US Presidential Election 2012

Maybe we will have a Republican Romney fan to put the other side- I dont think we have one yet.
Although you are an undecided I believe Eldo arent you?

I'm undecided but it's not because I'm still making my mind up about Romney. I don't care for him, but my question is whether I should suck it up and vote for Obama or turn away from the two-party system and vote for a candidate I really like. The problem is that none of the other candidates have any chance.

You mentioned in the past that you didn't approve of "strategic voting" and I understand that, but since the U.S. doesn't have a proportional representation system voting for candidates outside the big two parties in national elections is a little pointless. The system is designed to shut them out. On the other hand, just accepting that helps perpetuate the two-party dominance, so I don't know what the right thing to do is.

Start a revolution Eldo- thats the right thing to do. (Well it worked for you lot last time didnt it?)

So long as we don't have those horrble personal attacks that have all too readily broken out over at Bree lately, Eldo! (I'm really worried how things have gone there since that Julia Lass took over Moderating Powers! )


{{{Hee hee.... that Bree Moderator Lady doesn't know that I know who she REALLY is! She'll never detect I'm showing off my mature immaturity, and full blown!!!! hee hee hee}}}}


{{{btw Mrs Figg, I actually think that Julia Lass is navigating things quite nicely over there. Good luck to her! I'll, of course, stir the pot now and then when I can. Can't have her having nothing to do! I should hate to think she would become fat and lazy with nothing to do - and she so svelte and sexually attractive - at least in my mind's eye! }}}

I will not associate myself with a political party. Both major parties will f*ck you at the federal level in the end, but I am not a Romney fan and he won't get my vote (not that it matters because I live in New Jersey). I work with/for politicians at the local level and they make me sick....

Im still getting my head round the US system- from the outside it seems quite convoluted.
That and I still dont really get the whole Constituition thing- it just seems like a document for arguing over the meaning of its contents.

Eldo and Halfwsie bless them have tried to convince me of the merits of a written constitution but I have to say I cant really see yet what they are.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Im still getting my head round the US system- from the outside it seems quite convoluted.
That and I still dont really get the whole Constituition thing- it just seems like a document for arguing over the meaning of its contents.

Eldo and Halfwsie bless them have tried to convince me of the merits of a written constitution but I have to say I cant really see yet what they are.

The founding fathers shared your skepticism.

The war ended in 1783, but they didn't get around to writing a constitution for 5 years. But without a constitution they were effectively 13 tiny countries with a loose confederation, no way to levy taxes or tariffs, and a lot of internal feuds. It was the only way to merge them into one entity without further wars.

Have you seen the John Adams miniseries? It's pretty well done and puts a lot of this into a personal context.

ORWELL squeeeeeeellll!

Though I largely stand against everything Romney now claims to stand for, I know he was a reasonable guy when running Massachussetts. I also know that the business cycle is largely based on the confidence of business owners, and they want Romney.

Though it makes my liberal leaning toes curl I may vote for Romney just to break out of the economic rut we are currently in. Don't tell my mother. I think we can endure 4 years of pompous knotheads running amok if it gets things moving again. Then hopefully the pendulum will swing back.

btw, the adams miniseries was brilliant. May be a bit pedantic for those not steeped in american history, but for those that are it was thrilling.

Only problem with your vote Romney to get business going again Halfwise is that his foreign policy is insane. He may well start WW3 in those four years.
Not to mention dismantling what little Healthcare Obama has got for you- I wouldnt want to be poor under a Romney administration.

But that's what I'm saying: the Obama healthcare plan was based on Romney's original plan in massachussetts. I'm hoping that once the Republican primary is over Romney may revert somewhat to his old self, but I'm skeptical.

As for his foreign policy, I suspect he may listen to advice once in office. I think he's only his own man when talking about business matters.

Not saying I like the guy or dislike Obama, just that a little shakeup is needed to get things rolling again.

I think you will be very lucky and Ill be very suprised if he reverts to his former stance on healthcare.

And whilst I get what you say about business and confidence it was the Republicans and their 'let their mates in the banks do as they please no questions asked- rich is good, greed is good' thinking that crashed the entire western worlds financial markets and plunged us into global recession in the first place.
They dont seem to have changed much since.

The other risk is the republican habit of cutting taxes while super sizing the military.

The financial collapse was caused mainly by misuse of derivatives: bundling of financial insurance policies to dilute risk. The idea was created by a group of young Turks at Chase Manhattan, and it's interesting to note that Chase did not go down the drain: they were too cautious of their own creation to misuse it the way the real estate sector did. Frontline had a story on this which finally made it all clear to me.

But I'm not up on the current regulation, don't know if we are poised to do the whole damn thing again.

I think this is the frontline story.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/

This is the one that goes into more detail, the first episode:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/

I would stay with Obama, if I was a US citizen. He seems tolerant and moderate in his approach. I like his wife too.

I read an excellent article ages ago- will try to dig it out as I can only recall the thrust of it not the details now- but in essence after the Great Depression of the 30's there was a particular bit of legislation put in place that was meant to ensure it couldnt happen again- and it more or less worked up until now.
There were still boom and bust cyces but not the catastrophic collapses.

But in the Bush jnr era they saw this bit of legislation and no one knew why it was there- as all it seemed to do was to put a brake on economic growth- so being Republicans it was obviously a BAD thing- so they got rid of it- and without it the whole thing spiralled out of control.

Got an HBO program 'To Big to Fail' my mate gave me- havent watched it yet though.

Anyone heard of it and know of its any good?

It's called the uptick rule: you can't sell short unless the price first goes up after you buy it. This helps prevent everyone jumping in on a falling market and driving it down faster.

The concept of selling short is a little complex and counter intuitive, and I think is the start of the market becoming too complex to be analyzed easily.

Thanks Halfwise- youve refreshed my buckie memory.
That sounds like the legisaltion the aricle was talking about.

Personally I think stocks should be nontransferable and the only profits should come from company dividends. This would bring sanity to finance, but it goes against everyone's fond idea that they should be able to sell anything they want.

I played around in the stock market a bit, before I thought deeply about it and realized what we were doing was the equivalent of selling trading cards: the actual financial value of the stocks was uncoupled almost completely from reality. It scared me, and though much of my retirement fund is tied up in stocks, its done by financial corporations that follow the Oracle of Omaha's maxim: buy and sell stock based only on the intrinsic value of the company, not the market value of the stock - buy and hold.

halfwise wrote: I may vote for Romney just to break out of the economic rut we are currently in.

I'm skeptical if either of the candidates could do that. The biggest hurdle as I see it is a gridlocked congress.

I agree that Romney could be a decent president under the right conditions, but unfortunately the first thing any first-term president has to do is start paying back favors to the donors and political machines that just got them elected. Romney is a professional politician and knows this well.

If Romney is elected, I expect the first waves of legislation we will see will be those favored by the Tea Party element of the House Republicans, whatever Romney believes personally. He will owe the election to them and need their favor if he's ever going to get anything done.

It's only in a second term, when the fear of not being re-elected is removed, that any president really has the opportunity to do what their conscience dictates.

Sounds like an area of US politics that could do with a serious look at is funding.
It cant be good for democracy if a President only gets to be President with cash from a long list of people he has to do 'favours' for once they get in.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court just did that after a fashion (but in the wrong direction) when they ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that corporate political contributions equal protected free speech under the First Amendment, and that corporations and other large entities have the right of protected free speech as "citizens".

This has taken a system that actually worked fairly well and capsized it. Because of the unlimited corporate money that can now come into elections, its questionable if either party can ever again win without making major backdoor deals.

My biggest concern with a Republican win at this time is that the Democrats don't have the cozy relationship that the Republicans have developed with corporate America since Reagan's time, and the big labor money that historically supported the Democrats is not what it once was.

So I'm beginning doubt that, once the pendulum swings to the corporate right, there will be anything to swing it back..... [hoping I'm wrong]

That's a very important point about corporate donations. but even if that was reversed there's be nothing stopping corporations donating to political action committees, who can do whatever they want, ie stay in touch with the campaign committee of their choice and do whatever is asked. Be the same as giving money directly to the candidate once a pac becomes an arm of the campaign.