Support NeoGAF

[Cyan]

Yes, Romney was a successful businessman.

He was a successful investor. It may seem like a minor distinction, but they're definitely different things.

 

[Jackson]

pssst... you should probably read more about Bain. That definitely was not their purpose at all. Sure they did it a few times, but their purpose was to make money for their shareholders any way possible.

Wait... You're telling me an investment firm's first priority was to make money over "saving" the defaulting companies at any cost?

 

[remist]

Go go Romney!

It boils down to one thing for me -- the economy. America needs to get back on track economically, there's too many people hurting. Obama didn't deliver.

So now the choice is, do we stick with Obama and hope he actually turns it around in his last 4 years? Or do we give a new guy a shot? And if Romney does deliver then he could have another term to keep it going strong vs Obama's last 4 and then on to someone else to potentially screw it up. If Romney screws it up, he will only get 4 years, since people won't vote for him next time.

It's a gamble either way to be honest.

But Romney does have business savvy. He's not Bush... He wasn't flunking upwards through school and his business ventures. Romney ran Bain Capital and made bank. The point of that company was to buy failing companies and turn them around, which he did with a lot of success. He also turned the Winter Olympics around as well. Obama didn't do nearly enough and Romney looks like he can, so... there's my vote.

I want the unemployment rate down, I want jobs up. I want America's economic powerhouse back. We'll deal with the other issues after that.

But this is GAF, so about 1% of you will agree with me.

Romney might "only get 4 years" but you'll be dealing with the effects of his judicial nominations for a lot longer than that.

 

[zomaha]

I did not make this thread should Obama worry? Yes, yes he should. Personally I feel the Liberal left willing now to say anything that will stick in order to make sure R-money doesn't get elected. Can't wait for our next 45th President, President Mitt Romney.

like campaigning on certain policies for two years, then switching it up when debates come around?

 

[demon]

Didn't Obama have a supermajority in the senate and a huge majority in the House during his first two years?

I think there was an actual supermajority in the Senate for something like 15 weeks, taking into account the drawn-out recount in Minnesota with Al Franken and then Tedd Kennedy's health problems. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[RDreamer]

Wait... You're telling me an investment firm's first priority was to make money over "saving" the defaulting companies at any cost?

You said the point of the company was to buy companies and turn them around. That is false. The point of Bain was to play games with money wherein they win no matter what happens.

 

[eBay Huckster]

like campaigning on certain policies for two years, then switching it up when debates come around?

or like not leading in every poll other than gallup, who has results nearly 10 points out of whack with an aggregate of every other national tracker?

 

[snacknuts]

He was a successful investor. It may seem like a minor distinction, but they're definitely different things.

I won't disagree with that.

 

[Jackson]

I don't mean to go all librul-GAF on you, but this "change for the sake of change" mindset doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The grass is not always greener on the other side, especially when you can't see the other grass because it's covered in fog and bullshit.

To be fair the hype train of Obama in '08 was "Change we can believe in". So the "grass is greener" mentality goes both ways really.

 

[LordCanti]

You forgot columbia!

Whoops.

STL here too. Can't wait to vote against Akin, but unfortunately Nate Silver has MO going red at 97.9%

Yeah, I don't think there's any chance of the state going Dem in the presidential race. Keeping Akin out is definitely doable though.

 

[Cyan]

Wait... You're telling me an investment firm's first priority was to make money over "saving" the defaulting companies at any cost?

http://thegboatdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/mind-blown1.gif[IMG]

:)[/QUOTE]

Pause.

You used Romney's supposed skill at turning around companies as a justification to believe he can "turn around" the country.

When someone then points out that, in fact, his company didn't really do that, if your reaction is a sarcastic "lol mind blown" post, it should be a red flag that your supposed reason for voting Romney is not your real reason.

 

[dave is ok]

To be fair the hype train of Obama in '08 was "Change we can believe in". So the "grass is greener" mentality goes both ways really.

There was no incumbent. It was change no matter whoever you voted for.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

He was a successful investor. It may seem like a minor distinction, but they're definitely different things.

 

[TAJ]

This conservative talking point never gets old.

Yeah, they must really love Clinton and Carter.
Oh wait...

 

[Pctx]

like campaigning on certain policies for two years, then switching it up when debates come around?

Ho-hum. The only thing that matters at this point is getting Obama out. End of story.

 

[Cyan]

The more relevant question is whether Bain Capital's investments did better than an index fund.

Ho-hum. The only thing that matters at this point is getting Obama out. End of story.

But you're not a Republican, though.

 

[zomaha]

Ho-hum. The only thing that matters at this point is getting Obama out. End of story.

i agree, fuck facts, just say anything that will stick to get him out. thanks for reinforcing the point.

 

[eBay Huckster]

i agree, fuck facts, just say anything that will stick to get him out. thanks for reinforcing the point.

unfortunately for his point, nothing seems to be sticking.

i believe one AMERICA SAVING MAN had a phrase for this.

 

[snacknuts]

To be fair the hype train of Obama in '08 was "Change we can believe in". So the "grass is greener" mentality goes both ways really.

Romney's train is "change I refuse to tell you about." Perhaps I have a poor memory, but I don't recall Obama being evasive about his ideas and policies.

 

[Jackson]

You said the point of the company was to buy companies and turn them around. That is false. The point of Bain was to play games with money wherein they win no matter what happens.

Sorry, you're right I was being far too obtuse with my definition. My point was Romney had business experience buying companies that were in the red and trying to turn them around for a profit for Bain.

Owning a business myself, I've actually had meetings with companies exactly like Bain in the past. So yes. I agree that the point of Bain was to be a successful investment firm first and foremost and the well being of the company they bought only mattered insofar as it made Bain money. This is typical of companies that deal in leveraged buyouts.

 

[RDreamer]

Ho-hum. The only thing that matters at this point is getting Obama out. End of story.

Come on, this is blatantly ridiculous. Doesn't matter what policies he might enact or anything at all about what he says. Just matters that one guy isn't there anymore, and some other guy is there. Yeah, great reasoning there. You don't even have a clue if he'll be any better. He just won't have the name Obama, but that appears to be good enough for you!

I guess it is good to see a Republican finally admit that they just irrationally don't like Obama himself, and it apparently isn't his policies that are doing it, since this new guy that's on your team could come in and do the same thing. Who cares. He's on your team!

Sorry, you're right I was being far too obtuse with my definition. My point was Romney had business experience buying companies that were in the red and trying to turn them around for a profit for Bain.

So, you want him to turn America around for a profit for him? America goes bankrupt, Mitt and his buddies makes a profit. Sounds about right...

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

i agree, fuck facts, just say anything that will stick to get him out. thanks for reinforcing the point.

You mean "facts" like Obama stating that coal production in the US has gone up since he became president? As someone who works in the coal industry, I cannot fully convey to you just how infuriating that was to hear given the state of the industry right now. I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of coal, I've already done that in enough threads here on GAF, but seeing a president create policies that purposefully kill off the only good jobs in an area of the country (coal jobs in the Central Appalachian region of the US) and then lie about it during the debate is reason enough for me not to support him.

I understand if this issue isn't as important to anyone here who is a supporter of Obama, and I do not hold that against you, but it's just something that hits too close to home for me to tolerate.

 

[border]

To be fair the hype train of Obama in '08 was "Change we can believe in". So the "grass is greener" mentality goes both ways really.

Yes. Change we can believe in.

Hard to believe in Romney when he's so short on specifics.

 

[Jackson]

There was no incumbent. It was change no matter whoever you voted for.

Not as presented by team Obama (which was the point I was making). Again the "change we can believe in" isn't something I've said, it was Obama's sound byte platform.

On Obama's campaign McCain and the Republicans represented the stagnant status quo, Obama represented "hope" and "change".

 

[ryutaro's mama]

The only thing that matters at this point is getting Obama out. End of story.

Spoken like a true INDEPENDENT.

Or is Libertarian?

 

[Cyan]

So, you want him to turn America around for a profit for him? America goes bankrupt, Mitt and his buddies makes a profit. Sounds about right...

Well, not necessarily. The playbook would be: load America up with debt that finances your purchase of it, fire half the workers, cut costs to the bone, jack up prices, and use your now larger cashflows to pay down the debt so that you can sell at a profit.

If it goes south, no problem. There are always other countries to buy, and that's why you don't put all your eggs in one basket when investing.

If it goes bankrupt in the long term, it's not your problem at all, you've already taken your profit.

 

[Omegasquash]

Not as presented by team Obama (which was the point I was making). Again the "change we can believe in" isn't something I've said, it was Obama's sound byte platform.

On Obama's campaign McCain and the Republicans represented the stagnant status quo, Obama represented "hope" and "change".

Lily Ledbetter, DADT, ACA...that's change. I do respect that economics are your big thing, and that's fine. For me, Obama has delivered and continues to try and deliver.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

We'll never know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that the difference wouldn't have been nearly as great as you might think.

The two parties talk a little different, and they occasionally do something significantly different, but overall, the policies of this country tend to swerve only slightly when we change parties. If you want radical change (which is what we need) neither one of these guys is going to give it to you. We'll either swerve slightly left or slightly right, with very little substantial difference. Obama governed like a moderate dem, Romney will govern like a moderate republican. The real-world difference between those two is small.

One issue that might be an exception is the supreme court, and even there, you see that presidents often have less power than you would expect. For example, Roberts voting in favor of Obama's health care program, and wasn't Kennedy appointed by the first Bush?

The Judges have to be confirmed by the senate, and it's hard to get through that process if you're a total moron. The judges aren't beholden to anybody once they get into power. After that it's all about their view of the law, which is always hard to be sure of.

On foreign policy, there could be substantial difference, since Presidents have so much power in that area, but everybody always tends towards the middle in practice. Did Obama really change US foreign policy drastically? No. He basically continued Bush's gradual scale-down in Iraq, and kept pushing in Afghanistan. He even kept Bush's secretary of defense for most of his term to keep from rocking the boat too much.

Politicians in this country are very worried about rocking the boat. They don't want to do it because the results are too unpredictable.

Let's not act like it's easy to enact change, either. Checks and balances.

 

[dave is ok]

Do people who are planning on voting for Romney actually believe he will reduce the deficit? I see it get brought up a bunch as an issue - but come on now, neither party actually gives a shit about the deficit. It's just a tool they use to try and hammer incumbents.

 

[zomaha]

You mean "facts" like Obama stating that coal production in the US has gone up since he became president? As someone who works in the coal industry, I cannot fully convey to you just how infuriating that was to hear given the state of the industry right now. I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of coal, I've already done that in enough threads here on GAF, but seeing a president create policies that purposefully kill off the only good jobs in an area of the country (coal jobs in the Central Appalachian region of the US) and then lie about it during the debate is reason enough for me not to support him.

I understand if this issue isn't as important to anyone here who is a supporter of Obama, and I do not hold that against you, but it's just something that hits too close to home for me to tolerate.

my point was about romney basically switching his platform mid-campaign. the ole etch-a-sketch routine.

 

[RDreamer]

You mean "facts" like Obama stating that coal production in the US has gone up since he became president? As someone who works in the coal industry, I cannot fully convey to you just how infuriating that was to hear given the state of the industry right now. I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of coal, I've already done that in enough threads here on GAF, but seeing a president create policies that purposefully kill off the only good jobs in an area of the country (coal jobs in the Central Appalachian region of the US) and then lie about it during the debate is reason enough for me not to support him.

I understand if this issue isn't as important to anyone here who is a supporter of Obama, and I do not hold that against you, but it's just something that hits too close to home for me to tolerate.

Coal jobs have gone up

The Facts: Obama and Romney are both half-right. Coal employment has increased during Obama's term, from about 81,200 workers in 2008 to 86,200 workers in 2011. Obama is wrong that coal production has also risen. It dropped from 1.17 billion tons in 2008 to 1.09 billion in 2009. The biggest dip came in 2009 during the height of the economic crisis when demand for electricity dropped. Coal production has increased since then without reaching the levels of the last year of Bush's term.

So, while you are correct Obama did indeed state things wrong (or actually misled, since overall it's down but it is on the rise), things aren't as black and white. Also, it seems at least some of the dip was due to the recession, and, again it is on the rise, which is exactly what Obama was trying to say.

 

[jon bones]

Ho-hum. The only thing that matters at this point is getting Obama out. End of story.

"put the WHITE back in the WHITE HOUSE"

 

[Cyan]

... neither party actually gives a shit about the deficit.

Clinton apparently did.

But yeah, if Romney wins, we get more tax cuts and more "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

 

[Kusagari]

Go go Romney!

It boils down to one thing for me -- the economy. America needs to get back on track economically, there's too many people hurting. Obama didn't deliver.

So now the choice is, do we stick with Obama and hope he actually turns it around in his last 4 years? Or do we give a new guy a shot? And if Romney does deliver then he could have another term to keep it going strong vs Obama's last 4 and then on to someone else to potentially screw it up. If Romney screws it up, he will only get 4 years, since people won't vote for him next time.

It's a gamble either way to be honest.

But Romney does have business savvy. He's not Bush... He wasn't flunking upwards through school and his business ventures. Romney ran Bain Capital and made bank. The point of that company was to buy failing companies and turn them around, which he did with a lot of success. He also turned the Winter Olympics around as well. Obama didn't do nearly enough and Romney looks like he can, so... there's my vote.

I want the unemployment rate down, I want jobs up. I want America's economic powerhouse back. We'll deal with the other issues after that.

But this is GAF, so about 1% of you will agree with me.

Obama didn't make our economy as good as it was in the 90s after a global recession in a mere 4 years?

We definitely need to kick him out for the party that put us in the mess he had to clean up to begin with!

Jesus Christ.

 

[Jackson]

"put the WHITE back in the WHITE HOUSE"

Dude... What?

 

[Omegasquash]

Ho-hum. The only thing that matters at this point is getting Obama out. End of story.

From members of the same ideology and likely partisan affiliation that got us into this mess.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Coal jobs have gone up

Those numbers end in 2011. Layoffs have been hitting companies all over the industry (particularly those who mine coal in the Central Appalachian Coal Basin) extremely hard in 2012, and the outlook in the near future is considerably worse, especially if Obama's policies continue on the trend they are currently following. I'm literally seeing the effects on a daily basis, I'm a mining engineer who works with multiple mines and we've been closing them left and right this year.

It took awhile for the regulations to pass and for their effects to come into play but we are getting there, trust me. Just wait until the 2012 numbers come out and you will see how drastically the industry has been hit.

 

[gutter_trash]

if a conecntration of voters in the south, Texas, Kansas, Arkansas or Wyoming hate on Obama more... it doesn't matter because swing states decide it

 

[nib95]

I think Clinton summsrised it really well, the entire Republican ethos is this..

"Ok, so we royally fucked things up and made a long term mess, but this new guy hasn't cleaned up our mess fast enough, so fire him and re-hire us!"

 

[pigeon]

Wait... You're telling me an investment firm's first priority was to make money over "saving" the defaulting companies at any cost?

You're the one offering it as an example of Romney's acumen at business. If Romney ran America the way Bain Capital handled its takeovers, the first thing he would do would be to give himself a huge tax cut, and the second thing would be to sell Louisiana and Texas to Mexico. Then he'd cut all kinds of programs and just hope that the economy got better, knowing that it didn't really matter if it did or not because he already got paid.

Oh, wait! That's exactly what he's said he'll do!* What a surprise! Romney is actually perfectly honest about his business plans for America. They look a lot like his business plans for Bain.

* Except for selling Louisiana and Texas.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Speaking of Clinton...

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, the last thing could say is, I had a lot of fun down at the Democratic Convention talking about arithmetic. But I listened very carefully to the Vice Presidential debate and to the second Presidential debate, and Mr. Romney says, I’m going to do all of this, I’m going to just cut taxes for the middle class, I’m not interested in rich people, they’ll pay the same percentage of tax they pay now. What does that mean? He thinks we’re dumb.

[Laughter]

If you cut everybody else’s taxes and people in my income group pay the same percentage, it means we get a tax cut too. Right? We have too. You cut everybody else’s taxes, and I say that my percentage should go up if you freeze my taxes. So, in the debate, without saying so, he got caught with a fact.

He hates to get caught admitting anything. And so, we keep saying, show us your budget. Where are your numbers? The President has given you a budget. He said you won’t like all of it. It adds to two and a half dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of new revenues, but we’ve got to do something about the debt. It will take the debt down $4 trillion. Here are my numbers.

Where are your numbers? This guy ran Bain Capital and is a business guy, and he’s hiding his budget? That ought to tell you something. He – well, he’s hiding his taxes, too, but he’s hiding his taxes in the years when he earned ordinary income. He’s given us two years when he was just running for president. And, he’s hiding whether he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter act. He’s hiding everything.

He doesn’t want you to think about him. He wants you to think, oh this economy is terrible. “I’m a jobs guy.” And as President Obama said in the debate, if I brought you a deal to Bain Capital and I said, fund my new business, I’ll give you the budget sometime in the future, just trust me on that – you wouldn’t give me one red cent, and we should not give him one vote on that.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Gallup poll crosstabs.

 

[Joates]

I think Clinton summsrised it really well, the entire Republican ethos is this..

"Ok we so we royally fucked things up and made a mess, but this new guy hasn't cleaned up our mess fast enough, so fire him and re-hire us!"

And the political ethos would be blame the other party for anything bad ever. Government is the reason were in this mess, not one party in particular.

Keep on hoping for change in one hand, and shit in the other....

 

[Menelaus]

Am I missing something? This morning I was reading posts on GAF about how the polls don't matter, Romney's got the EC in his pocket, etc.

Now, I see this...what's the deal?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

 

[gutter_trash]

Gallup poll crosstabs.

match point/ thread

 

[Devolution]

Gallup poll crosstabs.

The South proving once again they should be allowed to secede.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Oh man, not again...

PANIC MODE ENGAGED.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Am I missing something?

RCP has a rather convoluted definition of "toss up".

 

[DrEvil]

This is the only poll worth paying attention too. Obama is doing just fine.



That's how it feels to me too

Speaking of, South park season finale is Nov 7th.. Election is Nov 6th.. I hope hope hope they do another election episode for the finale.

 

[I H8 Memes]

From members of the same ideology and likely partisan affiliation that got us into this mess.

Dude, the top tax rate since 2002 may have been the lowest since 1931, but WE SWEAR if you just let us make them even lower it will fix EVERYTHING. Dont you want everything fixed? What are you a socialist?!