Obama.

I figured that'd be the case. I'd say 3/5 voters I talk to, perhaps more, that are voting for Romney, are doing so out of spite for Obama. The very tone of your post illustrates what I mean by 'spite.' I understand that things could have been better, and I wholly agree that Obama hasn't done everything possible to shore up the economy. But I don't think Mitt Romney's policy proposals are the solution.

Cutting taxes is not likely to create jobs if historical trends are predictive. Romney is likely correct in that by cutting regulations the net effect would create business, move capital, and therefore likely creating jobs in the process. However, his across the board proposals towards massive deregulation are dangerous and could lead to many potential problems in the near-future, particularly with respect to the financial industry.

Point being, most voters I communicate with seem to not even understand Romney's proposals whatsoever, they simply know that they want something different and Romney is the only viable alternative. He used to be the better of two bad choices. Now he's the anti-Obama, and for many, that's motivation enough.
 
Gour, you can say the same thing happened in 08 in that many people voted for Obama simply because McCain was billed as a Bush Clone. Obama clearly doesn't haven't rousing support he did four years ago, and there is good reason for that.
 
Just a random observation here...

I was at homecoming where I attended college tonight and somehow or another we got to talking about the election. When I was a college junior in 2008, everyone loved Obama. Tonight, most everyone said "how can you vote for Obama again?" while at the same time calling Romney RomME...

So it seems like neither candidate is popular with my age group (22-26), but considering we voted for Obama in massive numbers last election, it is probably a positive for Romney.

Thats something I noticed myself and posted in here the other day. In 08 there were obama signs and flyers all over my campus and this year I have yet to see one yet.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top